The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Open for business. Kenan, you were saying...?

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:00 (eighteen years ago)

bump for reopening. Manalishi = Roger Adultery, btw

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:37 (eighteen years ago)

Guilty as charged.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:38 (eighteen years ago)

i wrote along post but i erased it

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:40 (eighteen years ago)

oh well that makes sense

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:40 (eighteen years ago)

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:41 (eighteen years ago)

i stand by this statement:

if you want to stop being a political idiot, don't turn to the internet for discussion. the internet has allowed political dialogue on an unprecented scale but the quality of the discourse has, if anything, suffered.

-- lfam, Monday, April 16, 2007 2:27 PM (7 hours ago)

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:41 (eighteen years ago)

i will say this: ilx is not the place to look for level-headed debate on gun control -- the prevailing attitude* here is that guns are bad, full stop, and debate is unlikely to change many minds

*a gross generalization, sure, but i'd say 5% of ilxors have even handled guns

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:44 (eighteen years ago)

Fuck that, I don't want to be a political idiot, can we get this thread locked?
xpost

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

"The Great ILX Gun Control Debate"

― Aimless, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

Kenan, you were saying...?

I already emailed you, but oh whatever.

I do believe the the impulse to carry a gun yourself is a weird, and specifically American, kind of Chuck Norris impulse to take vengeance on attackers. Maybe a legacy from the Revolution? I won't even pretend to know. But it's there, and I sense it in a lot more people than you would think, even way up here in faggot Yankee territory.

Point is, shooting back is not going to stop people shooting at you. You want less dead kids, crack down on guns. I guarantee it will have a real effect. Anything else works like... I dunno... attacking the problem from a "spiritual" angle, like we can somehow magically rehabilitate people who would ordinarily have guns, and turn them into guardians of the holy and proper. Don't work like that.

You want less shootings? Crack down on guns. It makes the most sense, it's the most direct, and sorry if it offends your nutty and angry sensibility, it will work. It has worked in every country that has tried it. Less guns = less shootings.

*a gross generalization, sure, but i'd say 5% of ilxors have even handled guns

I have handled guns, and if I lived where I used to, I would still want a shotgun, becauce armadilloes are HELL on a garden.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:50 (eighteen years ago)

xpost ...Already in danger of being 'locked.'

William F Buckley, where art thou?

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:52 (eighteen years ago)

I emailed you back kenan. Sinc you posted your email, I'll post my response:

I'll be civil back, despite never really having to confront someone in 'real life' so diametrically opposed to my own viewpoint. In other words, I like to think that people with your opinions only exist in make believe.

Check out a book called More Guns, Less Crime by John R Lott - check it out of the library so it doesn't cost you anything. I think you will find many facts that will refute what you believe.

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

I agree with you - we need to crack down on gun crimes. I'm in total agreement with that. But the way to do that is not to take guns away from law abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to protect themselves and their families, paranoid Chuck Norris mentality or not.

Shooting back - and effectively neutralizing a threat - DOES stop someone shooting at you. Do I need to explain physics to you here?

Lastly, the fact is, and I think this tends to get ignored in these kinds of debates - I don't HAVE to justify gun ownership - not socially, not politically. Fact is I like guns. I like owning them. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell. And it's my right to stockpile them if I want to. I have a CCW permit and can legally carry a gun in 39 states.

And you will not meet anyone more diligent about gun safety than me. I don't even like seeing the muzzle of a gun pointed at someone on television.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:54 (eighteen years ago)

oh i bet

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:56 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think I want to get engaged in a debate, but I'll point out that Lott's retarded book has been refuted pretty handily.

― max, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 01:57 (eighteen years ago)

kenan - I'm serious. Because of my education, I can tell when someone - like John Edwards, for instance, to cite a recent example - has little to no experience handling a gun. I can also tell when an actor is doing something with a gun that, in the real world, would be totally unsafe. It's ruined a lot of movies for me.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:01 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think you realize just how ADORABLE it is when someone cites their "education" when no one asked about it in the first place.

SO CUTE.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:07 (eighteen years ago)

Are you hitting on me now, kenan?

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:09 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.in-sect.com/scr/cute_cat.jpg

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:10 (eighteen years ago)

I do believe the the impulse to carry a gun yourself is a weird, and specifically American, kind of Chuck Norris impulse to take vengeance on attackers. Maybe a legacy from the Revolution? I won't even pretend to know. But it's there, and I sense it in a lot more people than you would think, even way up here in faggot Yankee territory.

this is NOT specifically american, unless you mean specifically south, central, and northern american, oh and also throw in african and southwest asian and most of the north hemispheres.

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:10 (eighteen years ago)

it is not some specifically american quirk that is wrong and must be repressed.

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:11 (eighteen years ago)

are you feeling guilt?

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:12 (eighteen years ago)

and i mean that question in the least agressive tone possible

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:12 (eighteen years ago)

KENAN 99% OF THE TIME YOU MEAN "FEWER" WHERE YOU ARE SAYING "LESS".

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:12 (eighteen years ago)

ILX is the hair-splitting capital of the world

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:13 (eighteen years ago)

is this really about grammar, or am I being baited?

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:14 (eighteen years ago)

This is really about grammar! You are arguing right now that you want kids who are less dead, not fewer dead kids. It's kind of pro-zombie.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:15 (eighteen years ago)

Manalishi, what do you think would have happened at VT if numerous other students were also carrying guns? Is it possible that someone would have stopped the shooter? I suppose. But it's equally if not more likely that ALL FUCKING HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY BE SURE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHO WAS SHOOTING WHO

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:17 (eighteen years ago)

this is NOT specifically american, unless you mean specifically south, central, and northern american, oh and also throw in african and southwest asian and most of the north hemispheres.

ok that is a very good point, racism and homophobia prevails. I guess I was trying to attack the type of racism and homophobia that Rog is most familiar with?

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:17 (eighteen years ago)

it's equally if not more likely that ALL FUCKING HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY BE SURE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHO WAS SHOOTING WHO

haha me and a friend were playing out scenarios that might happen if EVERYONE was armed. They were all grim, and none of them involved killing 32 people at once. Verdict was, if evry college student had a gun, we'd see about 10 times more casulaties per campus every year then this, only one or two at a time, so it wouldn't be such news.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:20 (eighteen years ago)

Not if they were properly educated.

xpost to my pal kenan - Familiar with how? Are you seriously publicly calling a complete stranger a racist and a homophobe?

Hurting - there are dozens of scenarios. All I know is that if I were a student at VT with a CCW but was not permitted to carry on campus, I would be coming forward raising absolute hell right about now.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:21 (eighteen years ago)

Properly educated how, with SWAT training?

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:23 (eighteen years ago)

Properly educated about hell-on-Earth situations that devolve into massive, chaotic gunfights? It's not like these kids are wearing uniforms that clearly signify which shooter is a good guy.

x-post.

― Clay, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:23 (eighteen years ago)

Are you seriously publicly calling a complete stranger a racist and a homophobe?

ha ha

You are not a complete stranger to any of us anymore, and I don't need to make public judgements about you, friend. :)

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:24 (eighteen years ago)

All I know is that if I were a student at VT with a CCW but was not permitted to carry on campus, I would be coming forward raising absolute hell right about now.

Which would be simultaneously insensitive and hilariously delusional of you!

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:25 (eighteen years ago)

"If only you had let me stop the shooting! I'm a properly educated gun-owner!"

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:25 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, kenan, i'm not sure what you're talking about:

ok that is a very good point, racism and homophobia prevails. I guess I was trying to attack the type of racism and homophobia that Rog is most familiar with?

i was talking about the impulse to carry a gun... not racism and homophobia. but you are partially right: racism and homophobia are prevalent everywhere.

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:26 (eighteen years ago)

wow this is stressing me out. i'm going to go relax for a while. but please explain that comment.

― lfam, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:28 (eighteen years ago)

I think that oftentimes gun advocates grossly overestimate their fellow man's ability to handle a gun without shooting off someone's face.

Conversely, I think that anti-gun crusaders grossly overestimate the number of murderers who go through legal channels to procure firearms.

In summation, there are merits in both positions and the best course of action lies somewhere in the middle; personally, I would rather the compromise leaned more towards the anti-gun side of things because I think the likelyhood of needing a gun in order to protect yourself from a situation like this is much less than the likelyhood that someone will accidentally shoot someone with your firearm.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:29 (eighteen years ago)

As (strangely) the owner of the most guns on ILX, I find 'pro-gun' arguments are mostly bullshit. Guns do make it easier for people to commit crimes. The Second Amendment is not an absolute, nor is the "everybody gets mortars" reading incontrovertible. Expecting everyone to train regularly enough to safely carry a weapon is absurd - even cops aren't terribly safe with theirs. Large segments of the gun activists are reprehensible for a variety of reasons - paranoia, racism, etc..

From my perspective gun control as proposed in the US will never work. Anything short of a total confiscation, reactionary punishments for possesion and shutting down every last manufacturer of weapons with possible access to the US would have any measurable effect on gun violence. You will have to make guns 'not exist' or else there will be a perpetual black market selling to criminals. Rarely is that suggestion proposed, because it is extreme.

There are very good, reasonable arguments for private gun ownership - ceding all police power to the state is dangerous, home defense, gun violence is heavily related to class and if you attack underlying issues it becomes unnecessary, so on. Harper's ran a good article on the progressive case for guns a few months back.

They just get drowned out in the chorus of militia wannabes.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:29 (eighteen years ago)

IN A TIME OF CHAOS...

ONE MAN...

HAD THE PROPER GUN EDUCATION...

TO RESTORE ORDER...

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:29 (eighteen years ago)

FWIW I largely agree with HI DERE and to some extent even Milo.

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:32 (eighteen years ago)

To take the high road and answer the insufferably sarcastic questions upthread: Gun safety classes. The younger the better.

Teach evolution. Teach safe sex. And teach gun safety.

Replace the obligatory 'Arbor Day' lesson plan if neccessary. Reading, writing, arithmetic and personal responsibility.

Seems simple enough to me.

As far as kenan's witch hunt - you really feel you know me well enough to call me a racist and a homophobe, huh?

And it is ME who gets barred from ILX?

Milo, your post is rational and well reasoned, but I disagree that the right to beraarms is not absolute. I'm also pretty sure you don't own the most guns on ILX!

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:33 (eighteen years ago)

erm, 'bear arms.' I don't want to be a victim of Hi Dere's grammar police brutality.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:34 (eighteen years ago)

There are very good, reasonable arguments for private gun ownership - ceding all police power to the state is dangerous, home defense, gun violence is heavily related to class and if you attack underlying issues it becomes unnecessary, so on. Harper's ran a good article on the progressive case for guns a few months back.

They just get drowned out in the chorus of militia wannabes.

So then, you're saying... you'd be for guns, if not for all the nutters that have a vested interest in owning guns?

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:35 (eighteen years ago)

I'd be interested to know ILX gun inventories.xp.

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:35 (eighteen years ago)

the (morbid) joke at my high school was that columbine couldn't happen there because there would be too much return fire :-/ kind of an exaggeration as we weren't exactly one of those warzone urban schools or anything but also sort of disturbingly true because gun/gang activity was still a frequent enough occurence.

anyway i'm actually somewhat pro-gun, not pro-assault rifle or whatever but i think handguns shd be legal with reasonable regulations

best course of action lies somewhere in the middle

basically

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:36 (eighteen years ago)

you really feel you know me well enough to call me a racist and a homophobe, huh?
No, I do not, and that's fair.

But I know you well enough to cal you someone who needs to shut the fuck up.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:36 (eighteen years ago)

btw, milo, I am serious about my question for you.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:37 (eighteen years ago)

I would feel comfortable calling him a gun fetishist with a Rambo fantasy.

― Hurting 2, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:37 (eighteen years ago)

Well played, professor.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:38 (eighteen years ago)

ivory tower, that's me.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:39 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, I know THAT, partner.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:39 (eighteen years ago)

Like so many of America's problems, I'm just glad we don't have it nearly as bad here, and we don't get to claim any superiority for it. We've got tons of gun control but I'm pretty sure that if we had as many guns in circulation as America does, no amount of laws would stop us shooting each other all the time.

Scotland had 3 gun deaths in 2005, but plenty of stabbings and bottlings to compensate. The small number of gun deaths is only because there are so few guns about, relatively. Any talk of gun control in the US has to propose some method of taking all the guns away, which would seem to be a practically impossible feat.

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:42 (eighteen years ago)

Not to mention, totally unconstitutional and all kinds of WRONG.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:43 (eighteen years ago)

I'm still pretty pro-gun even with my antipathy to gun activism, Kenan. In my experience, the only real nutters are the people who fetishize guns as a source of power over others.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:44 (eighteen years ago)

Why would it be wrong to have no guns (constitution aside)?

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:45 (eighteen years ago)

Any talk of gun control in the US has to propose some method of taking all the guns away, which would seem to be a practically impossible feat.

initially, maybe, YES, stet otm. But goddamnit, when shit like this happens, if you take NO steps to take a few guns out of circulation, you're a little... immoral.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:46 (eighteen years ago)

I'm interested in the answer to stet's question.

I'm also thinking that kenan needs to stop romanticizing gun control as a panacea.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:46 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, I LOOOOOOOVE this:

(constitution aside)

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:47 (eighteen years ago)

I would genuinely be interested to see someone outside of the US who has Roger's attitude to gun rights/ownership. I really don't want to believe that this "right" to guns as self defense ahead of everything else is purely an American thing.

Aus/European/Britishers, anyone pro gun?

― Trayce, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:47 (eighteen years ago)

dan, i am doing no such thing.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:47 (eighteen years ago)

likelyhood

Likelihood. Sorry Dan.

― Leee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:48 (eighteen years ago)

kenan - What guns do we take 'out of circulation?' The ones in the 'bad' neighborhoods? And how do we do that, exactly?

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:49 (eighteen years ago)

So is the constitution the only good reason to have guns? I mean even to the point where we'd have to invent them if they weren't invented, to fulfil this constitutional role?

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:49 (eighteen years ago)

Of course not. Why do you seem to only argue in abstractions?

Let's not let this become a 'if it weren't for guns, you'd be goose-stepping right now' kind of debate. Because it can very easily become that kind of debate.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:51 (eighteen years ago)

Why would it be wrong to have no guns (constitution aside)?

That's a very tough question, because it assumes a state that shows no favoritism toward any particular group (ethnicity, class, etc..).

One of the examples featured in the aforementioned Harper's article (sadly only available if you're a subscriber) was the funeral of a black lynched in the '50s. Another group of racists came to
Firearms were present throughout most of the Civil Rights struggle - they were a necessity to protect people against both the police and private actors.

Many of the gun control laws we have were designed to favor privileged whites over others - licensing in the South, prohibtions against carrying in California (used by Reagan against the Black Panthers).

It's a popular myth on the pro-gun side that you need guns to be able to fight off the Fascist Black Helicopters or damned UN Invaders, etc.. Clearly that's absurd - small arms are no more going to beat back a fascist federal govt. than ice cream cones.

But arms in the hands of individuals - Civil Rights workers/defenders, unionizers, women at risk from men - do empower those people a great deal.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:53 (eighteen years ago)

of a black man lynched in the '50s for talking back to his employer, that is.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:54 (eighteen years ago)

Likelihood. Sorry Dan.

No, I deserved that.

BTW, this is the full text of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is a heavy implication in this sentence construction that people need the right to bear arms in case the need to act as part of an organized militia. There is absolutely nothing there about personal safety or personal self-defense; rather, this Amendment concerns itself with the private citizen's contribution to the safety and defense of the country at large. I think that's a completely seperate issue.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:54 (eighteen years ago)

ok, I just went searching through posts on the last thread that contradicted my claiming gun control as anything other than the solution

came up blank

dan has me cold

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:55 (eighteen years ago)

ok, still didn't complete that thought, sorry. Trying again - the example was about the funeral of a black man in Virginia in the '50s who had been lynched. At the funeral home a group of racists came to take his body for defilement - and were met by the man's friends and relatives holding their family shotguns. His body was not taken.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:55 (eighteen years ago)

ps Dan's take is one reason I try to consider gun control/lack of on purely pragmatic grounds. My reading is that the amendment gives the state the right to heavily regulate firearms far more than we've ever seen, short of an absolute prohibition. That's not a very useful guideline, IMO.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:57 (eighteen years ago)

That's a good answer, but is it essentially saying that violence is a key solution for underclasses of whatever stripe? Also: I doubt his body would have been taken if they'd all been holding big machetes either xp

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:57 (eighteen years ago)

goddamnit, when shit like this happens, if you take NO steps to take a few guns out of circulation, you're a little... immoral.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:58 (eighteen years ago)

Hi Dere - thankfully, the Supreme Court does not agree with you, sir.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 02:59 (eighteen years ago)

That's a good answer, but is it essentially saying that violence is a key solution for underclasses of whatever stripe?

The threat of violence? The potential for it, maybe? Or at least the potential for the underclass to stand up for itself against the Pinkertons or the Klan or Fred Phelps?

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:00 (eighteen years ago)

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Always seemed pretty clear to me

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:01 (eighteen years ago)

You never answered the question, "Whose guns, kenan?"

I think that Milo's point is that visible self-protection for underclasses is a very important tool in self-defense. I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written, which is why I have a problem with it being used to justify carrying guns for self-preservation. In a lot of ways, it's like the Deuteronomy of the Bill of Rights.

(haha I couldn't have asked for a better xpost; you don't get to chop off the first half of that sentence if you want to use the text to make a coherent and honest point, Roger)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:03 (eighteen years ago)

http://hematite.com/dragon/StateRights.html

One of the arguments often heard from the gun control people is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution really refers to some sort of "collective" right, not an individual right. If this were true, one would think that the Second Amendment would have been better written to explain that. And if that were true, one would think that the individual states would have expressed a "collective" right in their own constitutions. Yet, 43 out of 50 states have their own version of the Second Amendment and none of them, zero, zip, zilch, nada, mention any form of "collective" right.

Some selections (43) to choose from:

ALABAMA "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Ala. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

ALASKA "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
Alaska Const. Art. I, Sect. 19 [second sentence added Nov. 1994]

ARIZONA "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Ariz. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

ARKANSAS "The citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."
Ark. Const. Art. II, Sect. 5

COLORADO "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Colo. Const. Art. II, Sect. 13

CONNECTICUT "Every citizens has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Conn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 15

DELAWARE "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."
Del. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

FLORIDA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
Fla. Const. Art. I, Sect. 8

GEORGIA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
Ga. Const. Art. I, Sect. I, para. VIII

HAWAII "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Haw. Const. art I, Sect. 15

IDAHO "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."
Idaho Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

ILLINOIS "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Ill. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

INDIANA "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Ind. Const. Art. I, Sect. 32

KANSAS "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Kansas Bill Of Rights, Sect. 4

KENTUCKY "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: .... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."
Ky. Bill Of Rights, Sect. 1, para. 7

LOUISIANA "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
La. Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

MAINE "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."
Me. Const. Art. I, S16

MASSACHUSETTS "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
Mass. Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII

MICHIGAN "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
Mich. Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

MISSISSIPPI "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."
Miss. Const. Art. 3, Sect. 12

MISSOURI "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Mo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

MONTANA "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
Mont. Const. Art. II, Sect. 12

NEBRASKA "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."
Neb. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

NEVADA "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
Nev. Const. Art. 1, Sect. II, para. 1

NEW HAMPSHIRE "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state."
N. H. Const. part 1, art. 2-a.

NEW MEXICO "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
N. M. Const. Art. II, Sect. 6

NORTH CAROLINA "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the carrying of concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."
N. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 30

NORTH DAKOTA "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed."
N. D. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

OHIO "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Ohio Const. Art. I, Sect. 4

OKLAHOMA "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."
Okla. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

OREGON "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
Or. Const. Art. I, Sect. 27

PENNSYLVANIA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Pa. Const. Art. I, Sect. 21

RHODE ISLAND "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
R. I. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

SOUTH CAROLINA "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law."
S. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

SOUTH DAKOTA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."
S. D. Const. Art. VI, Sect. 24

TENNESSEE "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
Tenn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

TEXAS "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Tex. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

UTAH "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."
Utah Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

VERMONT "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to the civil power."
Vt. Const. Ch. I, art. 16

VIRGINIA "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Va. Const. art I, Sect. 13

WASHINGTON "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Wash. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

WEST VIRGINIA "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
W. Va. Const. Art. III, Sect. 22

WYOMING "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."
Wyo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

Seven (7) states do not have a constitutional provision on arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin. [Source: U. Dayton Law Rev. v.15, pp. 84-89 (1989)]

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:03 (eighteen years ago)

You seem to be taking it as gospel though, Manalishi, instead of a philosophy like any other -- and just as likely to be flawed.

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:04 (eighteen years ago)

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

What need. Talk in specific terms about the need. Talk about what you would do to those people.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:05 (eighteen years ago)

I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written,

I agree 100%. The rest of the Constitution was written for propertied white males - I sincerely doubt that they intended to throw a bone to the underclass with this one.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:05 (eighteen years ago)

xpost But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:06 (eighteen years ago)

My wife works in the US, which is about a mile from our home. After her first day of work 16 years ago, she came home in tears. I asked her what was up and she said she got into a political discussion at work, but it quickly spiralled into something else. My brother-in-law, who was over at the time, said "Rule #1: Never get into a political discussion with an American that you don't know", suggesting that often many Americans are working with a different set of assumptions than, say, the average Canadian.

She now says that this is most evident with regards to the issue of gun ownership. She says that, though most of her co-workers do not own any guns, many of them feverishly argue for the "right" to own them without question, as if this was a right they would fight and die for.

It just seems more than a bit odd to us. But then again, so do guns in general.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:06 (eighteen years ago)

xposts!

I really dont see how the upside of owning guns privately outweighs all of the death and stuff that happens that involves guns. sure, i know that some of the violence would happen no matter what. some people will kill with knifes or axes or whatever anyway, but such mass killings would never happen.

what are the pros of having guns? I know that the constitution says that its ok that we have them, but what are the real reasons we need them? I know that some people say that they feel more secure and protected. Now, i cant speak for everyone, especially since i have lived in a nice area all of my life, but how often has any ILXor ever had to use a gun or other weapon in self-defense in their homes? i know that some ILXors have been mugged or attacked in public... but then again, most places wont even allow most people to carry concealed weapons.

Mr. Fidelity said that he enjoyed the feel and liked shooting guns. while i truly hope you have more important reasons for gun ownership, do these pros outweigh the cons of thousands of gun deaths every year? am i just being idealistic or does it make sense that one would give up simple pleasures for the betterment of all?

I just feel that all the robberies that may happen because of no guns outweigh the massive loss of life we see in the United States as a result of guns. I would gladly get a couple hundred of my dvds stolen if it meant there were no guns on the street. i am sure hundreds of thousands of other people must feel the same way. basically, life is not replacable.

milo's point is well-taken and definitely brings up a great point and shows a very tough gray area for me. but couldnt other weapons such as knifes or maybe larger blunt objects make a similar statement of "dont come close to us or we will hurt you"?

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:08 (eighteen years ago)

The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.[1][2]

The English Declaration of Rights (1689) affirmed freedom for Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."[6] When Colonists protested British efforts to disarm their militias in the early phases of the Revolution, colonists cited the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the militia, there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. Indeed, in his arguments on behalf of British troops in the Boston Massacre, John Adams invoked the common law of self-defense.[3]

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[4]

Others perceive a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense; Robert Spitzer has stated: "..the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."[5] Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.[6]

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. This distinction was not subject to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jacksonian era. Judges in the nineteenth century split over how to interpret this connection; some saw the Common Law right and the protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment as identical; others viewed these as being legally distinct. Texts from the era of the Second Amendment are largely silent on this important question.

[...]

In the early months of 1789, the United States was engaged in an ideological conflict between Federalists who favored a stronger central government and Antifederalists skeptical of a strong central government. This conflict was accentuated by the recent news of a brewing, potentially violent, revolution in France with similar Antifederal tensions. Also, the conflict in beliefs continued between northern states, that generally favored Federalist values, and southern states that tended to share Antifederalist values.

Intense concerns gripped the country of the potential for success or failure of these newly-formed United States. The first presidential inauguration of George Washington had occurred just a few short weeks earlier. A spirited public concern and debate from this time is captured in numerous heated newspaper articles, personal diaries and letters from this pivotal time in United States history.

Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

The original text[12] of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It should be noted the Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 were not numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action.[13] (Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment.[14]) Debate in the House on the remainder of the 8th focused again on whether or not a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[15] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28 the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment.[16] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:[17]

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[18] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24 the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

On September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

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

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence", next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.[19] The Senate then slightly modified the language, and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

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

The House voted on September 21 to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[20]

This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:09 (eighteen years ago)

xpost That's why no one ever calls on a Canadian when they're raising up a posse, I guess.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (eighteen years ago)

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
(yes, I know; I'm kind of surprised that there's no statement of Madison asserting man's right to hen fap)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (eighteen years ago)

eg I'm in the UK, and we've got no such right, and precious few gun deaths. In the past century we also had a union movement strong enough that the govt sent in tanks to deal with it and suffragettes getting the vote. We didn't have anything to compare to the black lynching things though, and I can see how guns would have been a huge help there.

<i>But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...</i>
The whole point of this debate is to question it -- and there are people who obviously think the idea of everyone having a gun is deeply flawed!

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (eighteen years ago)

fuk nu ilx

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Even our rappers can't get a posse!

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (eighteen years ago)

hahaha stet

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:11 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

milo's point is well-taken and definitely brings up a great point and shows a very tough gray area for me. but couldnt other weapons such as knifes or maybe larger blunt objects make a similar statement of "dont come close to us or we will hurt you"?

Nothing says "fuck off" like a gun though, does it?

...Not that I'm pro-gun. I never even want to handle a gun. They don't give me the horn at all.

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:13 (eighteen years ago)

Todd, if the worst 'crime' that ever befalls you is losing all your DVDs, I'd say you lived a life full of luck, my friend.

My example was an aside - I CAN make a case for owning a gun - and I have several times on this thread. I was just saying that, beyond all that, I don't HAVE to justify it. I own guns. I always will. And I've never shot anyone. Never had an AD. Never been arrested on a felony for anything. And I never had to buy a burglar alarm.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:13 (eighteen years ago)

You start a thread about gun control, you kinda DO have to justify it

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:15 (eighteen years ago)

Droone - here's hoping you never find yourself in a situation where you HAVE to handle a gun and, because of willfull ignorance, don't know how.

My wife hated guns and to a large degre still objects to the sheer amount that we have in our home. BUT she is no longr uncomfortable around guns and knows that, in a pinch, she can use one if she has to. The very notion of that brings me great comfort. But then, I love my wife.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:16 (eighteen years ago)

Hardly "willfull".

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:17 (eighteen years ago)

stet - i HAVE been justifying it all along. I'm just saying, I don't feel I HAVE to. If i lived in a gated community with security guards on towers, and were as far removed from violent crime as possible, I'd still own guns because I LIKE guns. That's all I was trying to say.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:17 (eighteen years ago)

is this guy a familiar troll who I'm just not recognizing or what

either way 2nd amendment cheerleaders sure are tiresome eh

― Hans Rott, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (eighteen years ago)

dan perry is otm and i am going to bed.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (eighteen years ago)

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on British labour, stet - how prevalent were deaths and strike-breakers physically

I know that in the coal strikes of the '80s there was violence and retaliation on both sides (Thatcher's fault, right?), but I don't know if (further back) there was violence largely from the owners/state against unionizers. (One key difference between the two - intimidation was effective here, one reason we don't have a union movement as strong as the UK.)

Granted, the examples there are from the first third of the 20th century, and the Civil Rights era is the middle third and maybe we think we're more civilized than that now. But I believe the possibility for the need still exists - and if not in the US, then certainly in parts of Latin America still recovering from our best efforts.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (eighteen years ago)

I hate my wife. That's why I never let her near a gun.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:19 (eighteen years ago)

Ha!

I'm gonna go eat some cereal - I'll be back in a little while.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:20 (eighteen years ago)

when come back bring arsenal

― Hans Rott, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:20 (eighteen years ago)

Okay, as much as I'm disagreeing with Roger's stance, I believe that in addition to his hardon for guns he is stating that he is glad that his wife is comfortable with the guns around their house and knows how to use them because that makes her less likely to hurt herself with one.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:21 (eighteen years ago)

Droooone: I know you were making at least a little humor in the argument, but if there were no guns, the next deadliest weapon would surely do just fine, dont you think?

Manalishi: Worse things have surely happened to me... but not on any basis that a gun would have ever helped me. I mean, I have had cancer twice, i have gotten fucked over by people emotionally. both of those really hurt me much worse than the loss of any personal possession could. Maybe, maybe if i my house was broken into when i was home alone, got roughed up and could have been helped by a gun, maybe i would think differently, but i really would hope that i wouldnt. anyway, most burglars make an effort to steal at a time when no one is home so they wont be caught.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:22 (eighteen years ago)

but if there were no guns, the next deadliest weapon would surely do just fine, dont you think?

If there were a reasonable assumption that the elimination of guns would be equitable and complete - yes. Then you'd just be facing off Fonz style with chains and bats and stuff.

That's a very problematic assumption, though.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:24 (eighteen years ago)

I think Milo and I are closer to each other in spirit than our posts or our final stances would lead the casual reader to think; I think we are using the same attitude to come down on different sides of this issue and I think his points make sense and are valid, I just don't come to the same conclusion as him.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:28 (eighteen years ago)

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on British labour, stet - how prevalent were deaths and strike-breakers physically

I know that in the coal strikes of the '80s there was violence and retaliation on both sides (Thatcher's fault, right?), but I don't know if (further back) there was violence largely from the owners/state against unionizers.
The pitched battles of the 80s are probably a good example, ye: the Police were used as a state army to break the strike, but neither side was armed. I can't imagine how it would have turned out if the miners had guns -- I fear it would have meant armed police, which would have meant massacres.

In 1919 there was a riot over working hours in George Square in the centre of Glasgow, and tanks were sent in, but it was largely bloodless as well. Most of the labour history is like that -- lots of fisticuffs and thumpings and some huge marches, but very few deaths.

You talked about intimidation breaking US union movements (which I don't know much about) --- surely the guns would have helped with that?

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:31 (eighteen years ago)

Milo: I definitely agree that it is a problematic assumption, but I still just cant see the justification of agreeing with our current gun situation over a situation with much, much stricter gun regulation and fewer gun deaths.

yes, i know that anyone pro-gun will say that very strict gun regulation will never cut down on deaths, but it never hurts to try, right?

Now, i know this isnt the best comparison, but look at prohibition. alcohol was viewed as something dangerous to society. it led to more crime (mainly because of gangsters and their guns) and we decided that prohibition really wasnt the answer to the problems. So a novel thing happened... they repealed it.

I think a lot of gun owners are afraid that they are wrong, so they will fight to the death so they will never have the opportunity to be proven wrong.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:31 (eighteen years ago)

And of course, the canon example here is Ghandi, who successfully used no guns to stop us stamping all over India with lots of them xpost

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:33 (eighteen years ago)

You guys are familiar with this, right?:

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.)

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187.

Statistically, doctors are 9,144 times more dangerous than gun owners.

NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:34 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, why are you crazy?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:35 (eighteen years ago)

Very strict gun regulations probably would prevents some deaths, just not ALL of them, so what's the point.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:36 (eighteen years ago)

I mean seriously, why are you posting bullshit statistics games like they are meaningful or like that will make someone find you credible?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:37 (eighteen years ago)

but doctors are NECESSARY, u dumby

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:38 (eighteen years ago)

accidental gun deaths
vs.
intended gun deaths

accidental doctor deaths
vs.
intended doctor deaths

Hey, this is fun!

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (eighteen years ago)

yeah guys. gun leg is gonna be hard. so let's not try.

besides, there's powerful lobbying behind that shit.

I really dont see how the upside of owning guns privately outweighs all of the death and stuff that happens that involves guns. t0dd on the mark to this point.

now, excepting for legitimate reasons (say viable and verified threats against family, self – but not raw property, fuck property – and for the procurement of food, hunting, etc.,) why [/i]can't[/i] we have a significant lockdown on guns? seriously, let's quit hiding behind the second amendment as gospel; use it for the philosophy intended. the philosophy is intended toward the protection of the people from universal threat. so let's read it in the spirit of mitigating a universal threat: gun violence. logos, not inflexible literality.

anyway, we're reading an evolutionary article; or at least i try to consider it that way when i'm reminded of the 3/5ths representation it entitles me.

― remy bean, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (eighteen years ago)

also bullshit on the 80 million guns claim

― remy bean, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (eighteen years ago)

xpost galore

Manalishi: That is really the worst stat i have ever seen... and possibly the most transparent. I am pretty sure you realize this.

While accidental gun deaths do matter to me and are definitely a problem, they are not the real problem. The problem is non-accidental gun deaths... where people are meaning to harm others. are drive-by shooting accidental? are school shootings? are cases of passion?

sure, doctors are people and they make mistakes. the human body is fragile and when doctors accidentally prescribe a wrong drug or make a mistake in surgery, it is not with intent to harm. how many doctors are out there who harm intentionally?

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:43 (eighteen years ago)

lol guns

http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/shoot.gif http://forums.seriouszone.com/images/smilies/sconf.gif http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/uzi.gif http://forums.seriouszone.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:43 (eighteen years ago)

i think that 80 million might be right - the best estimates are something like 30% of households, but that # doesn't differentiate between an old hunting rifle in the garage and a loaded 357 in the dresser.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:44 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.renegadechickens.com/chickens/Toons/foghorn.jpg

pictured l-r: ilx, roger

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:44 (eighteen years ago)

Nonviolent protest only works against opponents who have qualms about slaughtering you, yeah?

― Kerm, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:47 (eighteen years ago)

No, it works against people who have qualms about being seen to slaughter you. It's all PR

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:49 (eighteen years ago)

Kerm: in a democratic society such as ours, mowing opponents down rarely results in positive gains for your side. remember what happened in Harlan County after an anti-union bully killed a miner? the company gave in and let the miners unionize because there was national attention and scrutiny.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:51 (eighteen years ago)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/con7/gungirl1.jpg

^^ properly educated amirite????

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:53 (eighteen years ago)

I've been following this debate with interest, during my lunch break of vegetable pasty and orange juice, but sadly Manalishi has just lost all credible debating points with his fucking rubbish statistics.

― Huey in Melbourne, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:54 (eighteen years ago)

This article is about the Australian gun buyback. It might be of some interest to the gunny people on this thread.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:56 (eighteen years ago)

Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear "who we are" and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.

hmm.

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:59 (eighteen years ago)

Who do you think (hope) has the biggest dick in Nickelback?

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:00 (eighteen years ago)

The stats were just for fun, folks. Get over yourselves.

That said - the statistics are correct. But clearly supposed to be funny.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:01 (eighteen years ago)

SO you are just trolling then.

― Trayce, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:07 (eighteen years ago)

Boy, you fellas just LOVE that word, huh?

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:08 (eighteen years ago)

you proved you are no jimmy kimmel.

― estela, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:10 (eighteen years ago)

lock thread

― strgn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:16 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ 'great ilx gun control debate' = milo and dan perry more or less agreeing and everyone pretending to take manalishi seriously

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:48 (eighteen years ago)

guns: cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://outbackdobbs.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/awb1.jpg

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 04:59 (eighteen years ago)

So the next time I go to the docs, do I need to pack heat or something?

― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:24 (eighteen years ago)

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187.
The number of accidental deaths per car owner is 0.000055.

almost three times as high!

clearly, we should outlaw cars before we outlaw guns.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:29 (eighteen years ago)

number of airplane deaths per airplane rider is 0.000002 ... this is about 1/10th the odds of dying in a car accident!

so ... why is it harder to get an airplane pilots license than a driver's license? LIBERAL CONSPIRACY?!?!?!

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:32 (eighteen years ago)

http://thenewgamer.com/thenewsite/img/screens/000029_2.jpg

― gershy, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 05:48 (eighteen years ago)

"The younger the better. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell."

-manalishi

seems pretty clear to me.

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:03 (eighteen years ago)

It is very tempting to put the manga girl on this thread.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:07 (eighteen years ago)

do it. i havent seen it yet thank god but anyone whos clicked on this monstrosity deserves it.

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:08 (eighteen years ago)

Gershy, I remember when I first saw that footage (thanks youtube), it really upset me. But now it doesn't really fuck with me(thanks, desensitisation).

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:10 (eighteen years ago)

if guns were allowed in the state capital, i bet somebody totally would have shot dwyer in the hand before he shot himself, thus saving the day.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:35 (eighteen years ago)

One guy with a conceal-carry could have ended that in an instant.

― stephen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:14 (eighteen years ago)

Aw man, I just got back from the ER (where, last week, we had a guy shoot his eye out in a botched suicide, in case anyone's wondering), and am too tired to wade in here properly, but: milo's been pretty otm throughout here, guys. And Manalishi, dude, you're making decent points with bad stats, and clearly know how to wind up the masses, but you realize that the whole feel-smell-taste admission just gives dweebs like kenan an excuse to make ad hominem attacks that confuse the issue. And kenan: cut it out. Your smarmy, preening bullshit is full of gross assumptions about guns, gun owners, and gun violence.

That being said: taking the Constitution as gospel is silly, and weirdly dogmatic--it's just some shit some dudes wrote a couple hundred years ago. Good stuff? Sure! I like it, including the Second Amendment. But even if I didn't, and even if, like kenan, I thought that the Second Amendment ought to be repealed or seriously undermined, there's nothing really to do about it: the right to bear arms really IS a part of "being American." Not because you're obliged to like or endorse firearms, but because you're obliged to live with them, even if only because they've been grandfathered in. Let's assume that those 80 million gun owners only own one gun. And let's also assume there's a small percentage of illegal, unregistered or accounted for guns (how about 2 million). That's still a shitload of guns. Getting rid of them would be impossible, and would also require the American gov't to go and arrest or harass perfectly law abiding citizens like milo and Roger and my dad and, like, most of the state that I live in and all of my parents' neighbors. That is, people who have never used a gun against another person and hope that they'll never have to. Moreover, guns have been retained by the American people since day one--this is NOT the case in Europe, so to apply the British model of gun control is specious. Y'all never had guns (thanks, repressive monarchies!) so to say that you're cool without them, so why aren't we? is disingenuous. (a very similar line of reasoning could be applied to socialized healthcare but that is an entirely different issue...)

And another thing: slaughters like today's tragedy will always be outliers. Tacky as it may seem to say this, 30some deaths by handgun-wielding-psychopath every few years is lost in the heaving sea of your "average" gun deaths: some accidents, some criminal v. innocent, lots of criminal v. criminal, some innocent v. criminal, crimes of passion, and so on. Accidents are the fault of irresponsible gun owners. Crime is crime, and if, say, drug dealers are willing to shoot each other over whatever, getting rid of guns will (a) just make them stab instead, and (b) oh wait, do nothing since they'll still probably get their hands on guns anyway (note: this can really not be exaggerated enough--any attempts by the gov't to, say, srsly stop the flow of handguns into the country would just be a huge misallocation of resources, much like the War on Drugs).

Crimes of passion are really where guns make the difference (though, note, I have zero stats to back this up): while ppl will never stop killing each other out of rage, getting rid of guns would probably seriously curb the number of people who are successful. Guns are alarmingly convenient, both in the ease and the distance with which one can kill someone else. If everyone always had to stab or beat everyone else to death, you'd probably see a lot of would-be killers stand down--"actual" violence is a lot harder than making someone dead before the ringing in yr ears has stopped.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:19 (eighteen years ago)

oh, and the concealed carry argument is totally retarded: college students are not really likely to be the type of ppl that are gonna have concealed carry licenses, nor are campuses likely to be the type of place that would allow ppl to walk around strapped. thus: the only people that will have guns will be criminals or gun nuts (who, in this case, would also be criminals). So, criminals and criminals.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:21 (eighteen years ago)

(also: no stats for any of my arguments, just hunches. so, yeah, if you know something i don't, please share, but try to be civil about it. something about gun control brings out the smug moralist in people/kenan, where even CONSIDERING gun ownership is basically the same as wanting to have underwear like the sex machine)

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:26 (eighteen years ago)

(also: RA sent me a CD-R wrapped in gun paper, and I secretly thought that was totally awesome, especially because it smelled good. then again, so does phil wood bike grease. the lesson here: grease smells good to some people, i guess?)

(also also: this is a good read, though it's really supposed to be mapped to nuclear proliferation, not American gun control)

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:30 (eighteen years ago)

to piggy back a bit here (and then i swear i'll go to bed, holy shit i'm tired): curbing gun violence would really best be solved by addressing the social issues that give rise to violence, period. legalizing most drugs might be a good start. many gun deaths (certainly the most tragic) are the result of strays loosed in the heat of some kind of on the fly shooting, often crime/gang related. Only a crass dick would suggest that "better gun education" would prevent that sort of reckless tragedy--wouldn't we be better off trying to pull the rug out from that sort of conflict in the first place? The time and money and manpower that would have to go into dismantling an entire American industry would be far better spent doing likewise to the social/institutional/whatever structures that are in place to engender widespread violent behavior.

(HOWEVER: i have spent very little time where accidental/malicious gun death is a real concern--which is why i'd probably defer to someone like vahid)

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:42 (eighteen years ago)

i fully expect to have most of this thrown back in my face, btw, i'm not really thinking clearly right now.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:49 (eighteen years ago)

dude go to sleep lol

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:50 (eighteen years ago)

this is a very very important paper which addresses the issue: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7089/1271

basically the point is that risk-taking behaviors (being involved in gang+drug violence) is strongly correlated with life expectancy.

this chart pretty much summarizes the important findings - it's a scatter plot of the life expectancy in 77 neighborhoods EXCLUDING HOMICIDE DEATH vs the homicide rate (per 10000? 100000?)

daly + wilson did a follow-up in 2001 which correlated homicide and income inequality but the correlation was much weaker.

the usual conclusion drawn from the 1st study is that if people don't *feel* like they have a future ahead of them, they certainly won't act as if there is one. in that sense, the common interpretation of what happens when people go postal isn't a whole lot different from the violence of homicide in urban neighborhoods.

i'm not a psychologist so i can't speak to any of these issues but i do believe this is the current state of clinical thinking on the issue - the public health problem which follows (how to get people to believe there is a worthwhile future ahead of them) is a much tougher issue.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:12 (eighteen years ago)

lolololol i forgot what a menk roger adultery is.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:19 (eighteen years ago)

ok that is exactly the sort of thing i wanted to read....tomorrow morning. thanks, v. i'm very interested in the epidemiology of issues like this, and am a little embarrassed i came to the table with so few numbers

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:25 (eighteen years ago)

np

The time and money and manpower that would have to go into dismantling an entire American industry would be far better spent doing likewise to the social/institutional/whatever structures that are in place to engender widespread violent behavior

so one thing people have been arguing lately is that civic engagement in america is quite low compared to countries where gun violence / homicide rates are much lower (you could do a similar comparison across neighborhoods in america). what constitutes civic engagment would be things like involvement in church, home ownership, higher education, employment, membership in civic groups, etc etc ... i have a strong intuitive feeling that these things are even stronger dis-incentives to gun violence than draconian gun laws or a well-armed populace.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:38 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, but whilst waiting for hearts to change, changing the laws which the society has plainly shown itself to not be able to deal with would be a sound start. Dealing with the symptoms is essential, but tackling the problem in the first instance is part and parcel of that.

― The Boyler, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:04 (eighteen years ago)

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

This may very well be the case, the point is that statistically the housewife has a lot more chance of shooting down a family member (mistaking it for a criminal or in a domestic fight). Guns are mostly used on family members and/or friends. Not criminals. Secondly you'll have to be a god damn good fucking shooter if you come across a burglar cause he is has the advantage of knowing he's doing something wrong and shooting is a lot of easier with that pre-knowledge. And hey did you learn shooting in the dark with adrenaline pumping through your body?

I'm not in favour of guns specifically for that reason. And, I know, one has knives in the house so in a domestic fight you could use that (or any other object) but it's not the primary use (so people think less of it as a knife to kill people) and it's less deadly (unless you of course chuck the knife right in the heart or whatever).

That said, it's not easy to reason with a culture that has incorporated guns to such a degree. I realize that it's impossible to erase that part. But one can try. Shootings like the one that happened yesterday is much rarer here. It happens but when (and this is very rarely) it is a smaller scale. I wonder why...

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:09 (eighteen years ago)

But I'm repeating what has been said.

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:11 (eighteen years ago)

i'm never understood why pistols have been so obsessively focused upon; what about the other stuff the police have? i'm thinking specifically here of NIGHT VISION. why should they get to have it and we don't? if an intruder breaks into my house in the middle of the night i'd be a lot better off with NIGHT VISION and a baseball bat than my normal eyes and a gun! or, imagine that the police are pursuing me across a field for a crime i didn't commit. at night, they can basically grab me at will because they can see me and i can't see them. with night vision, i would know exactly where to run to escape them! a gun's not going to do me any good, because killing cops is not exactly a recommended course of action, no matter how innocent or guilty you are. yet the home safety boosters insist on GUNS all the time, rather than the other hardware that would make a much bigger difference to their safety, and which is monopolized by the police!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:37 (eighteen years ago)

Fact is I like guns. I like owning them. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell. And it's my right to stockpile them if I want to. I have a CCW permit and can legally carry a gun in 39 states.

haha dude. without even getting into the gun control thing, just from a style point of view, taking that much pleasure from deices that are designed to kill people (in the case of handguns) is just straight-up creepy. it's like having a big collection of guillotines in your back yard or something. *shiver*

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:42 (eighteen years ago)

i'm never understood why pistols have been so obsessively focused upo

We've trief to focus on bricks as killer objects but it was laughed at.

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:47 (eighteen years ago)

Statistically, doctors are 9,144 times more dangerous than gun owners.
NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Joke/gag/trollage/laff riot/whatever, this is actually the single most stupid thing I have ever seen posted on ilx/possibly the internet.

I was curious about where this thread would go (didn't have high hopes, of course). As someone who has (a) handled a variety of guns before, over several visits to a variety of shooting ranges, (b) been violently attacked - at gunpoint - and had loved ones violently attacked, and (c) come to the personal conclusion that I wouldn't actually feel safer with a gun around at all, I'm always curious to see if there are convincing arguments out there.

Come to find Roger A./Manalishi sounding genuinely frightening at several points, spouting nonsense statistics and kneejerk constitution citations, and offering nothing of any real substance.

i.e. Show me someone who can attempt to speak reasonably and intelligently about why liberals "have it wrong" about gun control without sounding like a SCARY FUCKING MANIAC.

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 11:50 (eighteen years ago)

i have fired automatic weapons. it was gay.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

Hang on, did Roger say that 1,500 people are accidentally killed by guns every year? That is a STAGGERINGLY high amount of deaths that don't need to happen.

What happens if Roger's beloved wife defends her home with a gun, but is disarmed and murdered with her own weapon? Her fault? His fault? Or America's, for ORDERING him to carry? (obv as a liberal I realise it can't be the responsibility of the poor misunderstood burglar who suddenly had to defend his own life)

Dear America, plz change your constitution. I am appreciating the irony in Roger's absolute trust in something that's itself a change in the constitution.

― Mark C, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:02 (eighteen years ago)

I'd be okay with more people owning guns if I thought that they took the same precautions and had the same respect for guns that Manalishi has.

But you know, they don't. Growing up in the South, I saw tons of people that had no business owning guns, but could legally carry a concealed weapon.

― Jeff, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:04 (eighteen years ago)

"To take the high road and answer the insufferably sarcastic questions upthread: Gun safety classes. The younger the better.

Teach evolution. Teach safe sex. And teach gun safety.

Replace the obligatory 'Arbor Day' lesson plan if neccessary. Reading, writing, arithmetic and personal responsibility.

Seems simple enough to me."

rejected sketch from 'studio 60'

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:09 (eighteen years ago)

we should also teach children karate

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:14 (eighteen years ago)

Handkarate laws! Concealed karate!

(er... ignore)

― StanM, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:16 (eighteen years ago)

children should also be taught general battlefield medicine; if their mother accidentally shoots off her own hand they need to be calm and professional so they can treat her properly

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:19 (eighteen years ago)

I'm all for the continued evolution of this thread into total comedic clusterfuckage, but I am still hung up on this whole thing. At the end of the day, the Libertarian gun thing is just seriously selfish cuntery, right? A lot of foot-stomping about how "it's my RIGHT to have these guns... and I LIKE them!"; whilst paying absolutely no attention to (or brushing aside) the fact that there is a massive part of the country with issues ranging from incredibly poor mental health to serious economic and educational disadvantage that should not have easy access to guns (but clearly do, as my own personal experience can testify to)? Do the likes of Roger think that's someone else's problem?

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:44 (eighteen years ago)

selfish cuntery

aka libertarianism

― ledge, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:46 (eighteen years ago)

Show me someone who can attempt to speak reasonably and intelligently about why liberals "have it wrong" about gun control without sounding like a SCARY FUCKING MANIAC.

Milo and river wolf are doing a good job of this, I think.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:49 (eighteen years ago)

(To clarify: I think Milo is stating decent reasons for why being able to legally carry a gun isn't automataically a bad thing and river wolf is doing a good job of arguing that most antigun legislation doesn't address the problems that are leading to gun violence in the first place.)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://static.zoovy.com/img/2bhip/W179-H140/the_right_to_keep_and_arm_bears_black_belt_buckle.jpg

― The Boyler, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:02 (eighteen years ago)

No, you're right... I suppose I meant "show me someone who believes we should do absolutely nothing about retricting guns who can attempt to speak reasonably and intelligently..."

River Wolf says things like while ppl will never stop killing each other out of rage, getting rid of guns would probably seriously curb the number of people who are successful., which one would assume means he is for gun control on some level.

Obviously River Wolf's big picture scenario - fix the problem at the fucking source for once - is right on.

(xpost)

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:06 (eighteen years ago)

Fucking hell, that sentiment in bold type is off, too. Obviously I mean "someone who doesn't think we need to change things as they are now."

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:08 (eighteen years ago)

I think Milo is stating decent reasons for why being able to legally carry a gun isn't automataically a bad thing

Of course it's not a bad thing - heck, having an atom bomb in your house is not bad per se - but the fact is that in many cases it's misused and one should try to avoid that problem. Easiest solution: trying to get rid of people having guns at home.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:08 (eighteen years ago)

i appreciate the argument that super-gun-control would be impossible to enforce, but what about making it harder to buy new guns? how do the gun fans feel about that?

― s1ocki, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:46 (eighteen years ago)

tracer, you can buy night vision goggles at many specialty stores, i've seen them.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:48 (eighteen years ago)

sweet! i just hope they're as effective as the police/military's are. i mean those REALLY work. from like 200 yards away in complete darkness you can see a guy BEHIND a door.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:56 (eighteen years ago)

i mean, i hope you're not talking about the sharper image. that place is full of empty promises.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:59 (eighteen years ago)

do i look like the type of person who has set foot into a sharper image?

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:00 (eighteen years ago)

hey my bad. let's all be cool.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:03 (eighteen years ago)

Obligatory gun insurance/training/licensing
Tighter control over ammunition
Cessation of preferential treatment of gun manufacturers
All guns must be pink with flowery handles/stocks, clips must be fuschia

― Michael White, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

It's just the internets.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

heck, having an atom bomb in your house is not bad per se - but the fact is that in many cases it's misused and one should try to avoid that problem.

Yeah, we use our atom bomb as a door stop. I know that's wrong, but it looks so ornamental.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:08 (eighteen years ago)

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

LOL WHO ARE THESE CRIMINALS "omg i hope wifey isn't up ready to shoot me with her purse pistol! oh fuck you rottweiler, you pussy, oh also fuck the police and the completely thorough and functional burglar alarm that catch the fucking husband half the time he comes home from his affair OH WAIT he got shot by the wife lol."

Also I love the concept that because SOME people are mature responsible gun holders, ALL people should have access to guns. Gun control is around so that responsible people get them and irresponsible people don't. Why is there an argument here?

That said I didn't read anything under the "skipping messages" cut, so I dunno where any of this is at and I am just spittin'.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:16 (eighteen years ago)

"omg i hope wifey isn't up ready to shoot me with her purse pistol! oh fuck you rottweiler, you pussy, oh also fuck the police and the completely thorough and functional burglar alarm that catch the fucking husband half the time he comes home from his affair OH WAIT he got shot by the wife lol."

to be fair, i'd wager more people own handguns than do burglar alarms or attack dogs.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

Haha "attack dogs". We never had a single dog who wasn't a happy, barking idiot who wanted everyone on our property to chase him and throw sticks...until I snuck into the house one night so as not to wake up the family, and the two happy collies in our basement got to growling like I have NEVER heard before or since (until I spoke to them & they recognized my voice). If you'd asked me whether our dogs wd attack an intruder I'd have said no, but I was glad for the basement door between us then.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:26 (eighteen years ago)

Or good locks that they actually keep locked, which would obviate the need for any of these things. I'v been robbed, and threatened with rape and death in my own house and a gun wouldn't have done me any f*cking good at all in any of those situations. Even if I were really trained in, like, firearm safety. None of it would have happened in the first place if I'd had GOOD LOCKS.

xpost

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

Unfortunately, good locks are sort of a moot point these days. Search "bump key."

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:29 (eighteen years ago)

guns are way oversold as a mechanism for "self-defense." on my list of 10 best ways to keep myself from being shot, having a gun places about 27th. i wish more gun advocates would admit -- like roger does -- that they just like having guns. i also wish they acknowledged -- like roger doesn't -- that it's a kinda creepy hobby, and stopped comparing it to collecting stamps or something.

given the constitution and u.s. history, wishing for a gun-free america is like wishing for a unicorn cavalry. and the knee-jerk gun control "debate" that gets reignited by every freak massacre is at this point just tiresome civic ritual. but the persistent paranoia of the gun brigade is even more tiresome. i don't want to take away anyone's (legally owned) guns, but it's not very reassuring to keep being reminded that the most armed segment of society also seems to be the most paranoid and given to juvenile red dawn fantasies.

― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:30 (eighteen years ago)

oh man do i ever want a unicorn cavalry

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:31 (eighteen years ago)

(also i know this is just anecdote, but i've known several people who have confronted burglars in their homes. the only one i know who got shot was also the only one i know who was carrying a gun at the time of the confrontation.)

― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:32 (eighteen years ago)

I know about bump keys. They only work on pin-and-tumbler locks. If you have a mortice key in addition you're doing all right. Those two plus a police-style bar across the door and you can save a lot of money on both burglar alarms and the 20 years of therapy you'll need after you accidentally shoot your son.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:33 (eighteen years ago)

But do more housewives have handguns than burglar alarms or... uhh, attack dogs? Angry dogs included. If the answer is "yes," then holy shit. xpost to infinity

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:34 (eighteen years ago)

First of all, Guns are for Cowards. Nothing quite like the warm rush of blood from the throat of some commie pinko liberal immigrant down your hand as you plunge the blade into the larynx of evil.

Second of all, whilst I've never been personally attacked by someone with a gun, my neighbour back in the day (who was mentally disabled and often the target of abuse by rowdy kids) would, every so now and again, get his house shot up by kids driving by. Now, perhaps my spider-sense failed me, but a bullet could have gone astray into my house/window/me, and even if I owned a gun would have had no possibilty of using it to defend myself. If the kids were throwing knives, I probably wouldn't have worried so much. If they had thrown ninja stars, I probably would have thought they were awesome.

Thirdly:

"What is it with men and guns?"
"I think I speak for everyone here when I say, they are metal penises."

River Wolf was OTM way upthread.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:37 (eighteen years ago)

Oh ha, I only have one comment here, running straight back to Manalishi's invocation of the Bible of wanting everyone armed -- More Guns, Less Crime -- which people like him invariably point to, and which few people who aren't social scientists or gun freaks bother reading. Let me assure you, from personal experience with this book and its author, that there is no safe assumption that this book and its argument aren't a crock. Lott is probably spending this week doing what he does whenever any time anyone in the universe gets shot, which is sending opinion pieces to the local paper talking about how just waving a gun at a criminal prevents crime (in between making up online personas to defend his work). His research on this stuff isn't totally nutty, but it's still a great length from rock solid. And even in its iffy claims of a crime rate reduction from letting people carry concealed weapons (iffy both in his methods and his assignments of cause), he really doesn't take on any of the objections people might have to a concealed-weapon self-policing society, or do anything to compensate for the types of places that wind up allowing concealed weapons, or ask, in his national advocacy for this sort of thing, whether that dynamic would be preserved elsewhere.

But beyond that I'll totally admit to having completely selfish personal reasons for not wanting the concealed-weapon self-policing society: I'm willing to admit that I have serious trouble trusting the public in general to hold life-and-death power over what's going on around them. I'll stick to getting kicked in the nuts for reaching past someone for an ATM envelope, not dying.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:41 (eighteen years ago)

Hey, I have a point to bring up that probably came up upthread, but who gives a fuck about the Constitution? I mean honestly. How about we base laws on what's going on now? Fuck a John Hancock. That shit is old. If we followed all of the old rules in all of the old books, women would be killed without mercy if her husband got in a fight with another man and in an effort to stop the other man the wife grabbed and pulled the other man's testicles (Deut 23:17 iirc, somewhere around there anyway).

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:44 (eighteen years ago)

What people like Manalishi are arguing for is essentially a Free Market of Death, an experiment that runs contrary to most every successful precedent in the rest of the entire world.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

All gun-owners should be required to quarter military personnel in their homes for a portion of the year. Just for fun, really.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:46 (eighteen years ago)

but they already HAVE the guns nabisco, the guns are already out there, so you might indeed get a gun barrel tucked right into your gut as you reach for that envelope. and THEN wouldn't you rather have had a gun tucked into your boot, that you could then reach down, pull out, cock and shoot your assailant with? life would be so much less violent!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

every day would be a hong kong john woo fee film.

totally. awesome.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:49 (eighteen years ago)

fee? scratch that

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:49 (eighteen years ago)

My bad, it's Deut 25:11, and you don't kill her, you chop off her hand

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:50 (eighteen years ago)

well that's a relief

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

deut=stupid.

woman with no hand=man washing dishes + awkward hand jobs

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:52 (eighteen years ago)

This thread is weird. I don't think Kenan was being smug or preening. I find Evan's stance confusing. To my knowledge, there's only one person I've met who owns a gun, and that's my redneck uncle who lives in Peoria and is very much a John-Deere-hat-and-overalls-wearing fetishist who shoots deer in his backyard. I don't really see why anyone needs to have them. I understand that people always have. I understand that it's near impossible to change that. I don't know why we wouldn't try to at least curb new gun sales, as Slocki suggests.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

military-grade assault weapons seem excessive, and i find it hard to understand how any rational private citizen can aruge a case for their legal status.

then again, i loathe most people, so perhaps i'm out of touch?

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:56 (eighteen years ago)

lol life-long liberal urbanites

― ghost rider, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:56 (eighteen years ago)

But do more housewives have handguns than burglar alarms or... uhh, attack dogs? Angry dogs included. If the answer is "yes," then holy shit. xpost to infinity

Yeah, this statement way upthread confused me, too. What housewives are actually packing heat? Maybe I don't hang out with enough housewives.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:56 (eighteen years ago)

this needs to posted again:

so one thing people have been arguing lately is that civic engagement in america is quite low compared to countries where gun violence / homicide rates are much lower (you could do a similar comparison across neighborhoods in america). what constitutes civic engagment would be things like involvement in church, home ownership, higher education, employment, membership in civic groups, etc etc ... i have a strong intuitive feeling that these things are even stronger dis-incentives to gun violence than draconian gun laws or a well-armed populace.

-- moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:38 AM (7 hours ago)

Manalishi: ??

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:57 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, that's it in a nutshell. once a handgun comes out, whether wielded by "good guy" or "bad guy", something very big has failed.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:00 (eighteen years ago)

I really shouldn't even get involved in this, but oh well.

First of all, a whole bunch of people seem to be conflating two different arguments here (well, probably more like seven, but two stick out.)

1. Ownership of firearms
2. Conceal and Carry laws

These are very distinct, separate issues, and using a sucessful argument against one to imply an argument against the other is simply sloppy or misleading logic.

― John Justen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:03 (eighteen years ago)

I was a little hard on kenan (sorry, dude), but he quickly reverted to "gun owners are just plain BANANANANAS lol!" and ad hominem attacks and didn't seem particularly interested in actually engaging the issue. Smug because he'd already made up his mind, and preening because most of his posts seemed like excuses to make quips and let everyone know how REALLY AGAINST guns he was. Not very constructive. But whatever, I was exhausted, had been at the bedside of a woman coughing up blood all night (non-gun-related assault), and was totally wasted off a beer and a half.

That being said: what is it that's confusing about my stance, jaymc?

brtrps JJ, yes.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

lol life-long liberal urbanites

As someone who's never even touched a gun, and so the vast majority of my real-life experience with them is reading the news when people get murdered, I admit that it's very hard for me to expand my perspective on this issue.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

Your stance in and of itself isn't confusing, it's the way I felt when I read it that was confusing, because I consider you a bro and meanwhile you were giving props to Manalishi.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

dammit JJ i wanted to stick to simple, obvious declarations that make me feel good about myself

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10103223A~Charles-Bronson-Death-Wish-Posters.jpg

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:07 (eighteen years ago)

Hey, I have a point to bring up that probably came up upthread, but who gives a fuck about the Constitution?

Anyone in America with an ounce of sense, considering it is the foundational document of law for the country...? I think this stance is just as batshit insane as Roger's borderline "I CUM ON GUNS" shenanigans.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:08 (eighteen years ago)

I care about the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect document.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:10 (eighteen years ago)

To my knowledge, there's only one person I've met who owns a gun, and that's my redneck uncle who lives in Peoria and is very much a John-Deere-hat-and-overalls-wearing fetishist who shoots deer in his backyard.

More people own guns than you think, dude. I mean, I'd own a rifle if I could afford one right now, but that's just because I wanted to eat delicious elk meat this winter.

xps the lack of exposure to guns really colors the issue, yeah. I grew up with them, so I'm just sort of "meh, it's a gun" when I see one. As far as giving props to Manalishi: dude is winding everyone up, as far as I can tell. True, I think the "more guns, less crime" argument is batshit, but I think a lot of what people say here is batshit and I like them anyway. The many colors of the rainbow, blah blah blah. Unlike some (not you, necessarily), I don't see issues like this in black and white; disagreeing with someone over gun control is like disagreeing with someone over most other gov't policies. It's not a moral issue for me, it's a policy issue.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:12 (eighteen years ago)

What's wrong with making a constitution 2.0 (other than the fact that nobody would ever agree on one) that's set in present time? or wait, if the agreement thing the reason? fetishize a certain document so that nobody can argue its validity, and just try your damnedest to follow everything on it? i really don't understand, but my country didn't have a charter til 1982. and i think they still change it sometimes. xp

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:13 (eighteen years ago)

so dude who killed all these people bought the guns legally, right?

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:13 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.texasfrightmareweekend.com/images/savini.jpg

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:14 (eighteen years ago)

deej: yes, I think so.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:14 (eighteen years ago)

Poor elk. ;_;

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

I think given the lunatic infighting over all sorts of social issues these days, constitution 2.0 would be way more fucked up than constitution 1.0.

Plus, good luck getting through the hot-button issues (gun control, or, say, abortion) within our lifetime.

xpost

― John Justen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

What's most wrongheaded is the assertion that carrying a gun somehow makes you LESS likely to be shot by an evil criminal. If I were an evil criminal and someone pulled a gun on me in self-defence I'd be more likely to shoot them to save my own skin and less likely to think twice about it.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

Apparently the serial #s had been filed off the guns. Just sayin'.

xp yeah but John, we're not getting through those things with CON1.0.

xp again augh so many xposts

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

I find Evan's stance confusing. To my knowledge, there's only one person I've met who owns a gun, and that's my redneck uncle who lives in Peoria and is very much a John-Deere-hat-and-overalls-wearing fetishist who shoots deer in his backyard. I don't really see why anyone needs to have them. I understand that people always have.

This level of generalization surprises me, jaymc. I've grown up around them. My dad, a hunter, likes them for their own sake, like some people collect stamps and others buy music. He owns a concealed-weaposn permit. I've never once thought of owning one, though.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:18 (eighteen years ago)

OK SRSLY IT'S NOT HARD TO FILE A SERIAL NUMBER OFF A GUN, MOST GUNS WITH THE SERIAL NUMBERS FILED OFF WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY AT SOME POINT AND THE NUMBER WAS REMOVED AFTER THAT POINT--LITTLE KNOWN FACT?

sorry for the caps but seriously??

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:18 (eighteen years ago)

Plus, good luck getting through the hot-button issues (gun control, or, say, abortion) within our lifetime.

Within our lifetime, the issue will surely alter significantly to heat-ray control.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

Also: I'd be curious to knwo the gun fatality statistics for those who've grown up around them. From an early age I knew guns were loud and hot to the touch, therefore STAY AWAY.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

I care about the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect document.

Read upthread where I compared the 2nd Amendment to Deuteronomy about a bazillion posts before Will did. Caring about the Constitution does not imply that the carer thinks it is a perfect document.

What's wrong with making a constitution 2.0 (other than the fact that nobody would ever agree on one) that's set in present time? or wait, if the agreement thing the reason? fetishize a certain document so that nobody can argue its validity, and just try your damnedest to follow everything on it? i really don't understand, but my country didn't have a charter til 1982. and i think they still change it sometimes. xp

It is virtually impossible to change the Constitution in this day and age, given the overwhelming majority who need to ratify any edits made to it. Also, if you read upthread, you will see that I'm not fetishizing it. My point is that not caring about the document that defines the way law works in your country is really fucking stupid regardless of how you feel about the laws described within that document.

xpost: Ally I'm trying to ignore that.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

I think you're probably right, Matt. Crucial to the concealed carry argument (which I've heard LOTS of times (hi dad!)), is the fact that a CCW owner will actually know how to use their weapon--correct grip, stance, will have practiced with it at the range, etc., while your average thug with a .38 is just sort of hoping that having the gun will be enough to scare someone.

Like I said on the VT thread (which came off all wrong, sorry): shooting handguns is hard!

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:20 (eighteen years ago)

word up schef, but if COULD also mean it was purched illegally. Who knows? It is kind of a moot point now, but yeah. Why would he buy it legally, then file it down?

xp Sorry Dan if it seemed like I was implying YOU were fetishizing it, I most certainly do not think you are. But to say nobody does would be wrong, no?

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:21 (eighteen years ago)

Many people back home ask me about America and guns. Some of them even think that there is a gun in every American household and that there are multiple gun murders every day in every American city. There are many things I do not understand about the gun debate, but I have twice been in a situation where an older male relative (one my cousin, one my father in law) has pulled a revolver from his wife's underwear drawer in order to show me it and how freedom works blahblahblah. On neither occasion did I request or want to see a gun. Nonethless, I think this says something about US gun culture, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what it is.

― admrl, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:21 (eighteen years ago)

and, btw, simply having a gun really is enough to scare someone, and it ought to be. my friend had a gun shoved in his face while riding his bike (ie - moving) and it was seriously disturbing, especially since there was (what looked to me) a 16 yr old on the other end of it.

bet you he didn't get that at the gun shop, though.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

some people be needing a civics class, among other things? seriously, constitution 2.0? nigh impossible simply in practical terms, leaving aside John Justen's point about how scary such a document would likely be.

― horseshoe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry Dan if it seemed like I was implying YOU were fetishizing it, I most certainly do not think you are. But to say nobody does would be wrong, no?

Considering that the person on this thread who is fetishizing the Constitution is the one I described as having an "I CUM ON GUNS" stance... I'd say no one ever said no one fetishized the Constitution.

(xpost: I give leeway on the Constitution 2.0 thing because the person suggesting it isn't an American and mostly likely doesn't know how impossible it would be to generate a document like that without another revolution.)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:24 (eighteen years ago)

my guess is that if the serial number were filed down, he probably got it illegally? like, if he's going to on a murderous rampage, why would he care about covering his tracks back to where he go the gun?

serial numbers are filed in order to allow guns to traffic; the end user probably doesn't give a shit.

brtrps constitution 2.0 is the worst idea on the planet. hi dere marriage amendment!

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:24 (eighteen years ago)

What level of generalization, Alfred? "I don't know anyone who has a gun" is a statement of fact.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

however: it IS supposed to be a living document, and we would do well to remember that.

xp "why would I etc." :D

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

i still think just because someone is trained enough to have a concealed weapon license does not mean they will do any less (or any more) damage because of it.

i think it is just as likely they will cause more damage (firefight breaking out).

education might go some way, but not really.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:26 (eighteen years ago)

Marriage amendment, abortion amendment, media violence amendment, welfare amendment... what other batshit fringe positions can we bake into this hypothetical clusterfuck?

(xpost: I hope it's obvious that I agree that the Constitution should be a living document, RW!)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

however: it IS supposed to be a living document, and we would do well to remember that.

Yeah, all I was saying was that I took "who the fuck cares about the Constitution" not to be a call for anarchy but a challenge against those who cling to the 2nd Amendment without considering whether it's still practical and appropriate, as if its very presence in the Constitution legitimates it on anything other than a legal ground.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:29 (eighteen years ago)

(fwiw, it should be obvious to everyone by now that i'm getting my news in fits and starts, and mostly from ilx. irresponsible, etc. so, yeah, i guess the guns WERE purchased legally and dude filed them down afterwards. )

xps (i know, dan! and jaymc: thing is, i can't help but think that rectifying the second amendment, beyond being impossible, would also result in a tit for tat sorta deal where all kinds of other crazy shit gets thrown in there too)

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:31 (eighteen years ago)

My dad, a hunter, likes them for their own sake, like some people collect stamps and others buy music. He owns a concealed-weaposn permit.

Hahaha just like the many philatelists and rock geeks who walk around with stamps and CDs tucked in their underwear? Not really picking your dad or anything, and I know those two sentences are separate statements, but let's not try to fudge an antique-dealer's appreciation of gun-as-object with holding permits to pack heat!

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:31 (eighteen years ago)

Jaymc 8080808080. That's exactly what I was saying. I'm just a terrible communicator. Fuck an anarchy. The only good thing about anarchy was that hilarious cookbook I downloaded in 1996 and tried to hide on my parent's IBM for so long. xxp

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

oh hey i still have that on my computer!

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:34 (eighteen years ago)

I wish I did, hahaha. Tennis balls full of matchheads.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

YSI?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

wait, no, don't have it anymore. i do have the MIT lockpicking book, though

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

dude, the tennis ball full of matchheads was seriously tedious.

a light bulb went on in my head about the plot for Wimbledon II just now.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

YOU ARE A BIG FUCKING TEASE, MR SO-CALLED "RIVER WOLF"

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

Hahaha just like the many philatelists and rock geeks who walk around with stamps and CDs tucked in their underwear? Not really picking your dad or anything, and I know those two sentences are separate statements, but let's not try to fudge an antique-dealer's appreciation of gun-as-object with holding permits to pack heat!

you know, there ARE places where you cannot actually own a gun, even as-object, without owning such permits. i mean, i know it's kind of beneath a few of you to actually learn about this shit before you open your mouths but it's not THAT hard. i don't personally own a gun and wouldn't want to after my own charming experience of being kidnapped and held for an interminable amount of time at gunpoint and then being shot at--have some of you even SEEN a gun in person, btw?--but it's not that hard for me to learn this stuff, and not make a horse's ass out of myself when trying to argue gun control ideas with my extremely libertarian father, so i'd like for the rest of you to do so as well, in the future.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

Aw, I was enjoying the waves of unwarranted smugness coming in a direction other than mine!

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

Hahaha just like the many philatelists and rock geeks who walk around with stamps and CDs tucked in their underwear?

I didn't think I would actually have to spell this out, but, you know, my dad likes guns because he finds them beautiful pieces of machinery, not cuz he can kill someone with'em.

What level of generalization, Alfred? "I don't know anyone who has a gun" is a statement of fact.

Thte person you described is a grotesque stereotype. It's like saying, "The only homo I know wears pink tanktops, marches in gay-pride parades, lisps, and loves ABBA" (which, actually, describes lots of Miami homos, except the marching part; it's too hot).

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:44 (eighteen years ago)

The seeing a gun statement is kinda ridiculous. Sure, tell people to know what they're talking about. But this whole "have you SEEN a gun" thing is just silly. Like seeing it makes a difference.

And yes, I've "seen" lots of guns. My dad was military and my friend's mom had a shotgun to scare off bears because she used to live in BC (which I always thought was hilarious)

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

If the Constitution were a living document, Charlton Heston have shot the fuck out of it years ago.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

*would have

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

one of the teachers in my high school often brought a gun to school as a visual aide for his chapel sermons.

it seems kind of fucked up now, but at the time, i didn't think anything of it.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:47 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.securitech.com/D02-mp-police-lock-4800-series.html

i find these to be beautiful pieces of machinery ^^^

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

It's being reported that he bought the guns legally.

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

What housewives are actually packing heat? Maybe I don't hang out with enough housewives.

my sister-in-law, for one. she's sweet and funny and plays guitar and sings emmylou harris songs. and keeps a handgun in a fake book jacket in her truck. oh, and my mother-in-law. but she owns a skeet shooting range so it would be kind of hard for her to not own a gun.

i married into a very well-armed family.

― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

Also, my mom, who is adorable and is a music therapist in an old folks home. Not exactly the "crazed fire-fight" type.

― John Justen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

The person you described is a grotesque stereotype.

He's also a real person. If he's a stereotype, then that's his doing: he rather revels in the whole redneck image. As such, he's the only person I've met who's preached about how awesome guns are, and it's become something of a family joke, especially after he built his own cannon.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

(xpost) skeet skeet skeet

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

in her truck? what about when the intruder smashes through her kitchen window at 2 in the morning?? i guess this is why people have multiple guns.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

It's like me with multiple sticks of deoderant. Because I always forget and need it wherever I am. And it's 24 hour protection.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:56 (eighteen years ago)

I'm curious why JJ's mom and JFM's sister-in-law own guns.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

I need to post pictures of the one deer my dad blew away -- it was hanging from the olive tree in the backyard. I was in fourth grade; I cried a lot. My mom and grandmother tried to distract me at the mall.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

I wonder if gun owners are like me with my deoderant. I leave it around the house as visual clues so I put it on because I NEVER REMEMBER. And in case I forget I leave some in my work locker.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

manalashi sounds like he rubs his guns all over his body.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 16:58 (eighteen years ago)

I've hardly read much of this thread but felt compelled to add something...

I've handled lots of guns (primarily shotguns but also handguns, a Magnum .357, etc.), although I have never killed anything and don't ever want to.

That being said I completely support the wholesale banning of firearms from the hands of private citizens, and find the majority of arguments to the contrary to be highly specious (yr shotgun isn't gonna protect you from the gummint, yr more likely to kill yr family member than you are an attacker, fatal accidents with guns grossly outnumber incidents of guns being succesfully used for self defense ad infinitum).

The problem is all of the gun control options in America are bad ones. Nothing can be done to really get rid of the problem, because there are already so many guns in commercial circulation in the country. You can't just take them out of people's hands and melt them all down or something. If they were all outlawed the black market for firearms would have already have an ample supply of product and a devoted network to move through. Ostensibly the country's gun problem would become even worse than it is now. America manufactures the arms and floods the markets of the world with them - the genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to stuff it back in. At best all we can hope for is a modicum of regulation.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:00 (eighteen years ago)

hahah "24-hour protection" .. one in the glove compartment, you get to the office, walk inside, open bottom-left drawer, there's your office gun, you give a smile of satisfaction and begin your day

the last time i saw somebody shooting a gun was last christmas, to get mistletoe down out of a tree

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:01 (eighteen years ago)

(and yes I realize my position is a bit contradictory - basically I would like an America where firearms are completely illegal, but realize that this cannot be practically implemented)

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:01 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, gun control options are limited at this point. i think most of the annoying problems that come from gun control debate are the people so obsessed with their right to own guns that banning any kind is wrong. reason gets thrown out of the window for a stupid ideology.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

I saw a policeman with a gun (outside the US Embassy, where else?) but that's the only time I've ever actually seen one in real life

― Tom D., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

That being said I completely support the wholesale banning of firearms from the hands of private citizens

*sigh*

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:06 (eighteen years ago)

... talking from the UK that is (xpost)

― Tom D., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:06 (eighteen years ago)

What's so "sigh" about that?

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

i still say the world would be a much better place if guns were never invented though it's obviously some utopian bullshit notion (and a notion which would merely pave the way for the right to bear swords and machetes debate, too).

― rps, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

xp No elk meat for you?

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

There aren't any elks in Tufnell Park

― Tom D., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

... more's the pity!

― Tom D., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

"I saw a policeman with a gun (outside the US Embassy, where else?) but that's the only time I've ever actually seen one in real life

-- Tom D., Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:05 PM (39 seconds ago)"

rly?!

i think i've even seen britishes cops w/ guns in the last few years. of course i have cradled an SA80 in my loving arms, taken it apart and put it back together, so am familiar with the inimitable smell of infantry small arms.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

shakey mo most otm in thread

― and what, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

From the AP:

One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, federal officials said. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

Fuckingfuckfucfuckfuckfuckfjfhjdfskahsdfh ldk sjafhsdjkl hjkls afhlsdfjh

― Ben Boyerrr, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

I'm curious why JJ's mom and JFM's sister-in-law own guns.

well i dunno. sis-in-law is a sort of back-to-nature type. has a small chicken-and-goat farm. she slaughters her own animals. wants to get solar power so the homestead can be totally off the grid. i don't think she sees the gun as anything she's likely to need, but just as part of feeling that she can take care of herself in any circumstance. i guess. also almost everyone else in the family has a gun of some kind. when you grow up with them it's just sort of a normal thing to have around the house.

― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:20 (eighteen years ago)

In all honesty, I think my mom would respond "Why not?"

― John Justen, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:22 (eighteen years ago)

. when you grow up with them it's just sort of a normal thing to have around the house.

yup. I grew up in a hunting family in Michigan. Grandma had a rifle, grandpa had some shotguns, dad had both and a .22 pistol, I had a .22 rifle and a .410 over/under single-shot shotgun/rifle combo. My siblings & I all went thru hunter's safety classes when we were 12.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:28 (eighteen years ago)

The police on the other side of the gates on Downing Street have guns and you often see them at airports but outside of the capital (and airports) I don't think I've ever seen one.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:33 (eighteen years ago)

xpost obviously.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

army barracks in london have armed bastards outside. and of course i see them in rap music and in action movies all the time.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:36 (eighteen years ago)

the genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to stuff it back in.t

Interestingly this is what most police officers I spoke to feared. They didn't want to be armed because they feared it would make them a target and once you got armed there was no going back.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

shakey mo otm re: stuffing the genie back in the bottle. but wanting to ban all guns everywhere is just sorta stupid and childish. handguns may have been invented to kill humans, specifically, but rifles and shotguns have practical, non-human-killing purposes.

and yeah, i'll bite: i'm uncomfortable with the thought of only cops being allowed to have guns.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:52 (eighteen years ago)

please to show me the last time a private citzen with a gun succesffully defended themselves against cops.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

then again, i suppose if you banned guns, the cops wouldn't need to have them (cf europe), so that would just leave the military, and i'm not enough of a black helicopter watcher to really worry about that.

....yet.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

(ie, it DOESN'T MATTER if a private citizen is armed, the state makes it is business to be BETTER ARMED)

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

("makes it ITS business" arrghh)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:56 (eighteen years ago)

then again, i suppose if you banned guns, the cops wouldn't need to have them (cf europe), so that would just leave the military, and i'm not enough of a black helicopter watcher to really worry about that.

The UK is the only european country i know of where the police do not routinely carry guns. There are, of course, armed policemen.

― Ed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not even talking about "successfully" defending yrself, Shakey; the cops will always win with bigger guns and sheer numbers. I'm just admitting that there's something creepy about the idea that the only people walking around with firepower would cops. Cops. Like, have you met these guys???

xp

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

I hate cops. I figured this was common ILX knowledge.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

Ed, you're right: I now remember as a kid seeing police in Italy walking around with submachine guns.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

me having a gun only makes it that much more likely that a cop is going to shoot me. it wouldn't protect me or make me feel more secure in any way.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:59 (eighteen years ago)

but rifles and shotguns have practical, non-human-killing purposes.

Go on.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 17:59 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry to be such a horse's ass, Ally, but exactly how many US localities are there where you need a concealed weapons permit to own an antique gun? Feel free to name lots of them.

(But I don't think it'll change my horse's-ass notion that there's a difference between appreciating guns as objects and carrying functional concealed weapons -- a difference this horse's ass is willing to bet is reflected in the laws of like practically every US locality. This was not meant to suggest anything at all about Alfred's father. It was a fairly simple statement that we should be careful about letting "I appreciate guns as objects" bleed subtly over into "therefore people should be allowed to carry them," because the one really doesn't have anything to do with the other.)

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

let's put them all in museums where they can be fully appreciated

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

Because I'm boring and narrow-minded, I keep coming back to what vahid pointed out: the root causes of many gun deaths are social, and are only tangentially related to the availability of legal guns. Implementing gun control (which, given what it is now, means banning handguns??) would cost so much money, and take so much time, and would be so fucking divisive politically, that I really think that all that effort and aggro would be better invested in attacking the larger social issues that need redressing.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

Wasn't there a robbery/shootout in L.A. or somewhere in the last two years, where they had AKs, armor, and a lot more firepower than the initial responding officers did?

let's put them all in museums where they can be fully appreciated

...and eventually discovered by the dastardly Simon Phoenix for his nefarious schemes.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

Rifles and shotguns (and large-caliber handguns) are incredibly useful and necessary for work/travel/life in remote areas in Alaska, Canada, and many western states due to danger from bears and other large animals. I know it may be sort of hard to believe to a city dweller but it is very, very real.

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

jaymc: you're doing that thing again.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

(ie, it DOESN'T MATTER if a private citizen is armed, the state makes it is business to be BETTER ARMED)

This is super-OTM and sort of the only response to people who want to be armed for potentially revolutionary purposes; which is to say that a state can't really operate as a state unless it has a monopoly on violence.

― max, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

that was about ten years ago and i think you can even find it on youtube (north hollywood shootout)

xxxxp

― rps, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Government_Warehouse.jpg

― and what, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:06 (eighteen years ago)

"top....men"

― rps, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:06 (eighteen years ago)

Moreover, forget about protection from animals (which, as Dan said, is actually a legitimate threat but for, let's face it, a v v small segment of the populace): what about shooting them and eating them? I know ppl don't hunt much in the city, but they do practically everywhere else. And, so we don't get embroiled in a whole separate discussion about hunting, can we just agree that some people think hunting is barbaric and unnecessary and some don't, but that it's something we've been doing for literally forever and that banning it right now would be a little weird?

nb I have never been hunting.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

rest in peace, Porkins and that pipe-smoking government guy

― kingfish, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:09 (eighteen years ago)

"That thing again" = being curious?

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

xxpost I was trying to avoid broaching that subject :)

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:10 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, I assumed you were going to talk about hunting, but I wanted to know what else you had in mind. Thanks for the explanation.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

I have. It's fun! My dad still goes "hunting," but it's basically an excuse for him and his fiftysomething buddies to get away from their wives, drink Glenlivet, and bitch.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

^^^^ that is most hunting, i think

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:13 (eighteen years ago)

plus you come home with meats

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:13 (eighteen years ago)

otm

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:14 (eighteen years ago)

guys really i just want a steak and can't afford them so i figure shooting an elk and strapping it to the hood of my ford focus would probably solve my problems for a while. also i want an excuse to walk around in the mountains.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

I know a guy out in Bigfork who could probably hook u up

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

here get elk with this glock 17

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

No I think he has the elk already.

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

(the elk dealer)

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

roger adultery

― RJG, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:19 (eighteen years ago)

shoot elk dealer and take his elk

use this glock17

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

...I sound like one of those text adventure video games from the 80s.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:21 (eighteen years ago)

YAOW?

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:26 (eighteen years ago)

are we done here? looks like we're done here. i'm just gonna go ahead and post this again:

http://www.texasfrightmareweekend.com/images/savini.jpg

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

seems like a good a time as any.

― Will M., Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

Thank you for that.

― dan m, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:39 (eighteen years ago)

A lot of people who know shit about hunting often describe it as a pathology instead of a sport (I'm accusing no one here). I don't care for hunting, but into my teens I always went with my dad; it was an excuse to hang out with him and his buddies. As usual, look to the langauge. I never heard anything but the greatest respect for the deer, boar, and turkeys: their mating patterns, what they smelled like, the kinds of prints they left, the grace of their movements. These guys weren't sadists blowing shit away. They never poached: they went during the eight-week period in which Florida allows licensed hunters to bag legal game. If they didn't catch anything -- which is often the case -- there was no recrimination. It may sound bizarre to say so, but I'm glad my dad hunted instead of, I dunno, sat on a sofa watching the Dolphins all Saturday. I find that behaviour more depressing.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 18:43 (eighteen years ago)

vahid: that paper was v v excellent, and pretty much sums up the reasons i'm interested in public health

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

wow thanks anecdotal story

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

Humanity caught in being killing machines shockah

― sexyDancer, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

NFL games are on Sunday.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

OK, this thread is so much more rational and nuanced than I imagined it would be.

The anti-gun contingency needs to realize that, for most gun owners, being around guns is natural and maybe even mundane and that interest in guns for sportsmanship, or hunting, or self defense, or for just plain aesthetics is not pathological.

"More guns = more safe" is one of the weaker and most commonly abused arguments by gun rights advocates. Also, while the second amendment has been an effective political tool, it just isn't the coverall that gun rights enthusiasts make it out to be.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

Shows how much I know.

EDIT: Waitwait: I've watched NFL games on Saturdays. Are they "championships"?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

playoffs

― horseshoe, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

xxpost again no problem dude - i actually came across it in my studies because it has implications in managing behavior problems in teens - it shows that escalating the consequences (ie the "risk" of behaviors like jerking mr f0zis chain) isn't useful if the teenager hasn't bought in to the reward system. ie if one of my students assumes that they won't learn math/science/study skills NO MATTER WHAT, then there is no expected payoff for the low-risk behavior of being a good student, whereas the high-risk action becomes more attractive because at least there is a *possibility* of a positive outcome (ie impressing chix0rs/boiz and/or mr f0zi himself with yr devil-may-care attitude)

i am sure you can make a similar argument to show that if yr young stick-up-kid is habituated to gun violence (several parents, male relatives, friends already dead by age 21) and sees it as a likely outcome for their life story NO MATTER WHAT (because they grew up in a dangerous neighborhood) then the housewife cowering in the bathroom with a 357 is very little dis-incentive indeed

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

i clicked on this by mistake but after the college season ends there are the occasional saturday games as well.

― chicago kevin, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:26 (eighteen years ago)

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

My father scared off a burglar with a knife.

John Justen and I scared off a burglar by waking up.

Plus what moonship just posted.

I think the mindset of the criminal (or potential criminal) and the subsequent motivations and incentives are a little more complicated then as posited in your argument. If guns scared off criminals (or potential criminals), then armed nogoodniks would probably spend less time shooting at each other and more time pointing the gun at us unarmed folk.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:37 (eighteen years ago)

my anecdotal story which i'll drag out here is my student who was shot on christmas day in the arm and hand. he was hanging out on the street with some buddies, a dude comes out of his house and sees that his car has been tagged in his driveway, accosts the pack of 16-year-olds in the street. the teenagers tell the dude (who is 25, i think) to go smoke a cock. he goes inside and comes out like two hours later with a revolver and starts blasting away at the teens. the guy is fine (he doesn't hang out on the street anymore and won't play football for a months yet) but it could've easily ended up in "4 teenagers dead" bernard goetz type horror.

i'm not sure what my story illustrates, except that the 25 year old dude is going to be in jail for a while (he was caught fleeing to mexico) and that it obviously shows very poor decision-making skills on his part - "i am pissed about my car being damaged, so i think i will go to prison for several years"

i think having access to concealable handguns probably exacerbates this poor decision-making problem in a way that access to bolt-action hunting rifles doesn't, so i think we could also exercise some nuance when we talk about gun control.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:41 (eighteen years ago)

OH and this is another the interesting anecdote: three weeks later on a friday night a 15 year old was shot and killed in the street. the cousin of the SHOOTER was caught at his high school (which is in our neighborhood) with a handgun in his backpack on monday - he had brought the gun to school for HIS OWN protection, since he was fearing retaliation.

interstingly enough, in this case, roger's attitude of

Shooting back - and effectively neutralizing a threat - DOES stop someone shooting at you.

-- Manalishi, Monday, April 16, 2007 6:54 PM (Yesterday)

leads to MORE CRIME in this instance (unless what, we make it legal for 9th graders to carry handguns to school?)

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

~~then~~ than

plus a bunch of other illiterate shit

GAH

(xpost to me)

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:52 (eighteen years ago)

geez don't skip a beat or anything, NRA-lobby whore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/virginia_tech_gun_control

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

v4h1d u rock

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:35 (eighteen years ago)

cosign

― deej, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:39 (eighteen years ago)

yeah vahid is killing it basically

i forget who said this, but:

can we just agree that some people think hunting is barbaric and unnecessary

these people are just wrong, frankly. depends on the species. there's no danger of environmental damage or self-harming populations with say black rhino or american buffalo, but deer? yeah, there is.

― gff, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:42 (eighteen years ago)

The problem we run into with hunting is that a lot of gun control advocates see a pretty clear line between hunting weapons and people-killing weapons -- as insinuated just upthread. (I don't even consider myself a big gun control advocate, and I don't know a ton about hunting, but I'm fairly confident that no one's hunting elk with semi-automatic handguns and such.) So you wind up with a debate where some people are comfortable with government deciding which guns go in which category, and some people are very uncomfortable with how those distinctions might be made. (Part of why the NRA seems totally nuts to most people is that it's inevitably their mission to support practically ANY kind of arms, even insane ones, on principle -- kinda the equivalent of the ACLU looking bad for defending NAMBLA or whoever.)

Two things here that I have to admit bug me. One is the way that any time someone expresses concern about the availability of powerful weapons, there's this belligerent assumption that they're advocating gun control; I think there's room to fret about psychos having access to guns without necessarily wanting to legislate a gun-free society. Another is all the lame "you pussy city-dwellers" rhetoric that crops up, insinuating that anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with guns is either a weakling or ignorant of the hard facts of life: I understand the reasonable impulses that lead to this, but we should mostly spot them all kinda bullshit. I said on the other thread that I don't know a ton about guns and don't really want to, and Manalishi sarcastically urged me to "remain ignorant": and yes, it's true, I hope that I and all my loved ones never experience being on either end of a gun. I would think people who support guns as a form of crime prevention would hope the same thing, really -- sort of the same way I'm glad there are oncologists in the world but hope never to have to see much of them professionally.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:12 (eighteen years ago)

insinuating that anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with guns is either a weakling or ignorant of the hard facts of life

Thing is, I totally cop to both of those charges, and I'm mostly OK with it.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:24 (eighteen years ago)

pussy

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:24 (eighteen years ago)

One of the things I'm curious about, incidentally, is how much people's ideas about guns relate to how much they trust other people to use them wisely. The life-and-death stakes of a gun are a lot higher than most of the other objects non-professional people can be licensed to use (cars seem like the only competition), and I'll admit flat-out that I have trouble trusting a lot of people to hold that power; that doesn't mean I want to outlaw them, just that I'm uncomfortable with the situation.

And that's not just about lack of familiarity: I went to a high school where we got the first day of hunting season off, and I've spent weeks in a third-world country where groups of guys with AK-47s jump into the back of your truck and tell you to drive them somewhere. But I've also gone to the funeral of a kid who got shot in the face by a friend who said "hahaha it's not loaded," and no matter how much gun-friendly folks say "c'mon, basic gun safety, it's the parents' fault for not securing the gun better," we just come back to that original trust issue: how much do we trust people on this? And as far as the law goes, at what point of accident, murder, or death do we say there are legitimate public-health reasons to act? (Keeping in mind that there are countless objects and substances NOT covered by the 2nd amendment where the government doesn't even begin to defer to people's good judgment -- I'd much rather be in a bar where everyone had unprescribed Ambien in his pockets than one where everyone had a concealed weapon.)

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:29 (eighteen years ago)

You worried about killing machines ended up in the wrong hands. Don't worry about guns, let's raise the driving age to 25, that's what I say.

― sexyDancer, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:34 (eighteen years ago)

Best. Logic. Ever.

― Noodle Vague, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:35 (eighteen years ago)

cars aren't a great comparison, are they? unlike guns, their primary purpose isn't to be lethal.

but yeh, i suppose the fact i'm a world-weary cynic who thinks an awful lot of people are very fucking stupid means i'd be happier if i thought these people weren't going around packing heat.

still, i'm cheered by the fact that, of the pro-gun posters on this thread, only manalishi conforms to the penis-waving stereotype. i've very much enjoyed reading milo and river wolf's comments: i still can't imagine any situation in which i'm ever going to believe private gun ownership is anything other than a social aberration, but their arguments have, if nothing else, made me think about the issue.

shakey mo OTM, really. we just have to hope for the best.

― grimly fiendish, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:44 (eighteen years ago)

cars aren't a great comparison, are they? unlike guns, their primary purpose isn't to be lethal.

lol, come to Boston sometime

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:50 (eighteen years ago)

zing zang bing bang

but yeah, guns are purpose built to kill things. comparing them to things used to move other things/people around doesn't REALLY fly.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

Haha, dudes, I said cars were the only competition just so no one could come along and say "cars are really dangerous too and we totally trust people with them."

Ha, I was also going to point out that car deaths have gotta be like 98% accidental, probably because most of the ways you can actively try to kill someone with a car would totally screw up your ride. (This is like that whole Chris Rock "just make the bullets really expensive" thing.) Nobody weilds a car in anger! I mean, hunting aside, I'd be interested to magically get statistics on how often guns are weilded in response to a legitimate crime threat versus how often they're pulled out in arguments, to threaten people, for revenge, etc. (Obviously it'd be impossible to separate "serious argument" from "legitimate threat," but the difficulty of separating those things is precisely why I worry about people's judgment on this front!)

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:04 (eighteen years ago)

"Mom, Dad, I'm taking Becky to the movies tonight. Can I borrow the gun?"

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:04 (eighteen years ago)

vroom vroom!

http://pluto.fcla.edu/%7Efcldem/pics/2003/canada/Newfoundland_030609/MVC-892S.JPG

― grimly fiendish, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:07 (eighteen years ago)

"It depends what movie."

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:07 (eighteen years ago)

"As long as you don't go up to Stake-Out Point."

― Noodle Vague, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:11 (eighteen years ago)

This is like that whole Chris Rock "just make the bullets really expensive" thing

chris rock? wasn't it daniel moynihan who pushed a federal 10000% tax on hollow-point ammo?

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

RIP danny boy

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=980CE3DC1F3CF937A35752C1A965958260

Mike Jordan, manager of marketing technical services for the Winchester Ammunition Division of the Olin Corporation, said, "I wish the Congress people would attack crime as zealously as they do guns and ammunition."

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

The Chris Rock reference is in "Bring The Pain".

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

The thing I used to dwell on, back when John Lott was in my orbit, was the weirdness of how much the Goetzification of society he advocates would actually lead to a bunch of things conservatives could love (not least of which being that young minority men would have to start wearing bow ties everywhere and steering clear of all middle-aged white people after 10pm). And just think how it would clear up the courts to have all potential subjects dead!

xpost Ha, I don't remember that from Moynihan, just some Rock bit where he's like "if bullets cost $2,000 each, you'd have to think really hard about whether it was really worth killing someone!"

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:23 (eighteen years ago)

young minority men would have to start wearing bow ties everywhere

http://www.islamfortoday.com/NOI_members.jpg

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

Oh jeez I saw the remake of 12 Angry Men the other day.

― Noodle Vague, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe add a propellor beanie and keep having fake conversations about Maria Bartiromo, just to be sure.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

haha i love that chris rock bit. and yeah, nabisco, the whole messing up yr ride thing is an argument i had to pull out against my roommate this morning. like, you COULD try and mow people down with yr car but eventually the thing just wouldn't go anymore

― river wolf, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:37 (eighteen years ago)

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:51 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, that always makes me feel bad about breweries and tobacco companies too.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:54 (eighteen years ago)

Not that literature is good evidence in favor of gun control, but there's a very resonant bit in Billy Bathgate about how holding a gun actually makes you feel angry. True or not, having a gun makes you think a lot more about ways to use a gun, and I don' think that's a very good thing.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:25 (eighteen years ago)

So does having a belt-sander.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:45 (eighteen years ago)

Right. Your point?

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:51 (eighteen years ago)

Having a gun makes you think of situations in which you could threaten/shoot people vs. having a juicer makes you think of different kinds of juices you could make

Parallel in the abstract, but not in terms of danger posed

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:52 (eighteen years ago)

I have to admit that there are very few things that I have touched where I haven't tried to formulate a way that I could kill someone with it. Including juicers and belt sanders.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:54 (eighteen years ago)

Killing someone with a little manual juicer would be pretty impressive - like stuffing their face in it and "juicing" them

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:55 (eighteen years ago)

I know, right????

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:55 (eighteen years ago)

I think I was actually more prone to abstract fantasies of killing with small objects before I started shooting. A basic desire not to go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison (exponentially more likely if you do something stupid with a gun than something stupid with a juicer) goes a long way.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:59 (eighteen years ago)

With a gun, you might also think about how you can start a bonfire.

Q: Now that I have a gun, how can I start this here bonfire?
A: Easy! Take a beer can, fill it with gasoline, place gently on top of bonfire. Step back about 50 feet, shoot can with handgun. Instant bonfire! Hope you brought marshmallows ;)

Pulled from the pages of real life!

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:19 (eighteen years ago)

On top of an already in-progress bonfire?

― Jesse, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:28 (eighteen years ago)

we're talking about starting a bonfire here, Jesse

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:30 (eighteen years ago)

so you say now

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:32 (eighteen years ago)

Q: How can I start a bonfire on top of an already in-progress bonfire?
A: RECURSIVE FIRE, OH NOES

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:40 (eighteen years ago)

guys, the can explodes

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:41 (eighteen years ago)

NO WAI

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:50 (eighteen years ago)

dude.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:55 (eighteen years ago)

way.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:55 (eighteen years ago)

the gun is just for show

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:06 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.bigjohnson.com/assetts/images/allimages/sj7963a.jpg

― am0n, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:09 (eighteen years ago)

Q: Now that I have a gun, how can I create instant islamist terror?

A: Easy! Take a barrel, fill with rabid, ebola-infected monkeys. Place gently on doorstop of White House. Step back about 50 feet, shoot barrel lid off with handgun. Instant terror! Hope you brought vaccine! ;)

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:10 (eighteen years ago)

yes but are the monkeys islamic?

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:36 (eighteen years ago)

"Seest thou not that to God bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals, and rabid monkeys; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for Punishment: and such as God shall disgrace,- None can raise to honour: for God carries out all that He wills. (The Noble Quran, 22:18)"

"Seest thou not that it is God Whose praises all beings in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, and the birds (of the air) with wings outspread? Each one knows its own (mode of) prayer and praise. And God knows well all that they do. (The Noble Quran, 24:41)"

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 05:02 (eighteen years ago)

Gun industry response also makes for a good reminder to us lefty gun-owners - no matter how much you want to 'support gun rights' (or want to keep shooting things) just remember that the people responsible for making them are, by and large, evil corporate douchebags with no real conscience.

-- milo z, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:51 PM (Yesterday)

Milo, this isn't any more true of gun makers than it is any other corporation, and in many cases, less true.

Not that literature is good evidence in favor of gun control, but there's a very resonant bit in Billy Bathgate about how holding a gun actually makes you feel angry. True or not, having a gun makes you think a lot more about ways to use a gun, and I don' think that's a very good thing.

-- Hurting 2, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:25 PM (Yesterday)

Billy Bathgate huh? Hmmm. OK, well, Hurting, to be quite honest here, this is because you have no experience with guns or gun safety. If I was ever prone to a bout of absolute white hot rage, I'd no sooner think "Hey, I'll use my gun!" than I would think "Hey! I'll use a spatula!"

I may love guns, but the actual use of one in a life or death situation is an absolute last resort. It's an option, always, but when I can run, I will run.

I guess, in my mind, viewing a gun as a tool and taking the proper use of said tool very seriously, I don't equate anger with pulling a gun. It is something I would never do, and most responsible gun owners will tell you the same.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:52 (eighteen years ago)

Can anyone give me a proper ethical argument why a state should allow ordinary people to own guns? I mean, any state is bound to restrict its citizens in many regards, so why is this particular freedom so important, especially since it causes little good and lots of potential harm?

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:58 (eighteen years ago)

Outlaw history, Tuomas.

(oh wait, you said "ethical" argument. erase the above)

― peepee, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:04 (eighteen years ago)

you're the tool, roger adultery

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:04 (eighteen years ago)

You're going in with misinformation here, Tuomas. You say "especially since it causes little good and lots of potential harm," which is just not true. Do you have any statistics of facts to back up this whale of a claim?

99% of gun owners - by which I mean people who obtain guns legally for hunting, home defense, sport, etc - are responsible, law abiding citizens.

You want an ethical argument? Then don't start by asking why a 'state' should allow or disallow me ANYTHING that does not directly impede someone else's liberties.

I'm old school in the sense that I feel that, ideally, I should be able to go to Wal Mart and buy a bundle of heroin, three hookers, and an AK-47, and until I hurt someone, stay the fuck off my property and leave me alone. But then, I'm still a wide-eyed idealist.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:06 (eighteen years ago)

you're the tool, roger adultery

-- RJG, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:04 AM (1 minute ago)

This is really your response to what I said?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:07 (eighteen years ago)

PS suck my dick

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:07 (eighteen years ago)

You want an ethical argument? Then don't start by asking why a 'state' should allow or disallow me ANYTHING that does not directly impede someone else's liberties.

But the main function of guns is to impeded someone else's liberty - the liberty to live. This is not the case with, say, heroin, which only endangers your own health, not anyone else's. And the sport argument is kinda moot, cause you can use non-lethal guns for sport too.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:12 (eighteen years ago)

I think we just fundamentally disagree. Surely the guns used by American soldiers during WW2 were not used to 'impede anyone's liberty,' right? And if they were, in that case, who cares?

I don't agree that the function of guns is to impede anyone's lberty, but to prevent a person from impeding yours. Gun owners ae not, by and large, criminals. If they were, there'd be 80 million criminals at large in this country right now.

Non lethal guns for sport? What fun is that? You gonna take down an elk with an airsoft rifle?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:19 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe this is a stretch, but indulge me.

I can't help feeling that a lot of what has the antis on this board all stirred up is that they have to confront the fact that not every gun owner conforms to their stereotype of what gun owner is. Most of the people on ILX seem pretty bright to me, and most could easily vanquish your garden variety Bush-supporting hillbilly, who they rarely have to even confront in the first place. But when it's someone who probably buys a lot of the same records and magazines they do, the vitriol seems to reach a fever pitch.

I feel that, unless attacked directly, I've been fairly civil, and yet, this is one of the more venemous ILE threads I've ever seen.

How far off am I here?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:27 (eighteen years ago)

Here we have the essential dichotomy between the European (post)-monarchy social democratic social model and the Anglo Saxon puritan/parliamentarian (in the sense of the english civil war) Liberal democratic social model.

In the first the state grants or rescinds based on it's view of the collective (or selfish benefit) in the latter each individual has unlimited rights which can be ceded collectively or individually to duly constituted authority, and the constitution is a document that places the ground rules limitation on that authority.

Under the former system the state may not grant the right to own weapons because they might endanger society under the later the freedom to own guns is unquestionable until a majority of the people start to question it.

In reality most governments lie between these poles, which is why, for example, guns (not hand guns) are permitted for sporting and pest control purposes under strict licensing despite the danger to, say, fleeing burglars and that in the US you can't walk out and buy artillery.

It is useless trying to apply European ethics to the American situation and vice versa.

Personally don't think that a strict licensing and training regime would impinge upon the second amendment right to bear arms, especially given the part about the 'well regulated militia' surely good regulation would included the training of people in the safe and effective use of their weapons?

On a personal level I would love to be able to hunt for meat, however hunting is a very upper class and artificial sport in the UK, and that does not really appeal.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:28 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah Manalishi, I haven't seen where anybody's said "no guns for anyone". Would you be against the kind of licensing and check-ups for handguns that car owners have to deal with? i.e. yearly re-ups of your license, six weeks of safety training at the beginning, eye check-ups, etc. If not, why not?

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:34 (eighteen years ago)

I'm against that because it's degrading. I'm also against having to take off my shoes and belt at the airport, but perhaps that's for another thread.

Where I live, and in most places, you'll have a very hard time buying a gun if you're a convicted felon or if you've ever been charged with domestic violence. I'm okay with that. I'm reluctant to give an inch, but common sense has to prevail now and again.

Anything beyond that, even well-intentioned, is a slippery slope.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:39 (eighteen years ago)

So degradation is worse than the risk of people getting killed?

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:39 (eighteen years ago)

A slippery slope to what though, Manalishi? Do you mean that if we institute those kinds of regulations and safety measures that the government could then start to politicize the process (i.e. discriminate against Muslims, for instance?)

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:42 (eighteen years ago)

schmippery schmope.

Do you think it's degrading for car drivers to have to go through those hoops? Would you rather anyone could get and drive a car without any tests or checks?

― ledge, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:45 (eighteen years ago)

xpost For instance, yes.

and yes, Tuomas, those who are willing to give up liberty for security etc etc etc. There are certainly alternatives to harrassing blue haired grannies at our nation's airports.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:45 (eighteen years ago)

ledge - I don't know about you, but when I took my driving test, no one made me pull my laptop out of my bag and put my shoes into a plastic bin to be X-rayed. Oh, wait - do you live in Massachusetts?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:46 (eighteen years ago)

But local and federal govt. bodies are in charge of all kinds of processes, Manalishi - food inspection, taxation, financial oversight, weapons manufacturing, uh, I could keep going. By your argument we shouldn't trust the government to do any of these things.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:51 (eighteen years ago)

I'm against that because it's degrading.

Mind blowing. Seriously. Is there anyone on this thread taking Manalishi seriously?

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

There's that reactionary, witch hunt mentality again. Why so angry, Ben? Do you think the so-called founding fathers wouldn't have something to say about 5,000 people standing around an airport in socks?

I'm not a criminal and i resent being treated like one.

xpost Don't even get me started on taxation. But I generally believe in limited government as a rule, yes.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:56 (eighteen years ago)

We were asking sensible questions about driving tests, stop bringing up your strange shoe fetishes.

― ledge, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:57 (eighteen years ago)

and yes, Tuomas, those who are willing to give up liberty for security etc etc etc.

It's not a case of liberty vs. security rather than weighing in different liberties. In my opinion the liberty to live weighs so much that other liberties can be restricted to guarantee that. The way I see it letting people own guns necessarily leads into more killings, whether or not they were "justified" (and it's kinda hard to draw the line there - is killing to protect your property really justified?), and life should always be given the utmost weight. Compare American murder rates to, say, Finnish ones, for proof. Of course I'm not saying the rate of gun ownership is the only cause for murder rates, but giving potentially violent people the option to kill quickly and easily certainly doesn't improve the situation.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:58 (eighteen years ago)

That's all highly subjective. Someone trespassing on your property is not a good reason to shoot them and I think you'd have a hard ass time convincing a jury otherwise. Like I said upthread, using a gun is a last resort. That said, I'm not sure I can really agree with any 'sanctity of life' posturing when it comes to violent criminals, especially in light of the horrible thing that occurred yesterday.

xpost OK - what about driving tests? Do I believe we should have them? Sure. And sometimes I think we should have to renew them, too. Does that blow your mind, ledge?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:02 (eighteen years ago)

Where I live, and in most places, you'll have a very hard time buying a gun if you're a convicted felon or if you've ever been charged with domestic violence.

How hard is it in your area to buy a Glock 9mm and box of ammo for $500, right out the door?

6 weeks of safety training before licensing / 6-month licence re-ups / regular eye checkups... degrading? Tough fucking shit.

It's quite clear you have no interest in even considering the kind of changes that could lessen handgun murders/deaths/crimes of passion/etc., but the best you've got is that they might make you feel degraded?

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:03 (eighteen years ago)

Don't even get me started on taxation.

i can't imagine anyone in their right mind would get you started on taxation.

i'd rather stand in an airport in socks than wave a loaded gun around while wearing a bathrobe.

― estela, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:06 (eighteen years ago)

1. To answer your question, Ben, for me to buy a Glock 9mm and ammo at the place I usually frequent, I'd be subject to a tedious form and fingerprinting. I endure it every time because those are the rules. I don't have a huge problem with it beyond the usual Big Brother-ness of the government having my prints on file. But I got over that a long time ago.

2. If you read upthread, I am ALL FOR gun safety. I could teach the class myself, and would volunteer to do it any time. Six weeks is a long time to keep repeating 'don't point the muzzle at anything you don't want destroyed,' though. Who mandates this?

6 month license re-ups? No way, no how. Sorry.

Eye exams? Sure. But who are you going to exclude beyond the blind?

3. My 'feeling degraded' comment was in reference to airport security. And yes, I feel ashamed of my country when I'm standing barefoot with my pants falling down having to explain what a 'delay pedal' is to a troglodyte who barely finished high school.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:10 (eighteen years ago)

It's interesting that driving tests don't make you feel degraded, Manalishi, they totally did for me! I was like "I've been driving stick since I was 14!!" but they didn't care, they still wanted to see me back into a parking space. Bunch of officious jobsworthies. Still I'm glad they're doing that job because as my dad always says, he's not afraid of my driving, he's afraid of all the OTHER fuckers out there.

estela that's an interesting choice to consider.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:10 (eighteen years ago)

Tracer - agreed. And your dad is 100% right. I'm a good driver, but my wife would fail a driver's test today, I'm convinced.

Maybe I didn't feel degraded because I'd been driving less than a week when I took my test. I was lucky to pass, actually.

I think you should have to retake it every twenty five years.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:14 (eighteen years ago)

What are criminals afraid of? Burglar alarms? Dogs? Nope. They're afraid of some housewife in a bathrobe with a loaded and cocked .357.

― estela, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:15 (eighteen years ago)

I must be allowed to destroy things with as little interference as possible

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:17 (eighteen years ago)

Huh. I feel ashamed of my country right now, living in Europe* and having people from the rest of the world ask me why this kind of thing seems to happen an awful lot.

*(I did leave after the Bush re-election, Manalishi - which reminds me of an old offer you made on a thread long ago...)

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:27 (eighteen years ago)

what countries other than the US have the right to lethal weaponry in their constitution/social charter/whatevs?

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:28 (eighteen years ago)

lol, sometimes in australia people indignantly quote their constitutional rights but it's the us constitution they are quoting.

― estela, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:32 (eighteen years ago)

haha estela, so true. the australian community's almost total ignorance of the australian constitution is comical. but really it has nothing even approximating that (frightening imo) right to bear arms thing. it gives legislative power regarding defence to the federal govt, so i guess that would be who would make laws about militias and whatnot. pretty sure our gun laws are made by the federal legislature... though i suspect guns would fall within the 'dangerous goods' duty of each state's criminal code/law. even though guns are legal here, i gather their ownership and use is FAR more heavily regulated than in the US. i reckon we would sit somewhere between the UK and the US on this one. I have never ever seen a gun in australia that wasn't holstered to the hip of a policeman or licenced to a farmer to shoot kangaroos. i can't imagine anyone i know ever entertaining even the slightest notion of acquiring a fire arm due to some mentalist 'i must protect myself from the marauding hordes of burglars' hysteria. that stuff strikes me as utterly bizarre.

― gem, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:39 (eighteen years ago)

it's a global religion, our constitution

― am0n, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:45 (eighteen years ago)

"...due to some mentalist 'i must protect myself from the marauding hordes of burglars' hysteria"

What if I just wanted to own guns? What if I have a carry permit and never carry a gun? Why is this hard to understand?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:50 (eighteen years ago)

By the way, those marauding hordes do exist. In every city, in every district, they exist. I'm not saying you need to compile an arsenal to deal with the 'just in case,' but, shit, I'd rather have a gun than not, you know? I'm not telling you you have to have one.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:52 (eighteen years ago)

I can't help feeling that a lot of what has the antis on this board all stirred up is that they have to confront the fact that not every gun owner conforms to their stereotype of what gun owner is

yes, as i said above: milo and river wolf, with their well-reasoned, intelligent posts, did make me question why i believe what i believe. thought-provoking debate, challenging points of view: it's at times like that i really love ILX.

you, however, seem to be the control case; the stereotype to out-stereotype all stereotypes. are you actually ted nugent or something?

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:53 (eighteen years ago)

xpost - sorry dude, we obviously come from completely different cultural viewpoints, i'm afraid that a desire just 'to own guns' is completely beyond my sphere of comprehension. here i think the common view would be that any desire to own (and never use?) a weapon designed to kill living things just for the sake of it would be.... pretty unbalanced. i mean... what would be the point of that? what is aesthetically appealing about a lethal weapon? also you must have waaaaaaaay more crime in the US than we do, seriously, this paranoia about burglars is a bit bizarre to me.

― gem, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:54 (eighteen years ago)

a weapon designed to kill living things just for the sake of it would be.... pretty unbalanced.

Yes, but why?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:56 (eighteen years ago)

i'd rather stand in an airport in socks than wave a loaded gun around while wearing a bathrobe.

yeah but you gotta admit in the best of all worlds you'd get to do both at once

― Hans Rott, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:57 (eighteen years ago)

i suppose because it just isn't the norm for people to own guns here unless they have a real use for them, like they're guarding an armoured truck or they make a career out of roo-shooting. we don't generally seem to have the same worship for them that americans do, though no doubt there are some australians that are right into collecting them or whatever. also they're really dangerous and lots of people get hurt by them accidentally as well as intentionally, the only times i really remember reading about gunshot deaths and injuries is when kids have gotten hold of them and accidentally shot each other, and when cops have shot people in circumstances that they shouldn't have. i just can't see australians enjoying collecting something like that for the sake of it.

― gem, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:00 (eighteen years ago)

you, however, seem to be the control case; the stereotype to out-stereotype all stereotypes. are you actually ted nugent or something?

-- grimly fiendish, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:53 AM (5 minutes ago)

OK, now you've said this, explain it. What have I said that conforms to a 'stereotype' in your opinion? You don't know a thing about me.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:02 (eighteen years ago)

Well, to be fair, he does know that you're a simplistic dipshit.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:02 (eighteen years ago)

But go ahead, tell us more about your baffled, under-thought positions on politics and freedom, we're all really interested.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:04 (eighteen years ago)

Wang Dang, Trace. I'm the only one answering questions and making points this morning. My opposition on this matter has been largely limited to 'you're a tool, roger' and 'you're a simplistic dipshit.'

At the end of the day, though, I'm not trying to change your mind. Personally, I couldn't care less how you feel about guns. It's enough knowing that you don't think I should have them, and I always, always will.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:07 (eighteen years ago)

What have I said that conforms to a 'stereotype' in your opinion

pretty much everything?

the only thing i know about you is that you like guns. you really, really like guns. hellfire, you fucking love guns. you adore them. and you've got lots of them. and you're really good with them, and it's everyone else who's the problem. woah, you love guns. yes, sirree.

and if anyone dared interfere with your right to have all these guns, woah, you'd be cross. but you wouldn't, like, pull a gun on them, because you're the dude when it comes to guns. you're gun kid, woah yeah! guns guns guns, with a side order of guns.

did we mention guns?

still not sure why you like guns so much, right enough. or what day-to-day practical use they are to you. you've not really dealt with that.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:08 (eighteen years ago)

If we could please just bring the conversation back around to eco-terrorism and taxation.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:12 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sorry, grimly, I must've wandered into the Decsendents thread by mistake. I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss guns and gun control. What else would you like to know?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:12 (eighteen years ago)

listen the protocol is you ask three questions, we answer them, and you let us cross the bridge.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

I'll bite, Manalishi. I haven't called you any names, though I'll admit to thinking you sound really crazy with the creepy fetishy-talk. My question is - if a much more strict process for acquiring a gun was introduced (similar to what was detailed above), and that process would surely save lives in the long run (the crimes of passion/murders we've been talking about), would you still oppose those changes on principle?

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:18 (eighteen years ago)

Why should adults have to take a drivers tests? I don't know about you, Manalishii, but I believe in liberty over security.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:20 (eighteen years ago)

What else would you like to know?

i'll bite too. without recourse to the constitution, or your god-given right to tool up, or any societal/non-personal factors at all: can you tell us why you personally, as an individual, want to have let alone one gun but many of the things?

- what do they add to your life?
- what need do they fulfil?
- what emotion or feeling or fulfilment do they provide you with that a hobby such as ... i dunno, flower-pressing or embroidery wouldn't?

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:26 (eighteen years ago)

(i'm not, you'll note, calling into question your right to have the things. that's a given. i want to know the deeper reasons. lie back on the couch and talk to us.)

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:27 (eighteen years ago)

I'm reluctant to give an inch, but common sense has to prevail now and again.

lol

― deej, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:29 (eighteen years ago)

I'm from Massachusetts, never dealt with a gun in my life until maybe a month ago when I went to a shooting range in NH with a couple friends. None of us had really handled a gun at all and we wanted to understand what it was like.

We fired a Glock, a .44 Magnum revolver, an AK-47, and a fully automatic MP5. I got three things out of the experience:

1) In just under two hours, I went from being a little frightened to touch a Glock to comfortably handling an MP5. If you use your head handling a gun is easy and not a big deal at all.

2) That being said, I would never ever want to shoot anyone or be shot. Never. Can't emphasize that enough after ripping up a couple paper targets. Combined with the above point, I gained respect for guns while learning to not have a knee-jerk fear reaction to them.

3) I like loud noises, individual sports, and activities that require skill. I enjoyed the hell out of the range, and we all want to go back. It was a very relaxing activity in some sense--just you, the gun, and the target. If you like bowling or hitting golf balls it's kind of like that.

I don't know if I'd want to own a gun, and again I never, ever want to shoot a living thing, but I don't like the "please keep me away from guns forever 'cause they're scary" thing. Given that you can approach guns in a completely controlled environment, it's a pretty easy fear to deal with.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:36 (eighteen years ago)

Whoa, one at a time, boys!

"if a much more strict process for acquiring a gun was introduced (similar to what was detailed above), and that process would surely save lives in the long run (the crimes of passion/murders we've been talking about), would you still oppose those changes on principle?"

What process, exactly, will 'surely save lives' in the long run? This claim is absurd and I can't answer such an abstract question. This goes well beyond 'principle'

**********************************************

Why should adults have to take a drivers tests?

Old ones.

*********************************************

- what do they add to your life?

Fun, security, aesthetics, piece of mind.

- what need do they fulfil?

Same question.

- what emotion or feeling or fulfilment do they provide you with that a hobby such as ... i dunno, flower-pressing or embroidery wouldn't?

To you it would probably fill the same kind of need, it quells the same desires, like record collecting, which is also a habit of mine. Now, at least, I think you are beginning to understand. Flower presisng wasn't really something I ever endeavored to do, but I appreciate the comparison nonetheless. If you think of it as a hobby maybe you'll be less inclined to throw insults around. Yes?

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:39 (eighteen years ago)

Thank you call all destroyer. I agree with every point you make above. I also appreciate your intrepid quest to UNDERSTAND something you previously didn't, for better or worse. The rest of the board could learn a lot from you.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:41 (eighteen years ago)

funny how you go from constitutional right to bear arms and only way to completely protect yourself to what if you just wanted to own guns and think of it as a hobby

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:43 (eighteen years ago)

i've never been able to figure out how to kill someone with a Superchunk 7 inch, but I'm sure there's a way

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:44 (eighteen years ago)

play it again and again?

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

funny how you go from constitutional right to bear arms and only way to completely protect yourself to what if you just wanted to own guns and think of it as a hobby

-- RJG, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:43 AM (1 minute ago)

well, common sense has to prevail now and again

― deej, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

If you think of it as a hobby maybe you'll be less inclined to throw insults around. Yes?

yes and no. but thanks for your explanation, anyway.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:47 (eighteen years ago)

why will nobody understand my aesthetic appreciation of sarin and semtex. bastards just break in to my house and parade me in my boxers.

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:49 (eighteen years ago)

My cousin thought up an interesting solution to the health care crisis. He suggested that we create a two-year program for licensed doctors who can perform most of the routine tasks that don't require the advanced skill of a surgeon, for example. He went further to suggest that we should be allowed to sign a contract to forfeit our right to sue for malpractice.

In theory, this could lower health care services. But the law does not allow for this and our liberty is curtailed.

Why can't I enter into a contract with anyone I choose to provide health care services? Why can't hang a shingle that says, "Feel Lucky? Fluffy Bear Open-Heart Surgery Clinic. Only $200." I'll be honest about my education and experience and anyone of sound mind who signs a contract with me will get a really great deal on heart surgery. Why can't I enter into this kind of a business arrangement with anyone I want to? Why will I go to jail, even if I have an impeccable record of successful surgeries and live, satisfied customers?

The fact is that, with regards to practicing surgery, my liberty is being curtailed by the state. Is this OK? Why?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:52 (eighteen years ago)

RJG and deej - I'm just attempting to get through to you, since you seem so hell bent on arguing about it. I'm trying to approach this from an angle even a six year old might understand. How about...it's a hobby that is protected by the Constitution and shall not be infringed upon by PC commandos no matter what. Howzzat?

Conversely, all I know about most of YOU here this morning is that you're afraid of guns.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

I can't help feeling that a lot of what has the antis on this board all stirred up is that they have to confront the fact that not every gun owner conforms to their stereotype of what gun owner is.

Manalishi, I pretty much admitted this was true w/r/t river wolf, who I like and have hung out with a bunch. But you do conform to my stereotype of what a gun owner is.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

it's a stupid hobby

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

eat me

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

jaymc - maybe that's your problem and not mine.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

If it helps, I am also afraid of wild animals with big teeth and strong jaw muscles, spiked objects thrust towards my face, nuclear armageddon, and... a large proportion of the population being allowed to carry guns

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:55 (eighteen years ago)

every gun owner I've met in my life has been well-spoken and literate, so my personal stereotype is pretty far removed from Manalishi.

Manalishi is the stereotype that makes people afraid of guns and gun owners, because he's the kind of person who seems stoked about the prospect of killing somebody darker than him and getting away with it.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:56 (eighteen years ago)

Manalishi, you should collected Precious Moments figurines, they've never killed anyone.

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:57 (eighteen years ago)

a new game. what can "it's a hobby" not be used to defend.

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:58 (eighteen years ago)

To you it would probably fill the same kind of need, it quells the same desires, like record collecting, which is also a habit of mine. Now, at least, I think you are beginning to understand. Flower presisng wasn't really something I ever endeavored to do, but I appreciate the comparison nonetheless. If you think of it as a hobby maybe you'll be less inclined to throw insults around. Yes?

http://www.limitedweb.com/figurines/precious_moments.gif

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:58 (eighteen years ago)

the kind of person who seems stoked about the prospect of killing somebody darker than him and getting away with it.

Doesn't everyone dream of this? What, NO? Just...me, then, I guess. My fantasties usually involve a bare-handed chop to the windpipe, though, not so much firearms.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:59 (eighteen years ago)

I really didn't come here with the intent of sticking up for Manalishi and I'm not much of a libertarian, but seriously what the fuck?

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:59 (eighteen years ago)

WHOA, that's one hefty claim, Tombot! Have you even READ this whole thread? Not that I'd blame you for skimming given the girth of this spectacle, but Jesus. That's a heavy trip to lay on someone you don't even know, Tombot. I seem 'stoked' to 'kill' somebody to you??

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:59 (eighteen years ago)

you can't kill people that way it has to be with a loaded .357

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:00 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.tcffayetteville.com/Precious.jpg

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:00 (eighteen years ago)

uh yeah Manalishi you do and you should seriously consider the tone of your rhetoric if you'd rather people not think that

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:00 (eighteen years ago)

I have never ever seen a gun in ~~australia~~the u.s. that wasn't holstered to the hip of a policeman ~~or licenced to a farmer to shoot kangaroos~~. i can't imagine anyone i know ever entertaining even the slightest notion of acquiring a fire arm due to some mentalist 'i must protect myself from the marauding hordes of burglars' hysteria. that stuff strikes me as utterly bizarre.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:00 (eighteen years ago)

xpost You better call campus security, then, I guess. I mean, I AM a life member of the NRA and all. I guess that's tantamount to dragging someone from my truck to you, huh? Jesus.

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:01 (eighteen years ago)

the NRA is a bunch of small dicked morons

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:02 (eighteen years ago)

Some people need a handgun to feel like a "big man", can we just leave it at that?

haha xpost

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:02 (eighteen years ago)

I know and have known a number of gun collectors and gun owners who basically stockpiled weapons in their home and with the possible exception of Ally's dad making jocular comments vis-a-vis specific neighborhood dickheads I've never heard any of them brag about the effectiveness of their collection vs. burglars etc. as much as you have on this thread

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:03 (eighteen years ago)

carrying a gun seems so anti-democratic to me. one of the main points of democracy being that no-one person should have the final say so in anything. a gun is a sort of trump anti-democratic 'and i say X' device.

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:05 (eighteen years ago)

jaymc - maybe that's your problem and not mine.

I wouldn't disagree with you here.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:05 (eighteen years ago)

Don't backpedal, pal. Christ, this started out relatively amusing, occasionally enlightening, and largely (though expectedly) disappointing, but now I'm, like, bummed out.

If your hope was to banish me from this thread, you've done that. You should be careful about the kind of accusations you throw around.

How is it that I'M the pariah here? Moderators??

― Manalishi, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

cos you are the one that sounds gonzo to the rest. that's how it works

― Alan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

BANISH HIM

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

w/o getting in here too much (i've spent far too much time on here already the last few days): call all destroyer does make some good points. many people i have met personally are averse to firearms simply because they've never actually seen or handled one, and assume that they're all erratically dangerous. and, once they've actually fired a few, they're more comfortable with them. not necessarily in the social, everyone's-got-to-have-one sense, but at least they're not going to freak out if they discover that there's one in the house or room or something.

there is a strange tendency at both extremes of the "debate" to anthropomorphize guns--at one end, some imbue guns with malicious intent, calling them "evil" and "ready to kill" (I have actually heard people say this). At the other, they fetishize their ability to grant the holder a feeling of power (not really anthropomorphizing, but whatever). Really, they're just machines. Simple, bloody-minded machines that throw a piece of metal out one end. Recognizing this (and not just in the abstract sense) does not mean you have like them, or want them around, but it does help bring the discussion into more rational terms, maybe? like, if everyone is comfortable with guns being just things (and not evil killing machines or anti-robbery talismans or something), then the discussion around what to actually DO with them becomes a little less hysterical.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:07 (eighteen years ago)

River Wolf 8080.

(hah, first 8080 I feel lame)

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:09 (eighteen years ago)

You should be careful about the kind of accusations you throw around.
OR ELSE?

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:10 (eighteen years ago)

;_; Tom, I don't stomp on your dreams.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:11 (eighteen years ago)

having guns in your home to use against intruders seems a lot more rational to me (though i wouldn't do it) than the idea that concealed weapons are a useful form of defense. i've had a gun pointed at me twice, and in neither instance would it have mattered if i had my own - it's not like i could have said, "hang on for a minute" and had the guys wait while i produced my gun. also, even if there were some scenario in which that were possible, exchanging fire doesn't seem like the best idea.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

^^^^

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:14 (eighteen years ago)

And, while Manalishi has been a bit, uh, "strident," I am a little weirded out by how quickly everyone else has been to assume that he's a mouth-breather with a jones to shoot some fucking burglars. Yeah, the "cold dead hands" stuff is a little whacked, but seriously? You guys are very quick to assume that he's got a boner for some killing.

(...well, except for the CCW stuff)

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:15 (eighteen years ago)

my M-16 jammed with a live round in the chamber during my qualifying shoot, that shit was nerve-wracking as hell because I knew I had to clear it and get back to firing downrange in a fucking hurry or I'd not make the cut and have to be sent back for an extra week

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:15 (eighteen years ago)

Re: "if a much more strict process for acquiring a gun was introduced (similar to what was detailed above), and that process would surely save lives in the long run (the crimes of passion/murders we've been talking about), would you still oppose those changes on principle?"

Don't we kind of have to talk in abstractions about this kind of thing? I can give you stats (you know, the "Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide" kind of thing) *Source / New England Journal of Medicine) - but I imagine you have NRA-friendly rebuttal stats of your own.

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

and I feel no compunction to be polite or apologize for talking shit about Manalishi who's made it fairly clear he's more interested in ad hominems and showing us what a hard-nosed realist he is than actually having any kind of intelligent discussion

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

My guess is that in concealed carry permit states, for every prevented crime you have at least three dozen "Oh yeah, fuckface, well how about THIS! You're not talking so big now, are you?!" And I'd be curious how many shootings the latter leads to.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

I mean if the "hey everybody's let's be cool, we're just talking about keeping a few handguns around the house" crowd gets to say that the anti-gunners are really just living in a fear bred through ignorance (which may be true in some circles, but a quick look around here says otherwise), it's at least fair to wonder if the self-defense contingent of the pro-handgun crew are living in optimism bred through ignorance of their (non-)ability to actually use their handguns the way they think they will, when confronted with a crazy person or hardened criminal who is pointing a gun at them. Like lauren, I too have had guns pointed at me, and having a gun of my own would have improved the situation exactly 0, and in fact would have drastically increased the chances of violence and bloodshed.* The "peace of mind" argument strongly feels like delusional wishful thinking on the part of people who have never actually been in the sights of someone who threatened to shoot them.

* Without going into detail too much, at the police station after one of these events, the guy who owned the supermarket I was briefly in with said gun-wielding maniac, said "man, you should have told me! I always got a gun right here!" and slapped his ankle. "I woulda taken him out BOOM BOOM" and I was like "yeah, that's sort of why I didn't say anything to you."

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:23 (eighteen years ago)

So when you ultimately hear that this kid in VA got his gun legally (after your celebratory 'I told you so' following the word that the serial number was filed off... um, XX), does any part of you pause at all to think that maybe some kind of tougher sanctions/process could have kept this from happening?

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

Manalishi, how do you feel about it being mandated that guns are kept in a locked steel cupboard, of a certain standard, affixed to the fabric of the building and that ammo is kept in a separate case of a similar standard?

Because that would seem like a sensible precaution against children or, say, an intruder getting hold of your guns?

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:30 (eighteen years ago)

when do you take the guns and ammo out of the locked steel cupboards? just before you sit down in the armchair for your shift as lookout or when you hear the first unusual sound in the dark?

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

When you want to do something less daft than home defence with a gun like going hunting.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:50 (eighteen years ago)

doubt that'll appeal much to roger adultery's aesthetics

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, given that Manalishi's point rests more on being able to defend your home than being able to go hunting, having to keep your guns and ammo separate isn't likely to appeal.

(and, given Manalishi, surely anything to do with guns being mandated isn't likely to appeal)

― c sharp major, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

the guy who owned the supermarket I was briefly in with said gun-wielding maniac, said "man, you should have told me! I always got a gun right here!" and slapped his ankle. "I woulda taken him out BOOM BOOM" and I was like "yeah, that's sort of why I didn't say anything to you."

nothing saves lives like a shootout in a store full of people.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:56 (eighteen years ago)

Another point of clarification - taking a driver's test is not necessary for the ownership of a car, it's needed in order to operate a motor vehicle. The requirements mentioned above (training, renewal, etc.) are already in place for the perceived equivalent for gun owners (conceal/carry), and are in fact quite stringent. If you are trying to argue for ownership licensure with the same stringent requirements, Driver's licenses really aren't a functional analogue.

Again, I'm mostly trying to stay out of this because the level of hysterics on both sides make me uncomfortable, but I thought I'd throw that in.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:59 (eighteen years ago)

wait... jaymc's uncle built his own CANNON?

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:00 (eighteen years ago)

It's not that hard to do, really. Get some PVC pipe, a lantern igniter, some hairspray, and a potato and you can go to town.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:02 (eighteen years ago)

JJ doesn't that usually go hand-in-hand with regular vehicle inspection and mandatory insurance, though? I know it varies a bit from state to state but in order to keep driving your car you have to have insurance, registration, title, and the sign-off from a licensed garage that your car is safe to drive, right? Having the same things for guns shouldn't cause the 99% of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners too much bother I wouldn't think.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

wiring the lighter correctly in the chamber is a pain in the ass, though

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:07 (eighteen years ago)

i get the feeling that jaymc's uncle did more than rig up a contraption to fire a potato out of a tube, but who knows.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:11 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, to keep driving your car, you need all (or most, depending on the state) of these things. The reason for that is that you are taking your car into public and interacting with other people who have a right to be safe. The point I'm making is that the majority of gun owners rarely fire their guns (in some cases, not at all), and do not do so in public spaces. The comparable situation with guns is conceal/carry, which requires rigorous vetting and obligatory training.

xxpost

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:12 (eighteen years ago)

also, i wish i had that info when i still had roof access and a condo with terraces full of braying yuppies behind my building.

xpost

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:13 (eighteen years ago)

not to get all .xls but i think roger adultery and roger fidelity were 2 different guys

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:15 (eighteen years ago)

I didn't think so

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, that igniter thing suuuucks. My dad would stand out on the back deck and fire it onto the neighboring golf course, getting a good few hundred yards of range, laughing all the while.

I wonder whatever happened to that thing, anyway.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:18 (eighteen years ago)

John 8080, BTW.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:20 (eighteen years ago)

Most of the people doing this have spoken to Manalishi aka Roger Adultery aka Roger Fidelity before and are reacting to more than just his words on this thread.

You mean shit like calling the Virginia Tech shooter a "borderline mongoloid" in the other thread?

And no, Fidelty/Adultery are the same dude.

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

I like using a tennis ball and spraying it liberally with the aqua velva before loading, then you get a spinning fireball, the potato gun answer to tracer ammunition

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

I stopped reading the other thread; I'm talking solely about the way people are treating RF.

SNAP: TOMBOT, what about the resulting paste?

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:23 (eighteen years ago)

sweet, i hadn't heard of that one. That'd be good for 4th of July fun. What kind of range do you get with that?

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:24 (eighteen years ago)

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/04/gun_debates_aga.html

― caek, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

I really don't get this constant reassurance that gun-averse people would be more comfortable with guns if they just dealt with them a bit. Seriously: what in the world would someone like me gain from that? I don't have any interest[ in being comfortable with gun use! I don't ever intend to use one! The chances of a situation developing where I would want to use one -- like some kind of murderous bank holdup where an injured cop falls next to me, gun in hand, and OMG here's my chance to take the shot and save everyone -- not really something I expect to happen! And if someone pulls a gun on me, I think my gun-aversion will be pretty much situation-appropriate! So sure, I could go to a firing range, or take a gun-safety course, and get totally comfortable with them, but it would be largely pointless and make zero difference in my life, including in my level of trust in other people's gun-handling and gun-ownership. It's just ridiculous to imagine that being able to handle them oneself will make a person more comfortable with how common they are; there's no level of comfort you're going to achieve on the firing range that's going to make it so that lives don't end when people shoot one another.

So I dunno, a lot of the comfort stuff seems to me like the equivalent of saying "well if you just had sex with enough corpses, you'd get used to it, and be comfortable with a society in which everyone has sex with corpses."

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

I really don't get this constant reassurance that black person-averse people would be more comfortable with black people if they just dealt with them a bit. Seriously: what in the world would someone like me gain from that? I don't have any interest in being comfortable with black people! I don't ever intend to interact with one! The chances of a situation developing where I would want to talk to one -- like some kind of bank transaction where the teller is black and OMG I have to deposit my freelance check! -- not really something I expect to happen! And if a black person walks up on me, I think my black person-aversion will be pretty much situation-appropriate! So sure, I could go to an A.M.E., or take a African-American studies course, and get totally comfortable with them, but it would be largely pointless and make zero difference in my life, including in my level of trust in black people. It's just ridiculous to imagine that being able to interact with them oneself will make a person more comfortable with how common they are; there's no level of comfort you're going to achieve on the city streets that's going to make it so that lives don't end when black people are approved for mortgages.

So I dunno, a lot of the comfort stuff seems to me like the equivalent of saying "well if you just had sex with enough corpses, you'd get used to it, and be comfortable with a society in which everyone has sex with corpses."

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

(yes i am a bitch)

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think anyone is saying that, really. I think it stems from the frustration that the perception of guns as these instantaneous, ready-to-go-off-at-any-second devices does cloud the issue. I certainly wouldn't expect the greater understanding of a gun to make someone change their mind, but it's worth exploring the possibility that some of the more hysterical responses might be muted somewhat. Also, it bears repeating that despite what portrayals might rise from television and video games, shooting accurately (particularly a handgun) is difficult, and I think that sometimes isn't clear if you haven't been exposed to one.

I don't want anyone to feel compelled to go shoot a gun, but I also think that it's fair to expect that if you choose not to do so, you can't hold forth any sort of expertise on how "dangerous" they are, other than in a grander statistical sense.

Not directed at anyone, just responding to nabisco.

xpost haha

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:49 (eighteen years ago)

I don't want anyone to feel compelled to go get assaulted, mugged or taken hostage by someone with a gun, but I also think that it's fair to expect that if you haven't been, you can't hold forth any sort of expertise on how "dangerous" they are, other than in a grander statistical sense.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:51 (eighteen years ago)

i'm puzzled by the idea that guns aren't inherently "dangerous" - that it's only blind ignorance that makes people feel uncomfortable around them.

xpost

th otm

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

guns dont kill people, black people kill people

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

i mean, i'm a licensed driver and am often a passenger in cars and can handle one appropriately and know my road safety rules etc etc, but it doesn't take away from the fact that cars are dangerous. it's just a matter of risk/harm reduction.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

and luck.

― lauren, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

I'm talking specifically about the dangerous nature of the object/device itself, and meant the "grander statistical sense" to incorporate understandable fears of gun violence/muggings/etc., but I couldn't figure out a way to state that clearly.

many xposts

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

OK - so was I, JJ!

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:58 (eighteen years ago)

xpost stuff: John, I don't think anyone here has been at all hysterical here. And I think the "grander statistical sense" is the one most people are talking about, really: they're dangerous in that plenty of people get killed by them, and whether or not they go off at any moment, there's a significant number of gun-related accidents. Getting comfortable with them would make me slightly less edgy when there's one in the room with me, yes -- but my worries about US gun ownership aren't based on my personal in-the-room edginess, you know? Which edginess is fairly minor, and not so debilitating that I have any need to go "work" on it.

And just for the record, the "city dwellers" argument is a bit strange to me, too. It's true that in a crowded, well-policed city, you're much less likely to run into wild everyday situations where a gun might be useful (e.g., woodland bear attack or whatever) -- but I have also lived and spent time in very small towns, and I have to say, I was no more expecting gunplay situations to crop up there than I am in NYC. I understand the old rural-homestead pioneer-spirit "miles and miles from the tiny police station" rationale for gun ownership, and am all for people having basic rifles when cougars start prowling through their yards and whatnot, but I think that spirit has extended on into levels of urban and suburban civilization where they're not nearly as appropriate. And I really do wonder about the thing everyone's been asking Roger, the thing people always want to ask people with multiple guns, which is something like: what are you expecting? A home invasion? Mob violence? Post-apocalyptic survivalist free-for-all? The emergence of a totalitarian horror? Most of the potential answers tend to be kind of anti-society on some level or another. (Others just unreal, like the girl I knew whose father spent her college fund on heavy arms to combat a potential UN invasion.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:59 (eighteen years ago)

so anyway this happened yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two Secret Service officers have been injured in an accidental shooting outside the White House.

Tuesday's incident occurred in a security booth at the southwest gate.

Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce says one officer was injured in the leg and the other received a shrapnel wound in his face.

Bruce says the injuries appear to be non-life threatening. Both officers were taken to nearby George Washington University Hospital.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (eighteen years ago)

I suspect that a gun that wasn't inherently dangerous would not sell very well. Guns are inherently dangerous to anything in range and in front of the muzzle, that, is kind of the point.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (eighteen years ago)

gun enthusiasts with collections of different weapons typically are not so stupid as to keep them all loaded or even have appropriate ammunition around, you buy the rounds when you go to the range and get rid of them there. a bunch of empty guns in the house is no different to my perception than a big collection of guitars or synthesizers or whatever, honestly.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:04 (eighteen years ago)

then how do you explain the evergreen popularity of Nerf, ed

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

you have me there.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:06 (eighteen years ago)

wait... jaymc's uncle built his own CANNON

Haha, I like that you just caught this now. Yeah, he built a few and sold them over the Internet to the Civil War reenactment community. I'm not sure whether they were actually operational or not.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:06 (eighteen years ago)

then how do you explain the evergreen popularity of Nerf

a seething, barely sublimated or acknowledged hatred of one's co-workers?

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

I am eagerly awaiting my permit to conceal and carry black people.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

P.S. the edginess is not gun-specific, either! If I were drinking with friends and one of them pulled out a machete and slapped it on the table, that would make me nervous, too. It's less a matter of misunderstanding guns, and more a matter of recognizing a weapon when you see one, and knowing that the stakes and the care you need to exercise have just racheted up. (I'd imagine a gun safety course tells you the same thing: when the weapon comes out, you have to be more alert and more careful!) And of course compared to any other weapon, a gun tends to have the shortest leap from "everything's fine" to "ok something really bad and dangerous is happening now."

(xpost haha Tom yeah I understand gun-collecting on the level of car-collecting, just trying out different types, but seriously up in Michigan I met plenty of militia-type people who were genuinely stockpiling, and I imagine that's not a Michigan-specific phenomenon. I guess this is where gun-collecting meets survivalism, these people where they raid their homes and find practically revolutionary caches of weapons -- to be fair, usually illegal stuff in those cases.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

^^^ agreed. also, JJ and Tracer both otm.

and, fwiw, it's helpful to know who the stockpilers are because when the Rapture comes, they'll have all gone to heaven and you'll be the one with an armory at yr disposal for use against satanists and the undead.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

those arrows were for TOMBOT, btw

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

(Actually, I do think that they were operational, because I seem to remember him using one to fire a pumpkin or something.)

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

Some people who own multiple guns are collectors, pure and simple. I would venture to say that the desire to collect guns can come from many sources. There are certainly the militia types out there, but there are also people that are avid hunters, people who are into military history, people who enjoy the aesthetics of guns, and simply people that for whatever reason are simply interested in and enjoy them.

All hardcore collectors are seen as somewhat "off" to the general public, but being a gun collector does carry with it a higher level of scrutiny than other things due to the controversial nature of what they are into. Still, statements like

And I really do wonder about the thing everyone's been asking Roger, the thing people always want to ask people with multiple guns, which is something like: what are you expecting? A home invasion? Mob violence? Post-apocalyptic survivalist free-for-all? The emergence of a totalitarian horror? Most of the potential answers tend to be kind of anti-society on some level or another.

do make the argument more acidic than it needs to be, and do show a certain problematic bias that makes these arguments more difficult.

xxxxxxxxxxposts, and probably not vital anymore, but I spent a long time typing it.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

survivalist stockpiling is something I am not familiar with! I guess that's my point, that I know plenty of "gun nuts" but genuinely don't suspect any of them of being any more bonkers than my one friend's dad with the basement full of like 50 guitars or my other pal who amassed a boatload of antique synths and drum machines or dude who started buying $300 editions of books on ebay

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

I would also like a cannon as the squirrels in the tree outside my bedroom woke me up this morning and MUST BE DEALT WITH.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:15 (eighteen years ago)

being a gun collector does carry with it a higher level of scrutiny than other things due to the controversial nature of what they are into.

who would've thought that collecting things designed to kill people would invite more scrutiny than collecting baseball cards or comic books

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:16 (eighteen years ago)

nabisco, I think the argument about experience with and exposure to guns is directed mostly at the Freudians on this thread who have been screeching about the obvious pathology of the gun owner.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:17 (eighteen years ago)

guys my friends made a CARROT gun in college: same basic design as a PVC potato cannon, but with a small bore bit of metal piping and a piezo trigger. it could throw a baby carrot through drywall like no-one's business.

xp FB, yes

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:17 (eighteen years ago)

John, the problem is that Roger is a big cock and no one feels the need to be overly polite when talking to him.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

clearly if other students had been allowed to build their own carrot cannons they could have stopped this madman

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

how did this thread manage to regress into the stone age overnight?

ps roger who's the mongoloid now?

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

how would a piezo trigger work with one of these things?

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:25 (eighteen years ago)

it's just a barbeque piezoelectric trigger

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:27 (eighteen years ago)

that's the same thing I think kingfish was calling a "lantern igniter"

can we just standardize on "grill tit"

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:31 (eighteen years ago)

ok deal

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:32 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.texasfrightmareweekend.com/images/savini.jpg

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

Ah, true, but there are the two different ignition sources: you do have your twisty-knob thingee(what my dad used)

http://www.coleman.com/coleman/images/products/829B705T_70.jpg

vs the piezo bbq tit

http://img.tradekey.com/images/uploadedimages/products/5/3/A147187-20060313090153.jpg

If personal experience is any indication, the piezo is the better solution, as the twisty spark igniter would easily get covered in hairspray.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:36 (eighteen years ago)

oh we're talking grill tits here, for sure.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:36 (eighteen years ago)

no we're talking DOGTITS

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:39 (eighteen years ago)

Damn dog, where do you get grill tits anyway?

SNAP: u bitch

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:39 (eighteen years ago)

I'm just curious, is there anyone here who will argue that a gun is not an inherently dangerous thing?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:41 (eighteen years ago)

An unloaded gun with ammo seperately stored is not an inherently dangerous thing.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:42 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.netsport-magazine.com/images/bicep.jpg

GUN CONTROL NOW

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

back to something tombot said - the big difference between a basement of guitars and a basement of guns is that should there be a break-in the guitars have slightly less potential to case carnage elsewhere later on.

mah! xpostois

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

I meant to add /pedantic response] to my answer but you people are too fast for me.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:44 (eighteen years ago)

it depends on what they do with the guitars.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:47 (eighteen years ago)

Wait, Fluffy, look: I basically agree with you / Tom / John about normal collectory ways to be interested in guns, but you can't entirely shield that from people wondering or speculating about why. When people collect Precious Moments figurines, we call them big dorks. When people collect used panties from around the internet, we call them perverts. When people drive Hummers and smoke huge cigars, we joke that they have tiny penises. And so if you happen to collect deadly weapons, fired or bladed -- and especially if your interest is specifically in their deadliness* -- you're kinda gonna have to deal with people making assumptions about your interests in force, power, death, etc., right? Because we all know that the guitar collector is interested in MUSIC, not just the guitar as an object; and there's no reason for us to suddenly suspend that equivalency with guns.

(* = I guess I'm referring to the difference between a "can you believe the stopping power on this bad boy" collection versus a "this non-functional musket was actually used in the war of 1812!" collection.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:48 (eighteen years ago)

Because we all know that the guitar collector is interested in MUSIC, not just the guitar as an object

but this statement isn't actually true.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:49 (eighteen years ago)

yeah i had a roommate who owned a les paul that he claimed he was never going to play and he said he was going to sell for lots of money

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:50 (eighteen years ago)

Well if we're all going to be giant point-missing pedants, let's note that one Les Paul does not constitute a collection.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:51 (eighteen years ago)

true. but it was LITA FORD's LES PAUL

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:51 (eighteen years ago)

This isn't pedantic at all. Most hardcore guitar collectors are specifically interested in the guitar as object/investment, and the same can be attributed to many, if not most gun collectors.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:52 (eighteen years ago)

An unloaded gun with ammo seperately stored is not an inherently dangerous thing.

Why would one keep a gun under those conditions for the purpose of home protection?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:53 (eighteen years ago)

yeah I mean how many people on ILM actually give a shit about records? clearly only one or two at best

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

A bazooka with separately stored rocket-propelled grenades is not an inherently dangerous thing.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

let's note that one Les Paul does not constitute a collection.

yeah, it ain't no big thing

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:56 (eighteen years ago)

...okay, i think the idea that a gun stored apart from the ammo is still an effective home safety device (lol) is rooted in the presumption that you'll hear the dangerous gun-toting burglar (most aren't) before you actually confront them, giving you time to lock and load.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:56 (eighteen years ago)

i love the fact that if you tell nabisco he is batshit wrong about something it's "pedantic," as if we're the ones writing 7 paragraph missives about things we're totally unfamiliar with.

i've known several people who don't really care THAT much about music or much ability to actually play with guitar collections, my dad is one of them. he also has a gun collection! he's got one or two for his occasional hunting, and then a couple that are just object value, i don't even think he owns ammo for them.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

Well, most people who are keeping guns for the purpose of home protection are not expecting to rely on their lightning-fast reflexes in a time of crisis. By the time the imaginary armed criminal has suprised you in your home, you are most likely fucked, loaded gun or not.

xpost yep, what RW said.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

i mean i dunno maybe like 5 les pauls etc aren't really a collection either, maybe we're only talking guys with like 20 of 'em and that's what i'm just missing here. i'm sure it's something.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

Again, most gun owners really aren't angling for some quick draw McGraw fantasy, srsly.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:59 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco, there are collectors who are interested in the subject matter of their collections and there are collectors who are not. Your point is valid for the first group and invalid for the second.

Also DO NOT WANT to surprise fucking from armed criminal.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:59 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, that's what you always say.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

dan you are more polite than i am.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

I don't know, I'm feeling polite today!

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

(I didn't even get into the collector phenomenon where people who originally are interested in the subject matter of their collections get subsumed by their interest in the act of collecting; see for example anyone with more than 100 CDs.)

(Yeah I did just call ALL OF Y'ALL out)

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:03 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.nrastore.com/nra/images/detail/526detail.jpg

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:09 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco, I really don't get the assumption that because gun knowledge would have no immediate real-life application, it's inherently valueless. I've never been the victim of a crime, and I agree with most people in this thread who are saying that having a gun would be utterly worthless in the vast majority of dangerous situations. That being said, I did gain a very real appreciation for something I didn't previously understand and learned that a typical white/urban/liberal schmuck can handle a firearm just as readily as a gangbanger or right-wing hunting freak or whatever other cliche comes to mind. That does not make me more comfortable with the amount of guns out there or most of their real-world applications, but to come back to something River Wolf said before, holding a gun in your hand makes you understand that it's just a machine, and that what you do with it is a seperate conversation. If you're really sure that you wouldn't gain anything from the experience of handling a gun then that's cool, but I'm not sure how you can be certain of that.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:09 (eighteen years ago)

And so if you happen to collect deadly weapons, fired or bladed -- and especially if your interest is specifically in their deadliness* -- you're kinda gonna have to deal with people making assumptions about your interests in force, power, death, etc., right?

Ok, two examples I can think of collectors:

1. My father collects 'cowboy action' guns - single-action revolvers, old lever guns and a couple of double-barrel 'coach' shotguns. He has other, modern, guns but those are pretty much what he buys on a (too-regular, if you're my mother) basis. His interests are sport (cowboy action competitions are huge), target shooting and history/aesthetics. The last rifle he bought was a near-replica of the buffalo rifle from some movie (Quigley Down Under) he loves.

2. I don't know if I'm a collector per se, but I like older double-action revolvers (think film noir, Dashiell Hammett), 1911s (think The Wild Bunch) and WWII and before military-surplus rifles. Again, aesthetics, history and the guns as objects.

Why don't I just own a single .22 for target shooting and a bunch of non-firing replicas? One completely irrational reason: the bigger calibers are much, much more fun to shoot.

In my mind it's not that different from people who collect guitars (as noted) or modernist furniture or spend a shitload of money on customizing their car. (With the obvious exception that guns can kill and need to be kept in safes and so on.)

There are, undoubtedly, people (like Roger) who are obsessed with the power they now wield, but that's never been a factor with anyone I know who shoots.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

if Manalishi ruins the thread again I'm just going to start posting photos of guns I find aesthetically-interesting.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

holding a gun in your hand makes you understand that it's just a machine, and that what you do with it is a seperate conversation

Isn't that stating it a bit strongly? I mean, that's true of anyphysical object isn't it?

Is there anything difference between a gun and a toaster, because I could be bludgeoned to death with a toaster.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:14 (eighteen years ago)

Ally my world experience is not so limited that I'm "totally unfamiliar with" the idea of collecting things! I'm aware of the fact that people collect things they may not have STRONG involvement with, but I don't think it's odd to suggest that people's choices of what items to collect are not completely random and thoroughly unconnected from their interests. There are a million things a person can collect "as objects" or "as investments," from antique furniture to wine to guitars to motorcycles to guns. The ones they choose to actually collect would seem to say something about what they're interested in and drawn to, and apart from people who enter into collecting something PURELY as an income stream ("I collect tech stocks!"), even the guy who collects guitars but doesn't play or listen to loads of records is probably dedicating some amount of his brainspace to thinking about a particular musical instrument and what it does, and thinking of it as cool, even if it's just socially cool ("rock'n'roll!" etc.).

P.S. the post you're responding was ONE PARAGRAPH

C.A.D.: I wasn't saying the experience would be "valueless" -- it could be really valuable to some people -- just that it wasn't really a priority for me. (Hence saying my edginess around guns wasn't so debilitating that I felt like I needed to go get over it.) I'm sure it'd be an interesting learning experience; it's just not really high on my list!

P.S. fuck you 10x for your discovery that white people can handle guns, asshole

Milo: your family's collection sounds like the kind of perfectly normal interest in guns and gun history that I'm saying is 100% cool with me. Also I loved Quigley Down Under too. I didn't even say having a hardcore firepower collection wasn't cool with me, just that at some point people may inevitably think "hey, this guy seems rather interested in DEADLY WEAPONS and that weirds me out a little." I'm gonna try to stop arguing in defense of that point because I feel like in any other context this would be totally obvious, and anyway no matter how we hash it out here, people are still totally going to think that.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:16 (eighteen years ago)

I think c.a.d.'s invocation of white liberals vs. rednecks/gangbangers was meant to be a deflation of those stereotypes, to be fair. i.e. white liberals SOMETIMES let condescending attitudes toward gunowners cloud their thinking about guns.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

Chill out broseph, I speak entirely self-deprecatingly.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

YAY SOMEONE GOT IT.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

more snapshots from my neighborhood

East Palo Alto police arrested two local teens Monday night in connection with Friday's shootout that left one woman dead and another seriously injured on the 2700 block of Fordham Street.

Police believe 18-year-old Absalom Tuimavave and a 17-year-old were firing on each other when the juvenile accidentally shot and killed his friend, 19-year-old Melevea Fifita of East Palo Alto, [b]whom he was defending ... Tuimavave allegedly injured 21-year-old Seu Tuim-avave, his sister from San Francisco, whom he was defending, in the pelvis with a stray shotgun blast.

so ... dudes rush in, with guns, to break up a happy slappy GIRLFIGHT on the street, and the one shoots his own girlfriend and the other shoots his own sister.

don't let this be you, people

(see: nonwhite gangbangers aren't necessarily well-trained with their weapons either)

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

~~my neighborhood~~

actually just work neighborhood, i don't live there

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

holding a gun in your hand makes you understand that it's just a machine, and that what you do with it is a seperate conversation

Isn't that stating it a bit strongly? I mean, that's true of anyphysical object isn't it?

Is there anything difference between a gun and a toaster, because I could be bludgeoned to death with a toaster.

I think that it isn't stating things strongly, because any argument otherwise implies intent to an object, which is flawed, and leads to the sorts of presumptions that keep popping up on this thread about the psychology of people who own/collect guns.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

I feel like in any other context this would be totally obvious, and anyway no matter how we hash it out here, people are still totally going to think that.

I don't think it's that obvious, but I don't think most people do a very good job of judging other people based on the little information they have about them.

There are so many things that can factor into one's motivation for a gun collection.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

x-post to JJ--That's more or less what my little highly-misinterpreted anecdote was getting at. Holding a gun, I realized that I had a choice of what to do with it. I could kill somebody or I could shoot the target. If I extend that choice to all gun owners, and if I believe (as I still try very hard to) that there are a lot of basically rational people out there, gun possession took on a different kind of meaning.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

As logically obvious as that is, I had never really thought about it until that moment.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

hysteria: the girl that lived with my roommate before me basically moved out because she was uncomfortable with the fact that he had a gun that was locked up in his closet.

like, was fine living there before, moved out once she discovered that he had a .22 varmint rifle used almost exclusively for shooting cans every, oh, i don't know, 5-6 months.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

then again, he's also pretty irritating sometimes, so maybe i'm not really being fair

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

I was going to mention the movie-watching as a far more life-threatening situation.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Some of you are coming close to pretending there's not intent in the design of an object, though. I mean, it's not just "a machine," it's "a machine designed to injure humans and animals from a short distance." Agreed that objects themselves don't have intent, but let's not stand around with an egg whisk saying "it's just an object, I could sculpt with it, or use it to store orange juice."

(C.a.d., for the record, I actually do have faith that the vast majority of gun owners in this country aren't ever going to do anything crazy with them; I've lived in places where everyone hunts and known countless rational gun owners, both sport shooters and home-defense holders. So yeah, I don't seek reassurance on that point; I worry more that given how many guns are floating around this country, even a "vast majority" of sensible still leaves a really significant population of not-sensible.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

Ojects are designed for a purpose and guns are designed to be held in the hand and propel projectiles at high speed in the direction that the gun is pointed.

The projectile will damage whatever it comes into contact with.

river wolf, I completely respect the gun owners I know and I've fired a few guns myself, but I don't think the girl was hysterical.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, why do we go to war with guns instead of cotton balls wielded with deadly intent?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

oh she was, trust me, but she's a pretty irrational person anyway, and i was being unfair on purpose.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

wait.. you DON'T use cotton balls!? /canadian military

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

I'm guessing the first knives were designed with the intent of stabbing living things with them, but when I see a dude with a bunch of Wustofs on his kitchen table, I don't back slowly towards the door.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

i sit down and wait for him to prepare me dinner

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

Right, so... we should wait for the guns that are used to make scrambled eggs?

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.davedouglass.com/illustrator/SALADSHOOTER.jpg

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

xpost - Actually pretty sure blades were used first for cutting things in parts, but anyway you're kinda fudging: seeing as you can't cut your steak with a gun, a better analogy would be the machete on the kitchen table I mentioned earlier. And like I said, if someone silently put a machete on the table, I would totally be alert, weirded out, and very attentive to what was happening.

Haha, Fluffy, egg whisks are designed to be held in the hand and used to agitate liquid-like substances to produce various states of emulsion, suspension, or mixture -- but mostly to whisk eggs, you know? I'm trying to think of what you could claim the whole history, engineering, and refinement of most gun-types are for, if not for shooting people/animals, but there's not much there: from low-power rifles for practice shooting to range targets with, umm, pictures of people on them, it's all at least a very slight abstraction of the original point. (But fair credit to that realm of competitive long-range rifle shooting that actually manages to feel like a pure technical challenge, like guns were invented for that competition and people only figured out later that they could fight with them.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

I mean this doesn't hit on the scary things about guns to any of you guys? Most other common weapons--say, knives or axes--are designed to do more than kill people/animals (including skinning those animals, preparing dinner, cutting string or trees or whatever).

Maybe I don't know that much about guns, but I can't think of a single other use they might have besides killing living things. (Blasting the lock off a door?)

And to say "I like shooting at cans"--well, why not get a BB gun? I mean, if all you want to do is shoot projectiles at immobile/nonliving, what's the matter with an airsoft or a Red Rider?

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

(Single other use besides the competitions that Nabisco talks about, I mean, which are as he points out abstracted from shooting living things)

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

how about bbq?

http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-06/hand-gun-shaped-grill.jpg

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think anyone has denied that guns are only designed for killing things

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

Knives kind of scare me, too, to be honest.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

No--they haven't--I'm just wondering out loud why some people are OK with that and it scares the shit out of others.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

(xpost to rw)

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

To keep the irony from growing too thick in here for the people who know me IRL (re: nabisco's last post), I was actually a competitive high-power rifle shooter of the exact type he speaks of, which is a considerable part of my stance on this issue.

many xposts

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:00 (eighteen years ago)

nabisco, I was making the same point as you, re the nature of the tool, but I was being a little more general. I wasn't arguing with you.

way xpost

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

well, and this is a bit disingenuous, BUT: guns are, I guess, designed to throw little bits of metal very fast. which happens to be very good for killing.

like, what do you guys think of archery?

xp no wai

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:02 (eighteen years ago)

i could really get into archery, i think

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.qwipster.net/weatherman.jpg

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

I guess I just grew up with mentally ill people instead of guns so I'm a little more disinclined to be relaxed around tools that are created to destroy whatever is in front of them, relying solely on the intent of the operator.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

HI I'M JOHNNY KNOXVILLE AND THIS IS 'THE GREAT ILX GUN CONTROL DEBATE'

-- ghost rider, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:05 PM (2 minutes ago)

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

lock it up

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

Well, now that I've outed myself on the issue, I'll say this. I NEVER thought of the targets as anything other than targets, not substitutes for anything (by the way, not all targets are shaped like Osama Bin Laden). It takes supreme concentration, you have to be able to slow down your heart rate to keep your pulse from interfering, and various other things that actually helped me to be a much calmer and healthier individual than I would be otherwise.

To me and almost everyone else I knew who was a serious competitor, it had nothing to do with firepower or violence or anything of the sort. It was like an incredibly intricate and physically demanding game of pool.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think you need to defend yourself, dude!

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

"I'm still on! I'm still on!!"

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.archeryhaven.com/Archers/Pictures/GeenaDavis.jpg

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

No, I'm not defending myself, I'm just willing to offer myself (yay me!) as an example of how the assumptions people make about guns and gunowners and whatever can be completely wrong-headed, and that's why arguments like this usually suck.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

Is that N Cage?? Because raowrrrrrrr.

STEP OFF GEENA DAVIS, SHE'S MY GAL.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

xpost - Actually pretty sure blades were used first for cutting things in parts

blades came from spearpoints and arrowheads, and all tools descend from weapons, just ask the monolith

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

spearpoints and arrowheads come from chisel-type things used to scrape the fur off the meat, which in turn come from pointy rocks used to bludgeon animals.

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:20 (eighteen years ago)

also don't forget no handguns = no industrial revolution

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

guys, archery

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

To me and almost everyone else I knew who was a serious competitor, it had nothing to do with firepower or violence or anything of the sort. It was like an incredibly intricate and physically demanding game of pool.

Obviously, you know that I don't think anything to the contrary. I just feel that a gun is an incredibly dangerous weapon that can also be used in non-violent sport.

Let's be clear, I like firing guns. What's more, I enjoy playing paint ball and laser tag, which, psychologically speaking, is more fucked up because I am actually shooting projectiles at live people, emulating the act of killing them , whereas, in competitive shooting, the activity is almost completely removed from any sense of violence.

That said, I would be a lot more at ease around someone handling a paint-ball gun than someone handling an actual fire-arm.

As an aside, I wouldn't try to whisk eggs with a paint-ball gun either.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

killing animals was originally done with hands and teeth

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, sorry Fluffy, the xpost pileup made me misread you back there. Also John, I think what with the Olympic imprimatur and all hardly anyone is at all uncomfortable with your kind of shooting -- some people might say "gun owners" too generally when they're thinking of specifics like handguns and semi-automatics, but if you clarify sport and hunting rifles I think even most gun-averse people have no problem.

I was thinking about archery back there: there's one that history has abstracted successfully. Or anyway bowhunting is very "I'm hunting (somewhat) traditionally," and one-on-one people-killing wasn't ever a focus (or anyway not so much as you and bunch of others firing volleys into a crowd). People collect some wicked modern crossbows, I guess, and I've seen a few news stories where some crazy goes after someone with a bow, but something about it seems fairly whacked-out and non-intuitive. Maybe that's to the archer's benefit -- I'd be more scared of someone coming at me with a bow than a gun, if only cause I wouldn't imagine the gun guy making jerky out of me.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

G Davis might be my favorite Amazon.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:25 (eighteen years ago)

xpost yes obviously, tom - but which came first - tool to kill animals or tool to scrape meat? i know it is under debate, i think the last thing i read said animal-killng came before meat-scraping but i'm not an anthropologist.

hey what do you all think of regulating 1st person shooter video games as tightly as p0rnography??

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:26 (eighteen years ago)

Archery looks like fun, but it's even more difficult to find a place to practice that than shooting for some reason.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:27 (eighteen years ago)

also i thought the new thinking was that neanderthals and cro-mags and early men spent much more time foraging than hunting, so maybe acorn-smasher was an even earlier tool than monkey-smasher

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.selfdefensesupply.com/catalog/images/acu482pc.jpg

blowgun resurgence starts now

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

w/r/t abstraction: archery's been successful simply because it's inefficient, now, for mass killing. when we invent laser guns or whatever people will think of sport shooting the same way they think of kyudo

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

It seems that it would make sense to mention the fact that there are people with the same feelings/attitudes as me involved in competitive handgun shooting, so trying to separate long-guns from handguns along those grounds isn't going to work either.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:34 (eighteen years ago)

John, I'm not saying this is necessarily a legitimate distinction (or advocating it), but of course the reason people are more comfortable with rifles is that their design and purpose is less suited to sudden aggressive violence: the style of use trends slightly more toward careful, deliberate concentration. (That's less an argument from me and just saying it makes sense as people's perception -- I imagine they'd tell you people can get their shooting kicks with rifles, so they wouldn't be THAT much deprived by not doing it with handguns.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:43 (eighteen years ago)

that's weak nabisco.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:46 (eighteen years ago)

the reason people are more comfortable with rifles is that they are harder to conceal.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:47 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, sorta weak sauce there: i mean, get one ar-15

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:48 (eighteen years ago)

too late!

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:49 (eighteen years ago)

we were just having a discussion of how if guy had been armed with a rifle instead of a handgun it'd be more likely to have a kill count approaching 50 instead of 33 and a lot fewer in the hospital

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:50 (eighteen years ago)

Not sure that's entirely true - there are a lot of variables (ie how were they killed, distance and so on) - and it would have been much more difficult for him to get across campus carrying a rifle without anyone noticing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

the getting across campus thing is the key here. i'd rather not really get into the rest.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

There are many legitimate uses for explosives, but we regulate them heavily. I'm sure this makes things difficult for many people, businesses and enthusiasts alike. Certainly, I am not at liberty to create or use explosives in any but the most exceptional circumstances and under close scrutiny by the state.

If there is sufficient reason (and I am not necessarily saying that there is), public safety would outweigh the individual liberties of potential gun owners/users.

I'm not for eliminating guns, but just because people have legitimate uses for guns does not necessarily mean that the argument is closed.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:56 (eighteen years ago)

I'm just referring to people's perceptions of sport/hunting rifles here, not anything approaching assault rifles or whatever. Maybe I'm just gun-ignorant on this issue (happy to be wrong), but it seems like the types of rifles no one has any issues with are hard to conceal, bulky to hold, take slightly more situating yourself before firing, etc. -- i.e., rifles developed for longer-range situations where you have time to prepare a single, precise shot (e.g., hunting)? Whereas handguns can be deadly very quickly at close range? Anyway, point being it seems like people without lots of gun experience (right or wrong) are comfortable thinking of gun use in that first mode, and get uncomfortable with the second (even if handgun users are every bit as careful and deliberate as a sharpshooter -- just talking about impressions of the weaponry here).

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:58 (eighteen years ago)

the guys at work had to keep v v close tabs on their shots, as well as igniters, or else the ATF (i think?) would come a-knocking

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:59 (eighteen years ago)

This is sort of a moot point though, isn't it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but sport rifles are designed for sport shooting, not for killing people. Right?

So comparing a handgun and a sport rifle is sort of specious if we're going down this object-use-design route. I'm more afraid of handguns than I am of rifles not because of the size or how long it takes to load or aim or anything, but because people don't buy handguns to compete in the Olympics. They buy handguns to kill people.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:03 (eighteen years ago)

Part of the competition I was talking about was a round where you fired 10 shots in 60 seconds into a target from 200 yards away with the highest level of accuracy/point-scoring occuring in a 3 inch center circle. This was also with iron sights (no scope or magnification) and I did it with a bolt-action rifle (to clarify, this means that between each shot, you had to actuate the reloading mechanism by hand).

So, no, "deadliness" outside of concealment should not be used as a discerning factor here.

xpost max, did you even read what I wrote a few posts ago about competetive handgun shooters?

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

Oops--sorry, I didn't.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

Charles Whitman used a rifle and until recently, held the record for school shootings.

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

They buy handguns to kill people.

If you're concerned about defending your home or your family, you buy a shotgun to kill people. Your grandfather's old duck shotgun is rather more effective than any handgun in existence when it comes to killing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:06 (eighteen years ago)

As a separate issue, what do people think about conceal and carry?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

well, my dad's got one, as do a handful of buddies from high school

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:08 (eighteen years ago)

but i'm not that into it

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:08 (eighteen years ago)

My parents both have licenses, neither carries. I don't have any particular desire to even get the license.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09 (eighteen years ago)

What is the purpose of being able to carry a loaded handgun around town?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09 (eighteen years ago)

Defending yourself against ~~black people~~robbers.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:10 (eighteen years ago)

John, since you seem to know something about it--are the handguns used in competitive handgun shooting different from regular market handguns? My understanding is that sport rifles are different from other kids of rifles, does the same hold true of handguns? I'm trying to come to grips with why I'm so nonchalant about rifle shooting and so freaked out by handguns.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, they are max

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

elaborate grips, smaller bore (generally), better sites, etc.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

Does carrying a handgun ultimately increase or decrease the safety of a) the licensee and b) the general public?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

(said mockingly, obviously)

My mother has a bad habit of shopping at Wal Mart after midnight (dark parking lot, lots of places to hide) and has been harassed for money at various car washes and stuff before. I would be totally on board with her carrying a gun if she were willing to practice more often. As it is, I think she's more likely to endanger herself or someone else if she ever had to actually shoot.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:13 (eighteen years ago)

<i>Does carrying a handgun ultimately increase or decrease the safety of a) the licensee and b) the general public?</i>

In the US, it depends what study you look at, what your definition of safety is, etc. Backyard pools to thread, pls.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

Ugh I can't figure it out. There's something so casual-seeming about handguns, I guess--like you can just raise up your arm and blow someone's head off. Not that that's not true with rifles as well; it all just seems so easier with a handgun. But I don't really know dick about guns, so I'll acquiesce.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

John, since you seem to know something about it--are the handguns used in competitive handgun shooting different from regular market handguns?

Depends on the competition.

'Bullseye' is a marksmanship game often played with .22 pistols that have scopes on them. Stand on the line, shoot at a target 25-50 yards away for accuracy.

'Practical Shooting' (google IDPA or IPSC) is half marksmanship/half movement - moving from station to station shooting cardboard or steel targets for time and accuracy. These games use normal 'defensive' calibers, and can either be highly modified race guns (unlike anything you'll ever see used in defense or offense) or they can be shot with the pistol you just bought, depending on the class.

There's also '3-Gun' competition, where you pretend you're Jack Bauer and shoot at a course of fire with a pistol, a shotgun and a rifle (usually an AR-15).

There are also rifle competitions that use .22s and competitions that use sniper rifles and competitions that use AKs.

and other types of pistol/revolver competitions

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

Does anyone think that a loaded gun (in the presence of human beings with appendages, who are not in comas; etc) is not inherently dangerous?

I mean, that's the point of conceal and carry, right? To be dangerous? (to bad guys and hopefully not accidentally or in a fit of passion to good guys).

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:19 (eighteen years ago)

no handguns = no industrial revolution

this is close, but if James Burke had it right, it was musket rifles was did it.

But it's a minor point so let's carry on

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:21 (eighteen years ago)

the point of conceal and carry in most states is for people to be able to move a gun from one place to another, loaded or not, without being arrested. that's basically the truth. we're talking about the simple act of buying an antique rifle at a gun show in some cases.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

'Practical Shooting' (google IDPA or IPSC) is half marksmanship/half movement - moving from station to station shooting cardboard or steel targets for time and accuracy. These games use normal 'defensive' calibers, and can either be highly modified race guns (unlike anything you'll ever see used in defense or offense) or they can be shot with the pistol you just bought, depending on the class.

There's also '3-Gun' competition, where you pretend you're Jack Bauer and shoot at a course of fire with a pistol, a shotgun and a rifle (usually an AR-15).

See, this shit doesn't make me feel like the competitions have been "abstracted" away from killing.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

depends on how abstracted from normal life you consider Chuck Norris movies.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:24 (eighteen years ago)

Well yeah, not to be an ass but the presence of lots of things is inherently dangerous.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:29 (eighteen years ago)

kingfish i said handguns because samuel colt's insistence on interchangable parts was for his pistol designs.

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:30 (eighteen years ago)

Whew, I'm glad Max is here to kinda share my perceptions on these types of weapons. And guys, I want to be really clear that these are just "perceptions" we're talking about, and I know they're based on not being super-familiar with the varieties of rifles that can be super-deadly, etc. I mostly just wanted to explain why there are people in the world who hear "I just want a gun for hunting / targets" and imagine a rifle with a wood stock and think "sure, no problem," but then balk when it comes to handguns.

BTW, John, your speed and accuracy with a bolt-action rifle are actually reassuring to someone with those perceptions, because your potential deadliness would be based on skill, experience, training, and practice! Whereas -- again, correct me if I'm wrong -- with lots of handguns there's a much lower bar, where a person without skill or training could probably do a lot more damage.

I dunno, though, I'll admit my lack of knowledge and ask you guys honestly: setting aside all major exceptions, isn't the average rifle a lot more of an "intentional" / "skilled" / "purposeful" tool than the average handgun? Those terms are all vague, but hopefully you know what I'm getting at -- something about having to take a second and think about what you're doing.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:33 (eighteen years ago)

not really, nabisco! as i've said before: handguns are very hard to shoot accurately. however, that might actually make them more dangerous, since strays become a very real concern

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

Handguns are much more difficult to shoot accurately than rifles. That's why we equip soldiers with M-16s.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

cf most (i'd wager) innocent deaths in urban shootings

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco, the AK-47 I fired was semiautomatic, with a 30-round clip and the kickback of a friendly punch on the shoulder. It seemed WAY easier to handle than a glock or revolver in terms of aiming/hitting a target at any sort of distance. My guess is that the size, weight, and stability of the shoulder stock stabilize the gun quite a bit when you aim and fire. I would like to hear from the more experienced shooters on this point, though.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

That's pretty much it exactly.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:39 (eighteen years ago)

automatic weapons, particularly AKs, are the great levelers (...so to speak): pretty inaccurate, high rate of fire, indiscriminate

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:39 (eighteen years ago)

Well, I'm a very accurate shot with a rifle, and I'm terrible at handgun shooting (like, totally inept, can't hit the broad side of a barn terrible) so I'd say that it is almost essentially based on training, not built-in lethality.

The gun I used in competition was a completely unmodified bolt action rifle built in 1913, and in fact high level shooters tend to eschew semi-automatic firearms for longer range shooting because they are less accurate due to the physics of siphoning off some of the explosive pressure to actuate the reloading mechanism.

xpost i'm kind of skimming the entervening responses before this so I don't get the dreaded endless xpost thing going on, so let me know if I missed something.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:40 (eighteen years ago)

high level shooters tend to eschew semi-automatic firearms for longer range shooting because they are less accurate due to the physics of siphoning off some of the explosive pressure to actuate the reloading mechanism.

rangefinders v. SLRs, go

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:41 (eighteen years ago)

i don't know why that came to mind.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:42 (eighteen years ago)

he point of conceal and carry in most states is for people to be able to move a gun from one place to another, loaded or not, without being arrested. that's basically the truth. we're talking about the simple act of buying an antique rifle at a gun show in some cases.

OK, that makes a lot of sense.

Am I wrong in understanding that there are different types of laws, some of which are a little more liberal, that include keeping a loaded gun in a holster, and others that are more specifically designed to account for transport from one location to another?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

There are many legitimate uses for explosives, but we regulate them heavily. I'm sure this makes things difficult for many people, businesses and enthusiasts alike.

LOL, explosive enthusiasts!

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:45 (eighteen years ago)

Well yeah, River, I'm counting precision in the "intentional/considered/purposeful" category for rifles! I guess that might kinda be cheating. I'm just thinking I'd rather be in a room where a fight broke out and there was a rifle on the wall than a handgun on the table. But hahaha maybe I'm ill-informed, and will have to totally rearrange my social life!

Anyway I won't argue with you guys, since you know this stuff way better than me, but I do suspect that accuracy might sometimes be a red herring -- or at least people fear handgun violence happening to them at such a close range that accuracy's not a major issue. (A range that might be too close for a long rifle!) I'm surprised by the talk of M-16s and AK-47s, too -- I was asking about the average privately owned rifle in the US! I mean, is the average privately owned rifle really anything like those weapons? I'd have assumed the bulk of them out there are deer-hunter type things!

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:45 (eighteen years ago)

In Texas you have to have a permit to carry a handgun concealed. You can't carry a handgun in the open walking around. You can carry a loaded handgun in your car if you are 'travelling.' You can also carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in open sight in your car. You can carry any of the above unloaded in your car.

Gun laws be somewhat complicated.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

Oh they are, nabisco! Though, a quick search online will turn up loads of places where AKs and AR-15s (the civilian, semi-automatic m16) are readily available.

plus, at least with an ar-15, it's not terribly difficult to convert it to an (illegal) automatic.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:47 (eighteen years ago)

or so i've heard

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:47 (eighteen years ago)

I now remember my rather conservative dad wanting a CCW permit a few years back, sometime after Michigan began allowing him. And he was a teacher at an inner city school in Flint. I have no idea if his Rush- & Fox News-fed brain begin rev'd up into a total state of fear or what, or if he actually went thru with getting the license or not.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:48 (eighteen years ago)

this is a race gun, BTW - http://www.stiguns.com/guns/GrandMaster/images/GrandMasterRedMain06_800w.jpg

I mean, is the average privately owned rifle really anything like those weapons?

The fastest-selling type of rifle in the US is the AR-15 - basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16 or M-4 used by the military and police. I'm sure that added up, other rifles eclipse it, and the most common in existence are bolt-action rifles, but semi-auto 'scary' rifles are not at all uncommon.

plus, at least with an ar-15, it's not terribly difficult to convert it to an (illegal) automatic.

It's very, very difficult. In one part because of the current design of most AR-15s (if it feasible, makers would go to jail for aiding and abetting and so on). Also because the parts to convert an older AR-15 (when it was possible) to auto cost about $5-10k (and presumably more on the black market).

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

no kidding! i thought it was a simple, filing job. nevermind.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:52 (eighteen years ago)

LOL, explosive enthusiasts!

I'm glad somebody noticed that. I would totally love to blow shit up as a hobby. How awesome would that be. "I'm gonna go out to the demolition range and try and blow a VW bus into the target area." Dudes, like Bocce ball.

Also, I keep bugging John to go with me to the firing range. When is that gonna happen, dude?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:53 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=9937&query=retrieval

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

that was the one thing i really wanted to be allowed to do ski patrolling: throw bombs. but i wasn't allowed :(

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:55 (eighteen years ago)

I would totally love to blow shit up as a hobby. How awesome would that be. "I'm gonna go out to the demolition range and try and blow a VW bus into the target area."

um, I have totally done stuff rather similar to this. albeit only out in the middle of the desert. and usually involving blowing up large sculptures with the aid of some firearms and propane tanks.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:56 (eighteen years ago)

Burning Man cleanup?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:58 (eighteen years ago)

that was the one thing i really wanted to be allowed to do ski patrolling: throw bombs.

Avalanche prevention or James Bond style?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

haha no - but definitely w/Burning Man types.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

Ha, man, we are getting back to that opinion issue: so would it be wrong or judgmental of me to think that anyone who purchases a military-style heavy weapon like that AR-15 is a little too into tearing shit up for my tastes?

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:04 (eighteen years ago)

There's a version of the competition JJ engaged in that uses nothing but AR-15s if that makes you feel better.

Thing is, AR-15s just look kind of scary and militant - the round used in an AR-15 is no more dangerous (and somewhat less dangerous in terms of wound capability and distance) than the average bolt-action huntin' rifle.

There's not a great distance between 'deer rifle' and 'sniper rifle.'

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:08 (eighteen years ago)

Haha it's actually not reassuring at all that people would just want the militant-looking action for its own sake! (Also I dunno why, given some recent high-profile sniper cases, but snipers scare me a lot less.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:13 (eighteen years ago)

oh avalanche prevention.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

i thought that "explosion enthusiast" applied to every middle class american adolescent boy, usually around the age that "pyromaniac" fits, too.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 23:00 (eighteen years ago)

There have been a number of times in my life where, if I'd had a concealed handgun, I would've been very tempted to use it, or at least pull it out.

I remember, in high school, seeing a trio of self-styled toughs who went after a friend of mine, making fun of her in the most relentless, cruel, and nasty way. She was a completely harmless girl, never gave anyone a hard time; they were going after her because she was vulnerable, and they got off on making her hurt.

I thought about how nice it would be to pull a gun on those pathetic, piece-of-shit motherfuckers. Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable.

It is for this very reason that I'm strongly in favor of gun control.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:24 (eighteen years ago)

For most of that post, I thought you were arguing against gun control. Weird.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:33 (eighteen years ago)

I guess I got caught up.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:34 (eighteen years ago)

Drawing your gun on people for "making fun of" someone is illegal. Why would a law against you acquiring a gun stop you if a law against you threatening people with one wouldn't?

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:42 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah sometimes I'm jaywalking and then I'm all like "I might as well get involved in mail fraud while I'm at it."

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:47 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, joking aside, stupid heat-of-passion crimes come from a pretty different place than seeking and acquiring illegal weapons, so the equivalence doesn't really hold.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:50 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, if I really wanted to get a gun, given enough time, nothing could stop me -- or anyone else, for that matter. But the more easily I can come by the means to act on such impulses, the more likely I am to actually carry them out. Carrying the flame of righteous indignation for a few hours is easy; for two weeks, not so much. And I don't see that as unusual at all -- in fact, I think it's human nature.

So if nothing else, gun control is an excellent means of maximizing two intervals: the interval between when you want to kill someone, and when you have the means; and the interval between when you begin to act on the impulse to kill someone, and when they're actually dead. With a gun, that interval can be near-instantaneous, but many a murder has been forestalled when, after the first strike with knife or club or hatchet or fist, something has happened to prevent the fatal blow.

(xpost)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:52 (eighteen years ago)

But how does "Ban guns" follow from "I might be tempted in the heat of the moment"? Tempted to drive aggressively = Ban cars? Tempted to abuse alcohol = prohibition? I can't control myself = lock me up now?

Besides, if you'd draw a gun on someone for making fun of people or being mean in general, then there's something much more wrong with you than the potential for a heat-of-passion crime.

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:58 (eighteen years ago)

I'll let someone else field the first half of that.

Besides, if you'd draw a gun on someone for making fun of people or being mean in general, then there's something much more wrong with you than the potential for a heat-of-passion crime.

Really? What if I told you that she was [insert race here] and they were yelling racial epithets at her -- would it be OK then? Because it's definitely very important to me, you see, that I be indignant for the right reasons. I'll wait expectantly while you tell me what those are.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:09 (eighteen years ago)

("I'll let someone else field the first half of that" -- that is, someone who doesn't mind answering the same clichéd argument every time it's trotted out)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:12 (eighteen years ago)

(Oh, great, I love it when I'm foiled when trying to do special characters properly.)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:13 (eighteen years ago)

dear lurker #2421 - did you call me out on another thread for identifying with the aggressor?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:31 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, if your portrayal of your psychology in that incident is anything other than a half-assed attempt to invent a controversial "surprising/shocking" way to prove your eventual conclusion, you shouldn't be allowed near blunt instruments, let alone firearms. Seriously.

Also, racial relations don't shore up your point, so stop using them as a cheap argumentative tool.

xpost to lurker.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:42 (eighteen years ago)

So basically, if I have the urge to do harm to people who are torturing my friends, I'm fucked up? I think I'm pretty OK with being fucked up in that particular way, thanks.

MJTB, I called you out for (1) behaving with total insensitivity and callousness towards Remy, which you apologized for, and (2) claiming some kind of equivalence between the violence-implied bullying of "scary kids stomping down the hallway" and the snickering of nerds at slow learners. If anything, yes, you seemed like an apologist for physical bullying and the marginalization/mistreatment of social misfits.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:46 (eighteen years ago)

Frankly, I'm not sure I trust anyone who doesn't have the urge to hurt people who are torturing the vulnerable.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:47 (eighteen years ago)

("have the urge" = feel the impulse, at the time)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:47 (eighteen years ago)

"do harm" is a long fucking way from "Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable."

So lets not mince words, huh?

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:51 (eighteen years ago)

Wait wait, I think lurker's point is pretty explicitly that he considers himself a normal person, and since he's experienced situations in which he'd be tempted to do something stupid with a gun, he worries about what other people might do with them, as well. As a personal statement, that's pretty simple and straightforward; you can say that's not a valid reason for legislating gun control, but you don't have to circle around it looking for holes, I don't think. Let's not make lurker out like a freak, either -- I'm sure a lot of normal people have felt that way at some point. Besides, the issue isn't whether people do stupid things with guns or not -- some do, some don't, and we're probably not going to get far arguing the proportions without some magical statistics -- but rather at what point of people doing stupid things we feel like it's reasonable for government to take certain actions. (And that's a role-of-government issue that's only incidentally related to facts about reality.)

P.S.: As a separate issue, what Lurker's laying out about "maximizing two intervals" is obviously one reason for existing waiting-period laws -- trying to prevent people from purchasing guns in the heat of a "shoot XX" impulse. I'm curious what everyone thinks of those? (And I mean apart from arguments over gun-show objections, which'd seem to be as much about logistics and economics as anything else.) But dudes like John Lott tend to think this is the worst thing ever, and will always point to some recent case of a woman being stalked who -- if she'd only been able to get a gun right then -- would have been able to defend herself against murder / rape / harrassment / whatever: a moving and sensible argument, really, but hard to balance the incidence of that situation versus crimes theoretically prevented.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:55 (eighteen years ago)

xpost I mean I think Lurker's intense language there is just an attempt to underline the notion of White Hot Rage, not so much to suggest he was really committed to doing that. Either way, there are plenty of people out there with anger issues, and no matter what we think about gun control, I think they and we both can be happy most of them don't have guns on hand when the anger issues flare up!

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:59 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, I'm sure you've never had that impulse in your entire life. I'm also sure that, if someone tortured or persecuted you or someone you loved, you wouldn't have fantasies of getting elaborate vengeance upon them.

In fact, I'm so sure that, by golly, none of the people I've known who have been raped, robbed, tortured, and beaten -- or who have had such things happen to their loved ones -- they've never admitted to having such fantasies. Nope, never: they primly tuck their hands together, speak of wanting "justice to be done" by the proper authorities, and wash their silverware with iodine.

It's so nice that you're above all that. Well done!

(xpost - thanks Nabisco, you've got it exactly)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:00 (eighteen years ago)

(Also, keep in mind that I'm describing something I felt when I was a teenager, i.e. when the blood runs hot and the moral questions of the world seem rather simpler, or such was my experience. I'm glad, John Justen, that you saw fit to repay my candor with that seductive combination of smug moralizing and failure-to-read that makes the world a better place every time it happens!)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:03 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, I just can't get past the fact that the supposed emotion expressed by lurker #xyz that I quoted above is either:

A) gross, unwarranted, invented emotion used to prove a predetermined point
B) actual feelings that are abhorrent and creepy beyond words

either way, whatever topical discussion it might provoke is valid, but unfortunately sullied by the way it was brought to the table.

xposts you know what? fuck you, dude. This conversation has been for the most part (well, maybe not in the beginning) civil, rational, and relatively moderate and related to the actuality of guns and the problematic nature of dealing with their position in society. I'll note that the scary, violent description you just posted isn't being spewed by your teenage self, but by someone who ought to understand that your use of "loaded language" is embarrassing. If you actually have some multitude of "people I've known who have been raped, robbed, tortured, and beaten -- or who have had such things happen to their loved ones", or even known one person who has had such an experience, well, then I apologize for misinterpreting your statements as gross and offensive hyperbole. Otherwise, quit parroting the right-wing nutjob justification as some sort of "I've felt this, and risen above it all" slipshod logical nonsense.

Also, no matter how genuine your feelings may be, drop the "but..but...what if someone use a racial epithet" nonsense. Either they did, or they didn't. Don't use it as a wall of defense unless it is something that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:21 (eighteen years ago)

If you actually have some multitude of "people I've known who have been raped, robbed, tortured, and beaten -- or who have had such things happen to their loved ones", or even known one person who has had such an experience, well, then I apologize for misinterpreting your statements as gross and offensive hyperbole.

Apology accepted.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:25 (eighteen years ago)

(On behalf of the two people I know who have had lit cigarettes put out on their bodies, for starters.)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:25 (eighteen years ago)

You do realize I'm pro-gun-control, by the way? I ask this because I'm wondering where the "right-wing" reference is coming from, exactly.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:28 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, I think that your psycho eye-for-a-bullet mentality is plenty right-wing nutjob for all of us.

Also, if you'd bothered to read the thread up until you jumped in without paying attention, you'd probably have figured out that I'm not necessarily for gun control, but jesus christ, I'm willing to change that position if it means that you are generally representative of the populace at large.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:41 (eighteen years ago)

By the way, I'll be much more apt to believe your "cigarette burn" stories as soon as you clarify that your use of "racial epithets" was also factual, instead of some trumped-up argument silencing card.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:43 (eighteen years ago)

Hey, anybody want to lighten the mood and talk about abortion?

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:47 (eighteen years ago)

The "racial epithets" thing was pointedly NOT factual. That was the whole point -- to ask the person, "OK, in what situation would YOU feel this white-hot rage? How would it need to escalate so that you would be moved to that same desire for vengeance?"

I mean, the more I reread your posts, the more it seems like you're saying "Ugh, you shouldn't have felt that". To which my reply is:

(1) in some sense, you're right -- my whole point is that my response was out-of-proportion, and I'm really glad I didn't act on it (and that I didn't, for instance, have a handgun on me);

(2) but I think those feelings in general are normal, that most people have, at some point, the desire to kill/destroy/humiliate another human being, for reasons ranging from "road rage" to, say, rape, or racially-motivated violence;

(3) and that, if you think that those feelings, and the transient desire for what the Greeks called peripetia, are somehow unique to me, a reflection of an entirely personal psychopathy...

(4) then I suggest you talk to some rape victims, or victims of racial violence, because -- to put it bluntly -- you're completely fucking wrong. Go ask a Holocaust survivor what he/she might like to do to Eichmann, or Mengele. I cite Holocaust survivors and rape victims because I search -- hopefully not in vain -- for someone of whom you might say, "Well, it's OK for them to feel murderous rage, for them to fantasize about these things". To acknowledge that such feelings, in varying degrees, are a part of being human.

(If you've never felt murderous rage, the desire to completely destroy another human being -- even just for a fleeting moment -- then you're lucky. But being lucky doesn't give you the right to smugly crow about that fact. And you're completely bonkers if you think that it's a "right-wing" trait.)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:54 (eighteen years ago)

for reasons ranging from "road rage" to, say, rape, or racially-motivated violence

(that is, being the victim of rape or racially-motivated violence)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:00 (eighteen years ago)

Lurker: your intervals explanation clears up your argument for me a lot. When you say you're pro-gun control do you mean more gun control, like some kind of ban, or basically the status quo with waiting periods and background checks?

I'm fine with waiting periods for the reasons you cite. They're also good reason not to procrastinate.

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:01 (eighteen years ago)

i think lurker's point is pretty explicitly that he considers himself a normal person

he may want to reconsider! normal people who have backgroundy-checky jobs that involve taking care of other people don't post violent murder fantasies on the internet

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:09 (eighteen years ago)

even pseudonymously!

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:09 (eighteen years ago)

Not feeling "the desire to completely destroy another human being" has nothing to do with luck. It's called empathy, moral reasoning, and normal human function. I'm sorry this hasn't become clear to you yet. I've been angry, even rageful towards other people. That's called emotion. The moment that it becomes something along the lines of what you're talking about it is either overwrought teen stupidity or pathological.

As to your point about suggesting that I talk to some rape victims/victims of racial violence, thanks, I know some, and I talk to them on a regular basis. Oddly enough, they don't seem all that interested in formulating revenge fantasies, because they aren't 15, and they are more interested in the present day than trying to undo the undoable. I'm sure that they would appreciate your attempts to consign them to the position of victimization as definition of personal identity, though.

Still, I have to give you a hand for bringing up the holocaust and italicizing a greek term. A+!

xpost.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:12 (eighteen years ago)

Basically, I think that the status quo should be tightened up a bit, especially with regard to background checks and handguns. But I think there's good reason for saying that a household should be able to have a single-shot rifle or shotgun around -- in other words, something that can be used for hunting, marksmanship, or defense of the home, but that isn't really capable of killing more than one or two people at a time, and that can't be easily concealed. That's my take on it, more or less.

xpost You may be right. Perhaps it's best to keep one's lips sealed, and to pretend that such things are only felt by that shadowy and mysterious figure, the Evil Other.

I prefer, however, Goethe's take on things: "There is no crime of which I cannot imagine myself capable."

xpost

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:17 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah okay it's late and off to bed and all, but seriously, John, I think you're villifying Lurker out of all proportion here: yeah, it's really ugly to experience the kind of white-hot murderous rage that makes you actually start pondering hurting people, but it's also something that happens to plenty of normal people, and it's not THAT psychologically sick in and of itself. All dude is saying is that, having been there once himself, he doesn't want people holding guns when they're in that state -- not because he'd actually have done anything, but because he can remember the jacked-up thinking and decision-making it could lead to. (And again, Moonship, it seems unfair to read that as a murder fantasy, and not just as a ... well, a failed literary attempt to describe what impotent rage feels like.)

And John, it's just semantics if you want to describe anyone who'd weild a gun in a blinding rage "pathological" -- maybe that's a fair description -- but it's like factually demonstrable that a significant number of people really are that "pathological." Meaning not rampaging mass-murderers but like guys who get in arguments with their cousins over poker games and whip out guns over it. I'm not saying that's any more than a small percentage of gun owners, but there are enough that you can't just put it down to widespread mental illness, you know?

Anyway, the only gun-control debate there is how much you want the government to keep the weapons out of the angry hands and how much you want that responsibility left to people themselves.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:19 (eighteen years ago)

Not feeling "the desire to completely destroy another human being" has nothing to do with luck. It's called empathy, moral reasoning, and normal human function.

Not feeling that way all the time, or even regularly = "empathy, moral reasoning, and normal human function", i.e. what you feel, what I feel, and what everyone who isn't a sociopath feels on a day-to-day basis

Claiming to not feel that way for a single second in your life, ever = delusional

Or: fuck you, you dishonest, smug, sanctimonious ass. Thanks for judging me based on something I felt for 10 seconds -- felt and didn't act upon -- when I was in high school.

xpost again, thank you, Nabisco

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:22 (eighteen years ago)

I understand your interpretation, Nabisco, but the truth is that people that are willing to express sentiments along the lines of what I quoted earlier either scare the fuck out of me or are completely full of shit. I can't help but hope that lurker is full of shit, and I'm a lot happier believing that to be the case.

Also, it is undeniably a murder/revenge fantasy. That's what makes it so utterly fucked up.

xpost No, dude, the minute you decide to graphically describe some scary psychotic episode from your high school experience that involves the desire to sadistically punish your friends "enemies" and use that embarrassing admission in order to prove a point on the internet = CREEPY SCARY TIME.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:42 (eighteen years ago)

Although, you know, if you know where I live and have access to a gun/axe/bomb/car/brick/pointy stick, no harm, no foul, right?

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:45 (eighteen years ago)

I understand your interpretation, Nabisco, but the truth is that people that are willing to express sentiments along the lines of what I quoted earlier either scare the fuck out of me or are completely full of shit.

John, if a rape survivor expressed to you the desire to torture and murder her rapist, would you consider that "creepy as fuck"? Would you tell her so?

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:54 (eighteen years ago)

YES, YOU NUTJOB.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:56 (eighteen years ago)

Well, then you'd be a piece of shit, frankly, for doing so.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:57 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, if your work has anything to do with counseling, teaching, or anything helping people, get out. You don't belong there.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:57 (eighteen years ago)

(Sorry if that's harsh -- but if you would honestly say that, how can you possibly have the empathy to work with anyone who's been through any kind of trauma?)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:01 (eighteen years ago)

Are you suggesting that nurturing vengeful fantasies of torture and murder is somehow a positive stance in counseling?

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:06 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, rather than promoting some sort of healing that is based on the individuals self-worth vs. some sort of definition of the self through victimization?

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:09 (eighteen years ago)

Jesus, seriously, I'm no counselor, but given the limited amount of info/world view I've gotten about you so far, I hope to god you aren't in the profession.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:10 (eighteen years ago)

A decent counselor will tell the victim that it's normal to have those feelings, and figure out if she means to act on it; if she's not planning to act on it, then the only issue is making sure she's not obsessing over it endlessly. Making her feel ashamed of the feelings, on the other hand, would be an incredibly destructive thing to do, and would encourage her to sublimate her rage in all kinds of dangerous ways, many of which are likely to be self-destructive.

This is basic, Psych 101 stuff. Is this honestly new to you?

xpost Without dealing with and accepting rage, effective therapy is impossible. That doesn't mean you encourage them to define themselves as a victim, but if you communicate the sense that murderous rage is a bad emotion that needs to be suppressed, you'll never get ANYWHERE with a patient. Rage is part of being human -- children express the genuine desire to kill each other and/or their parents all the time!

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:11 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, seriously, I'm picturing you as having this uber-WASPy background with parents who told you it was never okay to get angry, who punished you for weeks for saying "I hate you" to them once. I hope I'm wrong.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:12 (eighteen years ago)

FWIW Lurker I heartily agree with you and you make perfect sense. Jhonen Vasques has spoken of appealing to the monster inside all of us who we need to allow play in our minds on the rare occasion - precisely so we DONT act on them. This is what keeps people sane!

OK I'm going back to being gone now, I just felt the need to support the argument.

― Trayce, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:23 (eighteen years ago)

Points, in some sort of order:

A) This is all completely off-topic, and I realize that, and apologize for stringing it out this long
B) You are completely and totally wrong on my WASPy background etc., but I'll give you the benefit of understanding that we're interacting on a message board, which leads to this sort of misapprehension
C) I should have been more specific about the fact that I would never tell someone in said position that their feelings AT THE TIME were "creepy as fuck" but that doesn't change the fact that universal human understanding of the desire to torture and murder anyone is, by definition "creepy as fuck"
D) I think that your ability to argue from a viewpoint of frothing anger/feel comfortable recounting distinct and detailed vengeance fantasies from years ago/use allusions to racial epithets and the holocaust as argumentation points is not terribly well-suited to someone who wants to weigh in as an arbiter of who is qualified to speak to people in times of crisis and counseling
E) Returning to the point at hand, I would rather see Manalishi/Roger etcetera (even in the (hopefully) exaggerated stance he has chosen to take) have access to firearms, in place of you (again, in the (hopefully) exaggerated stance you have chosen to take) having access to them.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:41 (eighteen years ago)

i just actually punched a hole in something in my office reading lurker's post.

i would just like to say that it's really, really fucking creepy and disgusting to me, on a highly personal level, that you're insisting on using rape and sexual abuse victims as part of your little revenge fantasy and that you KEEP BRINGING THIS UP OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

trayce otm.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:24 (eighteen years ago)

altho ha ha joke's on me i just punched something so lurker's insane, disturbing, creepy fantasy proven true??

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:26 (eighteen years ago)

lurker i hope you get that new untreatable tuberculosis that's going around.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

or alternatively maybe you could just die from Tiresome Troll Dipshit With Delusions Of Having Enlightening Points To Make syndrome, then you don't have to acquire anything new

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:39 (eighteen years ago)

nabisco can you give me 5000 words on a couple of topics? I need to explain to some college graduates that "People Get Angry" and "Guns Are Designed For Killing Things"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:40 (eighteen years ago)

sorry I left my patience in my other pants today

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 14:42 (eighteen years ago)

better than leaving your pants in a patient

― remy bean, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

whoah this went weird places - oddly I pretty much am in John Justen's (and Ally's!) corner. Nurturing revenge fantasies is never helpful, or healthy, or productive of anything - no matter what the crime or the guilt of the aggressor (cf. capital punishment thread).

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:24 (eighteen years ago)

(and yes I do have personal experience with people who have been raped/assaulted - given the levels of violence in this world I imagine almost everybody knows SOMEONE this has happened to)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:26 (eighteen years ago)

A number of people that I respect reacted very strongly to lurker on this thread. I don't think this anecdote really informs the debate, but, honestly, I don't get the vitriol.

I remember, in high school, seeing a trio of self-styled toughs who went after a friend of mine, making fun of her in the most relentless, cruel, and nasty way. She was a completely harmless girl, never gave anyone a hard time; they were going after her because she was vulnerable, and they got off on making her hurt.

I thought about how nice it would be to pull a gun on those pathetic, piece-of-shit motherfuckers. Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable.

Obviously, he didn't act on it. It takes a lot to overcome all the obstacles that keep us from killing or seriously injuring another human being.

This fantasy is elaborate, but it doesn't seem that exceptional to me. For a lot of kids who feel powerless these kind of fantasies are a way of dealing with their feelings of impotence and shame, not to mention justifiable anger.

The point Lurker is missing is the fact that the vast majority of kids don't kill or inflict serious physical harm on others, just as he didn't, so there must be something that keeps this rage in check.

But, yeah, kids should have access to guns only under controlled circumstances. We're already doing that, though imperfectly.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:33 (eighteen years ago)

it seems exceptional to me in that he's arguing that such fantasies (which he describes in rather disturbingly unnecessary detail) are somehow morally justifiable and potentially actionable. They aren't. They're stupid and counter-productive and simply an indulgence of humanity's worst tendencies.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

but don't get me wrong I had lots of teenage revenge fantasies too! Teenagers do that.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

I think it's just posting the fantasy in lurid detail that was a bit of a gross shift in tone for the thread. and then all the weird, defensive, "oh, but you guys would think it was okay if my friend had been raped/was black" and the harping on rape.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

in my mind i harped on the black

― remy bean, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

John, if a rape survivor expressed to you the desire to torture and murder her rapist, would you consider that "creepy as fuck"? Would you tell her so?

YES, YOU NUTJOB.

-- John Justen, Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:56 AM (7 hours ago)

Well, then you'd be a piece of shit, frankly, for doing so.

this exchange is TOTALLY CREEPY AS FUCK.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:41 (eighteen years ago)

I harped on him being a boring idiot with nothing to add besides being fucked up

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

as if counselors should be going around encouraging people to nurture violent revenge fantasies. yeah, that sounds like the road to mental health right there for sure yep.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

not to get too boring myself here but posting that shit to the internet to try and make some kind of point IS dumb and fucked up and he got what he was asking for, fair's fair

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, when lurker originally posted the revenge fantasy I wondered if maybe I was overreacting by being weirded out, but then, in response to Kerm being weirded out AND RACE NOT HAVING BEEN MENTIONED AT ALL, lurker said this:

Really? What if I told you that she was [insert race here] and they were yelling racial epithets at her -- would it be OK then? Because it's definitely very important to me, you see, that I be indignant for the right reasons. I'll wait expectantly while you tell me what those are.

and that just seems so defensive and from a conversation lurker was having in his head, not a conversation that was taking place in this thread at all.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:44 (eighteen years ago)

but John Justen has covered this already, better than I.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think he was trying to argue that the fantasy is morally justifiable. It's a fantasy. He was trying to argue that it is understandable that one might feel this way.

He does argue that it is potentially actionable, and I agree with you that it isn't, or rather that it may be but in only the most extreme, outlying cases (otherwise, there would be more news stories).

I don't think he was saying that revenge fantasies should be encouraged.

He was being defensive and dull-witted.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:48 (eighteen years ago)

uh I just quoted a post where he specifically indicates that NOT encouraging revenge fantasies makes someone "a piece of shit".

but yes, let's drop it and move on oy vey

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

A few quick points, and I'm done:

1) First and foremost, I apologize for bringing up rape, and if that was a trigger for anyone. My intent was to find out if John Justen's problem was that what I felt was with my situation specifically, or with the idea of revenge fantasies, etc. in general, no matter WHO was experiencing them. Look, it was deep in the a.m., and some dude was hectoring me endlessly about something I felt for ten seconds as a kid: I won't claim to have been at my best.

2) I stick to my guns absolutely on this point: people have fantasies like the one I described all the time. That's normal. The problem is acting on them, or obsessing about them. If you think it was inappropriate of me to post it, fine, that's fair enough.

3) Another one of my points: if I could get this riled up, and the wrong didn't even happen to me, how must the people who've actually been wronged (or who think they have) feel? Based on my experiences, most of them have had varying degrees of desire for revenge, and I'm not going to call that desire "creepy" by a long shot: again, it's just normal.

4) Then again, I will say this: I was once accosted/attacked by a gang of people. Didn't really get beaten up, but got the shit scared out of me. You'd think that I'd harbor fantasies against them, but I didn't at the time, and don't now. I think that people often tend to get more worked up over a wrong suffered by someone else -- again, part of the point of my story.

5) I'm glad that Nabisco and Trayce get where I was coming from; I'm sad that Ally and Tombot are infuriated. I wish I hadn't posted to begin with, as it was time we could've all spent doing something with/for the people we love, instead of arguing over this crap.

xpost no, Shakey Mo, I said that judging someone harshly for it, and describing it as "creepy as fuck", was shitty. If you told one of my friends who had been raped that she was creepy as fuck for having fantasies of torturing her rapist, I would think you were an asshole. Sorry, but I'm not budging an inch on that one: torture victims are entitled to imagine turnabout, they're just not entitled to act it out (and probably shouldn't spend a lot of time obsessing about it, which is still miles away from having the thought at all).

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

Lurker misunderstood John's response and thought John meant that he would not be sympathetic to the pathos of the victim.

Obviously, to the rest of us, John did not mean that.

He really wasn't arguing that John was a piece of shit because he wouldn't encourage revenge fantasies.

But, I agree. I'll drop it.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

What about the gun control debate?

I have a question, and I know it's probably answered easily-- but what's the upside of allowing people to have handguns? At all? I mean, pretend every handgun stopped working today, so the "bad people have them" argument is lost. What advantages do handguns carry? I'm sure this has been explained upthread, and I'm even sure that I've responded, but I'd love to see a nice little list. Because most of the reasons I've heard have been like "so people can defend themselves" and that. But there are other, less lethal, and easier to use options (like pepper spray... or booby traps)

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

Well, private citizens or anyone?

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

Booby traps are, for the most part, illegal.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry to try the D.C. bullyteam's patience: I don't think Lurker's been making his point very well or appealingly here, but people can at least try to be fair regardless. E.g., people keep talking about "nurturing" revenge fantasies here, which is a totally sleazy misinterpretation -- the issue was never whether revenenge fantasies should be nurtured, it was more that you shouldn't label someone a COMPLETE psychopath for once having gotten really pissed off and imagined taking violent action. No matter how clumsily he happens to describe that moment on the internet.

I can TOTALLY see why it bothers people that he's trying to hang that sort of thing on sympathetic imagined victims like women who have been raped, or victims of racial intimidation. But I'm thinking that's just clumsy rhetoric, and not anything creepy.

Maybe a better way to get back on the issue would be to ask the following: if someone you knew had been victimized/traumatized in one of those ways, and told you that he or she was going to buy a gun for protection, and this impulse was coming from feelings of fear and powerlessness and anger, what would you say? I mean, I'm guessing Lurker would say "don't get the gun," and John would say "get the gun and take a course that'll teach you to be responsible with it," but wondering more about the emotional response.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, xpost, we seem to have gotten past examining Lurker, so just ignore my still talking about it!

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

The booby traps bit was facetious, I apologize :)

xxp

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

Private citizens, sure. I can see why the military and law enforcement might want to have them.

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:12 (eighteen years ago)

not having to rewrite the constitution is the advantage

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:13 (eighteen years ago)

THEY CAN TAKE MY BOOBY-TRAPS WHEN THEY PRY THEM OFF MY COLD, DEAD SEVERED ARM.

xxxxpost: "DC bullyteam" is the new "Noize dudes", apparently.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

The advantage? I think it is because they can be carried on your person much easier than other types of guns.

As i understand it, it is more difficult to be accurate with a handgun.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

i mean, FB has it right: the specific advantage is that they're small and handheld.

swords:daggers and so on

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:16 (eighteen years ago)

Let me specify then: What's the advantage to allowing people to have them? The 'hunting' thing doesn't really work. Or does it? Do people pistol-hunt? Pheaants or something? I recall hearing something like that.

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/images/ae/reviews/tombstone3.jpg
me, tombot, river wolf, john justen

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:28 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.wallpaper.net.au/wallpaper/movies/The%2520Ant%2520Bully%25204%2520-%25201152x864.jpg

― ghost rider, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:28 (eighteen years ago)

http://barros.rusf.ru/films/posters/ant_bully_2006_poster1.jpg

― ghost rider, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:29 (eighteen years ago)

How have I not heard about this movie yet?????

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

I meant more of a Tango & Cash duo!

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:39 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco OTM throughout. There's nothing creepy about Lurker's posts on this thread at all.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:21 (eighteen years ago)

I thought about how nice it would be to pull a gun on those pathetic, piece-of-shit motherfuckers. Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable.

It is for this very reason that I'm strongly in favor of gun control.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

I read that, Mr. Que. Thanks.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:24 (eighteen years ago)

alls i'm saying is that's the post that really creeps people out

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I know. It doesn't creep me out, though, because I understand the point he was trying to make.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

okay, but people who are creeped out by the way he made his point also understand the point he was trying to make.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

his point seems to be that its okay to pull a gun on someone if they are calling you a bad name. and that's what happened in Columbine and in Blacksburg.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

the post says nothing about rape, nothing about murder nothing about defending yourself from a mugging, and that is why people think it is creepy. also, horseshoe OTM, i understand the point he was trying to make but i think it is creepy

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

i was also creeped out by his fixation on repeatedly referencing rape victims and hate crime victims over and over and over again as like a "hypothetical situation", just fyi. like i said elsewhere, you can have a point that is partially correct and still come off like a pornographic creep. but thx for the thoughts, jaymc.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

put it in yr spreadsheet.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

xxp WTF, that's not his point at all. His point was that he was tempted to perform a violent act and that he's glad that there's gun control or else it would have been infinitely easier to enact that fantasy. Are none of you ever scared about what you're capable of? Wasn't there some Noise Board thread recently where everyone talked about how they frequently imagined themselves jumping in front of trains and stuff?

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

OK, I am genuinely surprised that people think that first post is really creepy.

I think that his rhetoric after that post was reactionary and overwrought, but are people really weirded out by that revenge fantasy?

Or maybe people have a history with him that I am unaware of?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

not having to rewrite the constitution is the advantage

Should the constitution be set in stone? Haven't values, threats, opportunities, etc. changed in the last two and a bit centuries? Shouldn't it be at least reviewed every fifty years or so to decide whether it's still worth hanging a flag on?

Sorry for being a crappy Brit about all this but "because my constitution says I can" is fuck all justification for anything in my eyes.

The right to bear arms for defence (or at least the right of Protestants to do so) was a tenet of the English Bill of Rights a hundred years earlier but I for one am glad that English Law isn't like tablets from Mount Sinai.

― onimo, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

Mr. Que, that was most definitely not his point.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

oh I sounded like a smarmy cunt there, sorry :)

― onimo, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

(I only skimmed the parts in the thread where he talked about rape victims, so whatever, you may be right. But by that point, John Justen had already gone all "U R A MEGA-CREEP" on him, so I can understand his need to defend himself.)

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

John, it's not his point that people have had a problem with. it was his lingering articulation of the revenge fantasy--(seriously, make them call me "sir"? more than I ever needed to read, frankly)--and the way the nature of that revenge fantasy seems related to his fixation on rape and his defensiveness about race.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

okay, we're just reading the post in a different way, interpreting it differently? there's no reason to bring the Noise Board into it, for the record i was not part of the subway train thread imagination thingamabob. alls i know is if i was having those kinds of fantasies i would seek some help very quickly.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

if that was the only post he made about it then fine, or if he had chosen to explain it simply, then fine, but the atrocity exhibition that by his own admission had nothing to do with his actual situation at all that he created in subsequent posts is hella fucking creepy and disturbing for some of us. i can't speak for mr. que but i think it's obvious by john's posts that the post-initial-statement rhetoric being spouted was creeping him out! i mean yes he got called out for the overly lurid post but the way he defended himself is like basically stomach-turning.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

lots of xposts obviously

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

OK, I am genuinely surprised that people think that first post is really creepy.

"These dudes were making fun of my friend and man I wanted to beat the shit out of them" - not creepy.

"These dudes were making fun of my friends and I was really hoping to go all Death Wish IV on their asses and have them beg me not to kill them" - creepy as fuck.

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

yeah milo kind of otm but otoh if that was IT and it was just some weird "I WROTE A HIT PLAY" louis jagger-style overflourishy creative writing exercise then it really wouldn't have garnered such a response.

i'm genuinely surprised that some of you are being so disingenuous about not seeing how any of those posts are creepy at all!

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

"These dudes were making fun of my friends and I was really hoping to go all Death Wish IV on their asses and have them beg me not to kill them" - creepy as fuck.

Which is why those movies sold so poorly, because no one can relate to them...oh, wait.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

newsflash: angry white males (aka The Death Wish Audience) be creepy, too. see also: Roger Adultery

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.degreesofme.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/conan.jpg

"What is good in life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before -- oh, shit, wait, dude, I shouldn't say that, no one will like that line at all."

xpost yes, because only white males want to kill people, and there are no other movies, or forms of entertainment, depicting revenge fantasies that have appeal beyond that narrow subset. "Hothead Paisan", anyone?

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

lurker get a fucking clue already

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

just ONE

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

I am not being disingenuous, Ally!

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

and the way the nature of that revenge fantasy seems related to his fixation on rape and his defensiveness about race.

You're losing me here, Horseshoe. I re-read Lurker's posts, and I'm under the impression that he talked about rape victims only as an example of someone that we might consider justified for having revenge fantasies. The only issue I have with that is that, unless he's been raped himself, it's a bit presumptuous to speak on their behalf. But really, the reason he went there was because some people seemed to think that he was a weirdo for having a revenge fantasy in the first place. All he was saying was, "Revenge fantasies need not be creepy. Consider such-and-such a situation." Your post makes it sound like he's fixated on rape fantasies, which is a wild leap to make.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/7344.htm

"A group of elderly Holocaust survivors came forward with accounts of a death squad they formed after World War II to take revenge on their Nazi persecutors, recounting a brazen operation in which they poisoned hundreds of SS officers."

VERY CREEPY

xpost exactly, thank you, Jaymc!

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

hey lurker can you call me sir a few times

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

I don't understand what the existence of revenge porn movies and posting revenge porn to a gun control thread really have to do with each other.

xpost John, I really don't think it's a wild leap. the race and rape stuff came out of nowhere and John Justen and Ally have already articulated what's so gross about using them as hypotheticals.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

Star Wars has an appeal for me, to watch and enjoy it, but that doesn't mean I want to hang out in a pool of rotting garbage getting crushed to death while i scream at a gay robot to turn the garbage compactor off.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

ok, really, can we just ban anyone who draws a line between teen hooligans and Nazi camp guards? Pretty plz?

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

"A group of elderly Holocaust survivors came forward with accounts of a death squad they formed after World War II to take revenge on their Nazi persecutors, recounting a brazen operation in which they poisoned hundreds of SS officers."

VERY CREEPY

Not that creepy at all. Waving a gun in someone's face because they called your friend an awful name? Pretty fucking creepy.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

again, I don't necessarily think it's creepy to have had revenge fantasies (although I'm annoyed at the insinuation that I have to relate), it was the posting about it in lingering detail that seemed off to me.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

well this sure is tiresome...

the Brit upthread obviously doesn't understand some fundamental differences between British and American jurisprudence - namely that Americans have a document, the Constitution, that IS set-in-stone as the rule of law (barring amendments). I understand this is not the case in the UK, but really get one fucking clue. All federal laws are derived first from the Constitution, rather than the willy-nilly accumulation of precedent that is the British legal system.

many x-posts

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

mr que otm re star wars

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

R2 was gay?

― onimo, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

the best thing about the garbage compactor is how they're in all this "stinky garbage" but 100% of the garbage appears looks exactly like scrapmetal and woodchips

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

exactly!

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

"race and rape stuff came out of nowhere" = me saying is there anyone in the world who you'd say, yes, it's OK for them to want to do this?

I mean, there's footage kicking around of seven or eight white kids kicking the shit out of a mentally retarded black kid, who asks over and over again, "What'd I do? What'd I do?" It's one of the most harrowing and disturbing things I've ever seen. How can you not want to do something horrible to those kids, even if you just feel that impulse for a minute or two?

Or those cops Tasering that guy in the library -- does no one but me, watching that footage, have any urge to beat the shit out of them, or even more so, to...to humble them? To make the torture stop, but also to teach the cops how it feels when you're in that position?

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

what i don't get is where the death star comes up with all that liquid waste.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

dood you watch too many torture videos wtf

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

hey lurker can you call me sir a few times

On the one hand, I have total respect for your position Tombot (even though I disagree with it), but OTOH, this is a really fucking creepy thing to say. Are you honestly threatening me with violence, dude?

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

dirty mop water

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

are you guys talking about the death star?

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

i love the death star!

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

I'm baffled that lurker cannot posit any difference between wanting to STOP abuse and wanting to HARM the abuser.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

dude stop turning this thread into this weird psychological bullying I'm going to describe a bunch of violent encounters in vivid detail until you all admit your secret desire for revenge. wtf? I know it's not the most ontopic thread but it's a gun control debate thread.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

but the death star is full of robots, aren't robots clean? is Grand Moff Tarkin that messy?

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

either this whole thing just achieved a new level of irony I was not prepared to comprehend or lurker is genuinely trying to be funny

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

I'm baffled that lurker cannot posit any difference between wanting to STOP abuse and wanting to HARM the abuser.

Of course there's a difference! The former's a lot healthier than the latter, but normal people feel both.

Jesus, enough of this. Please, let's just stop, OK?

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

The former's a lot healthier than the latter, but normal people feel both.

define "normal" please. actually, wait, don't.

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

increase the peace

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I really don't think it "came out of nowhere."

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

"race and rape stuff came out of nowhere" = me saying is there anyone in the world who you'd say, yes, it's OK for them to want to do this?

how about we make a deal. i will describe, in specific and vivid creative writing major detail (because that is apparently what is a-ok with nabisco and jaymc, the creepy police), what i would theoretically like to do to you for sitting here destroying the entire thread with lurid posts about rape and torture, if i was someone who actually identified with your position. then, you have won, and you will leave the thread. will this make you happy?

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

hi jaymc and [nabisco], i actually never want to speak to either of you again.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

the robots have little tires and the tire rubber picks up dust from the air and redeposits it (along with some rubber) on the floors

so other robots have to come by behind them and mop it up once in a while

then you got to recycle the dirty mop water, but first it drains through the floor grate and ends up in the trash room

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:58 (eighteen years ago)

BYE NEVER MIND THIS THREAD

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

man, the engineering on that thing....breathtaking

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Image]

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

The former's a lot healthier than the latter, but normal people feel both.

I guess I'm glad I'm not normal then.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:00 (eighteen years ago)

and cyclopean hair-snakes feed off the wood chips and the tire rubber in the mop water

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:00 (eighteen years ago)

what I meant by "came out of nowhere" was that he didn't refer to racial hate crime or rape being involved in the encounter as he first described it. no one else said anything about how such a revenge fantasy would be "okay" if he were defending a rape victim/racial minority; he just put that out there in this defensive way and the fact that defending victims of rape came up several times made it seem like there was a vicarious charge to invoking rape.

― horseshoe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

ahhhhh the wiley woodchip hairsnake

― Mr. Que, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

Why are people so against revenge??! Do not get. I want to karate chop creepy/hateful men all the time, altho disclaimer, I have never been the target of ACTUAL violence, only the suggested kind.

― Laurel, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:02 (eighteen years ago)

cuz its pointless and just spreads the grief around in a never-ending cycle of recrimination...?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:03 (eighteen years ago)

Horseshoe, I'm sorry, I think we're just reading it in a completely different way.

Once again on ILX, empathizing with human weakness wins me enemies.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

there is a big, fat, mile-wide line (in my mind) between wanting to kick don rumsfeld in the nuts once and wanting don rumsfled to call me "sir" and beg for mercy

that's really not the case with a lot of people here which doesn't make me want to kick them in the nuts so much as it makes me just a little more fundamentally depressed about the human race and our greatest invention "language"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:05 (eighteen years ago)

I understand that the hypothetical situations were grotesque, but I did not read his initial posts as anything other than an attempt to justify his position. Unfortunately, a lot of people pull a nazi to support an argument. I'm not defending the dude on every point.

waaay xpost

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:05 (eighteen years ago)

human weakness has nothing to do with a propensity for degrading other people and a desire to share that with everybody on the goddamn internet in a discussion of GUN KONTROL

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

sex_machine.jpg x10000000000000000 cut it out

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

Horseshoe, I'm sorry my post came off that way. It wasn't meant to. I was -- as I said before, and will say again -- trying to find some scenario under which everyone would acknowledge that elaborate fantasies of revenge are justified, or at least human. Even if carrying them out would be a Very Bad Idea that would, as Shakey Mo said, would "spread the grief around in a never-ending cycle of recrimination".

(xpost)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Once again on ILX, empathizing with human weakness wins me enemies.

-- jaymc, Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:04 PM (3 minutes ago)

you mean like the human weakness of people being threatened and pistol-whipped by lurker #2421??

― and what, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

trying to find some scenario under which everyone would acknowledge that elaborate fantasies of revenge are justified, or at least human

and you failed miserably, managing to infuriate and nauseate a lot of "humans"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

Tombot, guns are used to degrade people. That's what they do: they turn a person into a piece of meat, a thing. If you've ever wanted to shoot someone, even for a split second, then you've wanted to degrade them.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

I have no clue why the fuck I'm talking to you.

and what 8080 thank you gbye

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

interesting gun violence statistic on the BBC yesterday

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42811000/gif/_42811311_firearms_deaths3_203gr.gif

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

man the killfile

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

s africa has the highest murder rate in the world, i believe?

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

anyone find a description of south africa's gun laws?

― deej, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

it takes skill to ruin a thread not even Roger could kill

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa

― milo z, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

our rate is 30x that of the UK, but by our own admission, only 6x that of germany or SWITZERLAND. does the britishes spend a lot of time discussing "the culture of violence" in germany?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

did you know finland has the 2nd highest rate of firearm homicide in people aged 15-26 in a survey of 25 industrialized nations including the US? (.5 in 100000, compared to ~1.5 in 100000 for the US)

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:17 (eighteen years ago)

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Argentina 8.93
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Israel 2.91
Australia 2.65
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
England and Wales 0.41
Japan 0.05

our gun-related death rate is only 3x as high as finland, whereas by anyone's admission, there are at least like 100x more guns floating around ... is it really down to a "culture of violence"?

or is it just down to high-risk behavior due to the fact that at the end of the day, the levels of income disparity and the decay / nonexistence of the social fabric here make america more of a 3rd world nation than a 1st world nation?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:20 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2061247,00.html

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

AFAIK In Switzerland nearly everyone has guns! and bomb shelters! And although a lot of people just use their bomb shelters as storage cellars there's apparently a large number of survivalist types who still keep them stocked & in readiness. I'm pretty sure that gun use is taught as part of mandatory national service, too. So I suppose the question is whether the gun-death rate in CH is surprisingly high given that people are actually taught to use guns (also the fact that it is chocolate-box switzerland), or surprisingly low given the number of guns there are.

I'm really surprised by how low the england-wales number is! I don't think of gun crime as being some rare thing, maybe that's from constant exposure to scaremonger news stories. Perhaps our knife crime stats more than make up for it though.

― c sharp major, Thursday, 19 April 2007 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

As I've said elsewhere, despite figures like these I feel exponentially safer out at night in SF, LA, NYC or Chicago than I ever did in London. We may not have as many guns but there is a serious feeling of tension and aggro in many places in and around Central London. I admit to sometimes enjoying that "edginess", it's part of what makes it such a great city, but on the occasion where myself or a friend has fallen victim to violence it is predictably unsettling.

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:00 (eighteen years ago)

^^^^^ I agree with adam (though my exposure to LDN is somewhat limited). I felt a little edgier walking around C1itheroe, Lanc, than I did in some of the rougher parts of Chi, simply because, if my cousin is any indication, casual violence is a bit more common in England (ie - bar fights, muggings, being in the wrong neighborhood, whatever)

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

Absolutely, never rock up in Clitheroe without a glock on your waistline.

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:03 (eighteen years ago)

haha, srsly, though, i get more "long hard looks" in Clitheroe from the local dudes than i've ever gotten anywhere in my life

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

also vahid is pretty otm up and down here, guys

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:06 (eighteen years ago)

Perhaps you have the look of a Accringtonian about you. That's like a red rag to a bull.

xp

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

Who is vahid?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:10 (eighteen years ago)

I don't know anymore.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

vahid = moonship journey to baja

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

I realize that this is maybe a stupid question and a stupid place for such a question, but does anyone else who was anticipating seeing Hot Fuzz this week feel queasy about going to see a film where so much humour is derived from the display of guns and firepower? I don't know, maybe I'm just a "sensitive" type.

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:21 (eighteen years ago)

i think undercutting the machismo associated with gunz is a lot better than the usual week in, week out sincere reinforcement/celebration of gunz=awesomeness

― félix pié, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

I am totally gonna rock Hot Fuzz.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

I guess, I just feel like a need a break from the fetishization of firearms in any context. I literally do not feel like looking at them right now.

xp

― admrl, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

I watched (and enjoyed) Grindhouse two days ago, so the day after, I think, and I only felt kinda guilty about it after the fact when I remembered. Just let the escapism do its magic. You're not going to glorify guns, you're going because Simon Pegg is funny as shit.

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:30 (eighteen years ago)

as much as i hate to sound like some kind of batty sort, i think the portrayal of guns in the media and in video games does have an ill effect on many people. guns are mostly depicted as thrilling rather than terrifying.

― félix pié, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:33 (eighteen years ago)

but thrills and terror are inextricably intertwined

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

I can't disagree with that. I'm sure if you replaced every gun in every film with a penis, twenty years from nowe there'd be way fewer gun crimes (and many more public masturbation crimes)

― Will M., Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

i watched "the departed" yesterday, made me feel mega-sick, but then again scorsese does that to me in general (see also: wahlberg dropping the n-word)

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

well, thrills as in "damn that looks cool" are different than thrills as in "damn that is fucked up", i.e. the difference between robert mitchum jogging across the beach at normandy with a pistol and a smirk and everyone in tom hanks' boat getting cut to pieces. bad example, maybe : \

― félix pié, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

okay this post is a bit late now but w/evr i spent too much time typing to not post it.

One reason why I was surprised at the UK's low gun death stat was because I think a lot of the things Vahid says about growing income disparity and decaying social fabric hold increasingly true in the UK as well, and it seems only logical to connect those social problems to that palpable aggression you get in a lot of UK cities. So I suppose it is a proof that stringent gun control means low gun crime - but it hasn't solved the problem of casual violence, it's just restricted one particularly deadly method of expressing that violence. And UK gun crime is increasing, it just involves mostly illegal firearms. The 'gun wound' stats are a deal higher, idk but to me that kinda suggests people having guns but no expertise in actually shooting them? They seem to be guns bought as something you can, at the very least, use to threaten others with (whether in offence or defence), not for any other reason (like e.g. sport, historical interest). It doesn't seem likely to me that, if someone buys a gun only because it's this threatening thing, only because of the promise of violent power they see in it, they're going to be open to having a more uh reasoned attitude towards it (frinstance not enacting yr mad brainblip of a revenge fantasy even though having a gun means you 'can').

― c sharp major, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

I enjoy violent films, and I love gun-play in movies, but I do not enjoy real life violence, and I am sickened by not just physical violence but cruelty in general.

I suspect that I am the in norm and not the exception.

xpost

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

I suppose it is a proof that stringent gun control means low gun crime

not necessarily, this might be due to the "non-graininess" of a lot of the gun figures, which is something NOBODY ever talks about when the statistics come out (except jon wlms upthread) ... yes, there are 80 million guns in america, but that doesn't mean 1 in 4 peopel on the street are packing.

there are places where gun ownership is near 0% and handgun crime is extremely low (the very wealthy CA neighborhood i grew up in), just as there are places where i am sure gun ownership is near 100% and handgun crime is extremely low (homogenous neighborhoods in the south and rural west).

now if you look at areas where gun violence is extremely high (black neighborhoods in philadelphia and chicago, where the murder rates is ~10x the nat'l average) gun ownership is actually *LOWER* than the nationwide average (~15-25%, i think), and there is clearly some externality that isn't gun availability driving the murder rate up up up.

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

i think a similarly meaningful approach to UK gun control statistics would be to split off places like public housing in cities like london + bristol from a heterogeneous smaller city like manchester (which IIRC was the place that reminded me the most of the US when i visited great britain) and then compare our slums and your slums and see what's going on.

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 20:57 (eighteen years ago)

BTW DID YOU ALL SEE THIS?!?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two Secret Service officers were injured on the White House complex on Tuesday after a gun accidentally fired, according to a spokesman, Darrin Blackford. Their injuries are non-life threatening, the spokesman said.

One officer suffered a shrapnel wound to the face, and the other was wounded in the leg. Both were from the service's uniform division. They were taken to George Washington Hospital. At the time, President George W. Bush was on a trip to Blacksburg, Virginia, to attend a ceremony at Virginia Tech university following Monday's shooting rampage.

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

places where i am sure gun ownership is near 100% and handgun crime is extremely low (homogenous neighborhoods in the south and rural west).

oh hey

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:03 (eighteen years ago)

and yeah, i saw grindhouse last night (a little stoned, mind) and while the gunplay itself wasn't disturbing, the accidental suicide and el ray going batshit in the hospital were, at least a little.

i will definitely see hot fuzz, though, shit looks hilarious

― river wolf, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:04 (eighteen years ago)

Still going to Hot Fuzz, not sure when. this is the last weekend of the play i've been working on, so who knows when I'll get a chance.

― kingfish, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:04 (eighteen years ago)

"non-graininess"?

I'm guessing here that means the figures aren't 'how many people have gun licences' or 'how many people have conceal and carry permits' or 'how many people regularly carry their gun around with them', but are 'how many guns there are', but I've never come across the term before...?

haha Manchester is the place in the UK that has made me feel most uneasy because no-one was on the streets at 10.30pm (or weren't one time when i went: i don't know how common this is): whereas in London, there's always someone around, I don't know why but that makes me feel safer. Actually I feel pretty uneasy in small towns too, maybe it is the absence of aggression in the air, a bit like like being unable to sleep without road noise.

― c sharp major, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:06 (eighteen years ago)

i mean that there's not much resolution in the figures: it doesn't make sense to look at NATIONAL figures on gun control, because jesus, we're fifty states stretching across a whole continent with ~300,000,000 people, and a mess of conflicting local, state and federal laws and communities with different patterns, characters and problems

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:09 (eighteen years ago)

ah, okay.

― c sharp major, Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)

I don't really know a lot of people on ILE, I'm such a sporadic poster, but I sometimes hate it when the vast lurking majority remains disappointingly silent in the face of, well, hysteria -- and what happened upthread seemed to me to be just that -- a hysterical fingers-in-the-ears "lalala i can't hear you" in the face of one person's perfectly reasonable point about gun control -- namely, that people be weird so it's probably not a great idea to have a lot of little instant death machines around. He or she, the lurker, even illustrated his or her own point quite nicely, by getting all kneejerk and defensive and heavy handed under the hysterical onslaught. Understandably, probably. A couple of people (most notedly nabisco and jaymc) tried admirably to dial down the righteous indignation factor and someone else said they won't ever speak to them again as a result. I mean, WTF people?

Oh, and I was raped for what it's worth -- at age 8 actually -- and I had no problem whatsoever with the initial analogy, understanding it in the context of the poster trying to establish what kind of "victim" we'd give a pass to if they did happen to harbour intense revenge fantasies. Personally, I've never harboured elaborate revenge fantasies over that, but I was once swarmed by a group of around twelve guys and was hospitalised, and thoughts of (mostly impractical) revenge did cross my mind once in a while, less so as time goes by. It is one aspect of human nature, and we are all capable of it. That's all lurker-person was saying. Anyone arguing against that? Of course it's awkward and unpleasant and weird -- in extremis, we be creepy sometimes. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to discuss some of the more harrowing aspects of trauma outside of the therapist's office, though, who knows?

I know I'm probably missing a whole dimension of ILX relationship history here, but the lengthy thread derail (which I'm adding to now, fuck, sorry) made me feel really sad in some difficult-to-express way, something about the very concept of cliques and bullying which the lurker-pariah was trying to explore, something about wilful misunderstanding, something about loneliness, something about the necessity to root out a hapless scapegoat when we're freaked the fuck out.

I should add that, although I personally had no problem with the rape stuff, I have no more right to speak for another sexual assault survivor than lurker or anyone else.

But, hey, at the risk of having someone on an Internet message board "threaten" to not speak to me, like, ever again... nabisco OTM once again. Really.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 23:49 (eighteen years ago)

LostandFound, your post is exactly how I feel, and you have managed to get it across in a much more articulate manner than I had planned to do.

Reading through the lynching of Lurker made me angry enough to finally register with new-ILX. When things went south with the old code I decided that I would continue reading ILX in the sandbox and new-ILX, but not bother registering. I have a tendency to get quite emotionally involved in topics such as this, and I've found it's best that I just keep my mouth shut. However, when Lost said "I sometimes hate it when the vast lurking majority remains disappointingly silent in the face of, well, hysteria", I felt I had no choice but to show my agreement and support.

I too agree that Lurker's point is completely valid, and to be honest I really don't even find his reaction to the (as Lost put it so well) righteous indignation all that bad. He simply tried to make an analogy and people lost their minds. I find Manalishi's admission that the"Fact is I like guns. I like owning them. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell. And it's my right to stockpile them if I want to" comments far "creepier" than anything Lurker said.

Lurker, I commend you on your patience in the face of the childish gangbang against you. Again echoing Lostandfound, thanks to Nabisco, Jaymc, Trayce and a few others for actually reading Lurker's posts and trying to make others understand his points.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 00:56 (eighteen years ago)

I agree with the last two posts.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:03 (eighteen years ago)

I don't.

― HI DERE, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:14 (eighteen years ago)

childish gangbang

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:18 (eighteen years ago)

I find Manalishi's admission that the"Fact is I like guns. I like owning them. I like shooting them. I like how they look and smell. And it's my right to stockpile them if I want to" comments far "creepier" than anything Lurker said.

As did everyone who called Lurker creepy, dumbass. (If not creepier then equally creepy.)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:35 (eighteen years ago)

"dumbass".

Another classy response.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:38 (eighteen years ago)

And for the record Milo, wasn't it John Justen who initially called Lurker creepy? Shortly thereafter he said this:

Returning to the point at hand, I would rather see Manalishi/Roger etcetera (even in the (hopefully) exaggerated stance he has chosen to take) have access to firearms, in place of you (again, in the (hopefully) exaggerated stance you have chosen to take) having access to them.

-- John Justen, Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:41 AM (16 hours ago)

Unless you have a different interpretation for the word everyone, it seems my post wasn't as dumb as you would like it to appear.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:15 (eighteen years ago)

"Roger's creepy, but you're fucked in the head" is difficult for you to understand, then?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:19 (eighteen years ago)

Hey guys, I'm back, did I miss anything?

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:21 (eighteen years ago)

JOHN RUN AWAY, IT'S NOT TOO LATE

― HI DERE, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:23 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry Milo, I must have missed that line in the storm of abuse a bunch of you inflicted on Lurker. The fact is, in both of those quotes it seems to me that Lurker is being held more to task than Manalishi, and that is problematic to me. Manalishi talks about his love for the smell of guns, but someone attempting to make an analogy which validly supports the fear of guns in the hands of private citizens is worse?

But if it continues to make you feel like a man to insult my intelligence because I disagree with you, have at me man!

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:34 (eighteen years ago)

"validly supports" is wrong

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:35 (eighteen years ago)

I'm insulting your intelligence because you seem entirely too dense to understand that finding Roger creepy and Lurker creepy are not mutually exclusive concepts, and that one's feeling toward guns has nothing to do with it.

"someone attempting to make an analogy which validly supports the fear of guns" - not loading the question at all!

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:37 (eighteen years ago)

Calling an opinion wrong, when evidently there are others who agree with said opinion, is wrong.

Milo, you're insulting my intelligence because it makes you feel better. Like a bully. You could have attempted to make your point without resorting to name-calling, but evidently you didn't feel the strength of your logic was enough.

In any case, I fully realize the futility of this. I should have kept my mouth shut after supporting Lostandfound's articulate post.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:41 (eighteen years ago)

"Calling an opinion wrong, when evidently there are others who agree with said opinion, is wrong."

Uh

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:44 (eighteen years ago)

Never mind, I'll let you work that one out on your own.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:44 (eighteen years ago)

Milo, you're insulting my intelligence because ~~it makes you feel better~~ I say things like "Calling an opinion wrong, when evidently there are others who agree with said opinion, is wrong."

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:47 (eighteen years ago)

Guys, I think we're on the brink of some really great results here.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:48 (eighteen years ago)

"HI DERE" and "John Justen" have both been sockpuppeted for the purposes for injecting confusion into your virtual society. By tomorrow, both will return to non-sensical all caps statements or image posts as previously arranged.

-- John Justen, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:03 PM (Yesterday)

I MEAN YOU CAN'T SAY I DIDN'T GIVE YOU FAIR WARNING.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:51 (eighteen years ago)

Jeez guys, I think it's you who need to check your cognitive reasoning.

The current tag-team attack on me has to do with my (and others) opinion that Lurker's analogy validly supports the fear of guns. As an opinion that other people agree with (Nabisco, Lostandfound, etc.) the jury is still out on whether it is right or wrong. It's a fucking opinion after all. Moonship stated that I was wrong, as if his opinion is any more factual than my own. That is wrong.

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:58 (eighteen years ago)

nah i question the validity of lurker's methods

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:07 (eighteen years ago)

notice that the part i take umbrage with is "validly stated"

it's like, suppose we are having a discussion about fuel economy and cars and the rising price of oil and greenhouse emissions and dwindling supply and so forth ...

and roger gets on thread and is all "well i like my big hummer, yo yo yo, i like to drive it around cause it's big and manly manly, ho ho, so fuck all yall"

and that's bad, but then lurker gets on and is like

"have you ever seen a hummer driven repeatedly over a person's head until it smashes like a watermelon? well have you? have you? huh tough guy? have you seen a baby otter drowned in motor oil?!? have you?"

and that's just bad / offensive / gross internet skillz

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:11 (eighteen years ago)

As Nabisco stated in his first attempt to quiet this furor, that's not what Lurker was saying at all.. He was saying something more along the lines of "If I saw someone drive a hummer repeatedly over a person's head until it smashed like a watermelon.... and I had a gun..... I sure would be tempted to blow the head off of the fuckwit behind the wheel of the hummer... so it's a damn good thing that everyone isn't carrying a firearm to act during such an emotionally charged event!"

― Shorty, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:18 (eighteen years ago)

LOL the willie horton school of policy-making!!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:24 (eighteen years ago)

isn't this sort of like arguing AGAINST nuclear disarmament based on THREAT OF ROGUE PLANET KILLING COMET?

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:25 (eighteen years ago)

Ha, okay, Moonship, just for the record, I don't think anyone here said Lurker's been arguing his point very appealingly? All I was saying, anyway, was that I followed his point, and it seemed a little unfair to call him a total psychopath over it. And then we got to some point where it felt like Jaymc and I were being called bad people for following his point and not thinking he was a psychopath, which was a little confusing to me. I would say we've found the "yelling out of cars at people" of new-ILX, but I totally think there's a sensible middle where his rhetoric's kinda whacked but his point's not exactly evil.

ANYWAY, the following is meant to be non-argumentative and mostly just a personal story. I actually have a packet, somewhere around here, of material for a how-to-teach-writing course I was in. It contains lots of sample writing from inner-city kids, mostly around middle-school, some younger, some older. Their teachers make a point of not evading the realities the kids grow up in, so they give them some tough assignments -- things like "write about the most frightened you've ever been." There are thoughts expressed in their writing, non-fiction personal-writing stuff ... there's ugly stuff that's happened to them, and there's ugly stuff they've thought about doing, plenty of it in way worse terms than anyone here. I think maybe that's part of why I didn't react too horribly to Lurker? I'm not saying that to argue a point: these were children I'm talking about, not grown men having a topical discussion on the internet, and you could easily say those children were creepy and disturbed, thanks to having been traumatized by a whole bunch of shit most of us should be thankful to have avoided. (I.e., I don't mean this the way Lurker means his rape-victim argument.) But this whole thing just puts me in mind of reading those and wondering how those students ended up. I'm sure a depressing number of them wound up involved in violence; I'm sure some of them turned out reasonably okay, though. Anyway, when people admit to having momentary violent revent fantasies, but still seem 100% aware of the wrongness and badness of that ... well, I guess apparently I've been trained to be all therapy-style non-judgmental about it? With children, anyway. But even with adults, it seems like people should be able to say "I've had these thoughts but I know they're wrong," and not get too much flak for it. That's why I was a little mystified by everyone using the word "nurturing" before, cause there's a whole lot of ground between nurturing those thoughts and calling someone a psychopath for having them. I imagine therapists and corrections officers of all sorts spend loads of time in that area.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 03:54 (eighteen years ago)

i'm sorry dude, i respect the calm voice-of-reason thing and all that, but i don't log on to ILX to do group therapy with total strangers!! i log on to ILX to hang out with grownups who aren't in the habit of using vivid descriptions of real or imagined crimes against their person to win talking points!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:12 (eighteen years ago)

"hi jaymc and [nabisco], i actually never want to speak to either of you again."

lol @ the nu "i'm off the internets because of you."

jaymc & nabisco & shorty & lostandfound OTM

― gershy, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:13 (eighteen years ago)

Man alive, and to think I felt guilty because I was so nasty to Roger. This thread has gone beyond my ability to comprehend the reason behind its existence.

― kenan, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:16 (eighteen years ago)

I sincerely hope that no one on this thread ever gets too enthusiastic about guns, in any sense but the very abstract.

― kenan, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:22 (eighteen years ago)

What's wrong with how guns smell?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 04:57 (eighteen years ago)

I think old ILX just melted down.

(Cue TOMBOT physically "threatening" someone, ha ha.)

― Lostandfound, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:35 (eighteen years ago)

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/8/4/19/f_gocry3m_dcfcfd3.jpg

― ghost rider, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:44 (eighteen years ago)

http://lonestartimes.com/images/Benzion/angry_baby_head.JPG

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:49 (eighteen years ago)

My two cents - Lurker is a pretty twisted fucker. Some people on this board would tell you that such a condemnation from the likes of me is surely the hangman's noose. Oops, there I go with my violent imagery again. I'd better stop or Tombot will accuse me of advocating lynching.

I don't really think I should even dignify this most recent discussion with a response, but I'm awake and I've seen this episode of Little House on the Prairie twice before.

I can only speak for myself here, and I said this upthread, but I never, ever get angry and think "I'm gonna get my gun."

To use an example from above, if I saw seven white kids beating up a mentally retarded black kid for no reason (maybe even if there WAS a reason) I'd do my very best to intervene and, if neccessary, kick the stuffing out of all seven of them. I'd probably risk jail, the ICU, etc, for the opportunity to break a few noses and generally take the focus off the defenseless kid. But I would never, even for a second, entertain the notion of firing a bullet that I could never take back. It just wouldn't cross my mind.

I don't say this to appear self righteous, I say this becaue I truly feel in my heart that most responsible gun owners would tell you the exact same thing, and because I think anyone who gets into a tiff and thinks that torturing someone is an aceptable course of action has problems that run far deeper than any mesaaegboard discussion could ever properly address.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 06:52 (eighteen years ago)

THE SAGA CONTINUES

― A B C, Friday, 20 April 2007 07:09 (eighteen years ago)

HAHAHA YOU ARE THE INCREDIBLE HULK AND I CLAIM MY $5

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 07:10 (eighteen years ago)

I think there's a lot that could be done to better regulate gun ownership without violating the 2nd Amendment. For instance:

- More thorough background checking: We have a rather comprehensive system in this country for tracking a person's credit record. Unpaid bills from years ago can affect your ability to get a mortgage. We have nothing comparable to this for buying a gun. One reason is funding. The private sector (credit agencies, lenders, etc.) maintains the machinery needed to track credit histories because it's in their financial interest. Are we as a country too cheap to insist on at least as good a system for tracking warning signs before someone buys a lethal weapon? We should have a system that rates the danger level and applies appropriate conditions to gun purchase. People who had minor mental health issues in their past might still be able to purchase a gun, but perhaps they would be required to go through a psychological screening process first, and their purchases would require notification of local police or other authorities.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 17:41 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

why are they letting Nugent on CNN now?!? wtf.

angry baby.jpg made this thread all better

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

tramp on the second amendment
skank on the fourth
tart on the ninth amendment
harlot ont he sixteenth

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

I am now entertaining ironic revenge fantasies about Ted Nugent

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:13 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIEHI0vfCBk&NR=1

btw guys im going to post entirely in youtube videos from now on ive always wanted to be one of those gimmick poster guys

― deeznuts, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:14 (eighteen years ago)

The Nuge made me very proud on the Glenn Beck show earlier this week. While not the ideal spokesman for gun rights, he tends to decimate anyone he debates on the issue.

Not that it isn't hard. Gun control debates are usually just knee jerk screeching hysteria vs. cold hard facts anyway. As evidenced by this thread.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

wow. this is still going.

― Gukbe, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

lolz @ Nuge the "master debator" yeah right

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

I'd love to see a Zombie Reagan / Motor City Madman ticket for 2008. That'd get me out.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:19 (eighteen years ago)

o. nate, you're describing a serious invasion into medical records, psychological confidentiality and giving the state a great deal of power to judge individuals on those merits. How do you keep the government from expanding those powers well past gun buyers? Doesn't that have some clear analogue to Bush's intrusions on civil liberties?

Maybe the records should be maintained by an independent body -not by the government itself. In any case, do you really think that the government wouldn't be able to get that information anyway, if it really wanted to?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sure the government can - we generally just protest when it chooses to (again, Dubya).

I don't even know where you start deciding what medical or psych conditions (which would have to be on record and available to someone). If you go on an anti-depressant for a short time? If you're clinically depressed? Bipolar? Do we want to start stigmatizing people for medical troubles?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

Manalishi, many of us - o. nate is the latest - have had you bang to rights, as it were, over and over on this thread. Trolls have an uncanny ability to be completely oblivious to getting sonned, though

I don't even know where you start deciding what medical or psych conditions

milo, it's called "politics" - that's where it starts, and that's how it gets played out - sorry there's not a big conversion table somewhere, pre-fabricated to make decisions easier

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

Milo, technically that wouldn't be an "invasion" and would be something you'd submit to in order to make the purchase -- people currently have to open themselves to that kind of scrutiny in order to get sensitive government jobs, security clearances, or authority to do certain kinds of hazardous work, right?

Not saying your point isn't valid, just that it wouldn't be inventing whole new powers on the part of government -- it'd be a vast expansion of existing ones, I guess. The argument that this is a step toward background review of everything is a worthwhile one, it's true.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

or even a step toward background review of everyone, which is even scarier

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

Hey Tracer - again, I've been here since around 2004, I think, on and off.

I can deduce that your sentence is somehow intended to insult me, but for the life of me I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say. Maybe I've never heard the term "bang to rights?"

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

"just that it wouldn't be inventing whole new powers on the part of government -- it'd be a vast expansion of existing ones, I guess."

DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

cold hard facts made out of bullets

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

Come again?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

every time you think about guns, I bet

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco's point is good. I would imagine this new service being set up as an independent body whose only purpose in using this information would be to provide clearances to purchase fire-arms. The details of the information would not be provided to the gun dealer, only the result, which would be one of three possibilities: Approved, Denied, or Contact the Bureau of Firearm Safety for further screening. Law enforcement would need to get a warrant to request any information from these records.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

i had to sign an affadavit last night stating that i

have not been determined to be a sexual psychopath under the provisions of Article 1 (commencing with Section 6300) chapter 2, Part 2, Division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or under similar provisions of law of any other state

just to be granted the privelege of attending grad school.

i don't think this part of the code includes stalking and/or domestic violence, i wonder if it should??

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:39 (eighteen years ago)

Glad you missed the point, Tracer. No shit it's politics - now how do you contain them, how do you keep personal agendas out of it? How do you keep from stigmatizing people with mild issues that could (potentially) cause harm to themselves or others? If people who might do themselves harm can be constrained from owning guns - do we need to remove them from all other possible forms of self-injury?

Nabisco, do you not see a major difference between a an invasive and extreme background check for security-sensitive jobs and for purchasing something? I've had two jobs that made me pee in a cup for weed - should we make everyone who buys a car take a drug test? (which isn't to make the absurd argument that 'cars kill too' - but those with illegal drugs in their system are presumably more prone to driving under the influence, right?).

o.nate - how is an 'independent body' any better than 'the government'? Who are they beholden to? What makes them more secure? Is there no chance that an 'independent body' can leak or misuse information? (again, Dubya overstepping boundaries to seize personal records from 'independent bodies' just like this)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

xp - A similar question exists on the background check form for buying a gun - have you ever been forcibly committed or judged mentally ill or something along those lines.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

Sure, there's always a chance information could be leaked or misused. The job of the bureau and those who run it would be to minimize that chance. Still I'd take that risk over the risk of fire-arms being made available to unstable individuals.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

should we make everyone who buys a car take a drug test?

why not!!

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

So you think the potential to save 33 lives every six years is justification to create a system that could be abused regularly and requires that anyone who wants to own a firearm submit to an invasive background check?

I mean, what you're describing here is an instant-access system with information on your mental and physical health regularly updated. That requires that doctors transmit your info every time they see you to a central database - not just of gun buyers, but of everyone who falls under the guidelines who might potentially purchase a gun (like the current criminal database). So the 35-year old mother suffering post-partum depression goes into the database, even though she's never going to think about buying a gun.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

'twas an xpost, of course.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

OK, if it's the record-keeping part that really bothers you, then forget the detailed psychological records. They would track only the most obvious things, like criminal records and records of being placed in mental institutions (stuff they're already supposed to track), but in addition to that, anyone who wants to buy a firearm would be required to pass a psychological screening test. The test would be paid for by the required application fee.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

This thread is pushing me into the gun-rights camp, despite Manalishi.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

i'd be curious to see the number of murders committed by unstable individuals using firearms (more than 33 every six years, just maybe)

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:46 (eighteen years ago)

And while we're at it, there would also be a required course in gun safety.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

What does a psychological screening test cover? Who devises and judges it? How do you keep people from, you know, lying?

"Have you ever had fantasies of assaulting people you consider bullies and forcing them to beg you for mercy?"
"Uh, no. Really."

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

I think milo kind of has a point here. medical records-as-basis-for anything is a dodgy proposition. (one caveat that hasn't been brought up at all so far is the um, accuracy and reliability of medical opinion. I mean, I don't trust doctors to properly identify anything.)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

Well, presumably, the test would be designed to work even if people were lying. Perhaps it would include a polygraph test.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

and electric shocks to the gonads

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:50 (eighteen years ago)

For an extra charge, sure, why not.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

Heh, charge.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

Once you get past the invasive method, the more serious problem with your argument is that you're not doing anything effective, just putting up hurdles because they make you feel a little better.

As I said at the start, the only feasible form of 'gun control' (past what exists now) requires that you attack manufacturers (eliminate civilian arms, period) rather than end users.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

I think it would be effective. Show me your evidence of why it wouldn't be.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:53 (eighteen years ago)

o. nate, you do realize that your system wouldn't do anything about the millions of firearms already in public hands, right?

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

yeah i dunno about this test thing anymore

i still say we should just make certain crimes *more* illegal - i mean, it works for drunk driving, right?

how about if you get caught stalking or involved in domestic abuse you have to attend night classes just like a drunk driver? and if you don't you can't ... use the internet or something.

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:54 (eighteen years ago)

o. nate, you do realize that your system wouldn't do anything about the millions of firearms already in public hands, right?

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

how is checking to see somebody's not a raging pathological psychopath "invasive" ? i'm sick of libertarians deploying this word to cloud any issue where the suggestion is made that there's some governmental oversite – it's bullshit. why should we be compelled to issue firearms to people with histories of psychic disturbance? we don't give licenses to high-risk epileptics.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

Dude Milo like I said, I totally agree with your concerns about privacy -- they're completely legitimate. All I said was that the government does currently screen people in similar ways, so it's not like it'd be philosophically revolutionary. Your drivers' license drug test is a funny example, because your local DMV is poking around administering medical screenings ON SITE -- they test your vision!

The issue of medical/psychological records drives those concerns home pretty well. Apart from that, though, I'm not CERTAIN intense non-medical screening would be some kind of huge scary revolutionary move. We already do cursory criminal-record checks. The government screens people not just for sensitive jobs, but for licensing to do various things, right? Repeat DMV eye-test.

So yeah, I'm agreeing with you here that there are legitimate worries to be had about all this -- I was mostly just pointing out that this wouldn't be some crazy philosophical leap from stuff government already does.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

This isn't usually the kind of argument I'd make, fan of standardized testing that I am, but does anyone else see the slippery slope here? You're going to trust a 'system' to keep this from becoming terribly exclusionary and racist?

The problem with mandating anything like this is the inevitable trojan horse scenario, and o nate's 'system' idea would potentially open the floodgates to even more civil rights violations.

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

I think it would be effective. Show me your evidence of why it wouldn't be.

You're the proposer, hoss. Show me the number of gun deaths caused by individuals who would be adjudicated 'mentally incapable of owning a firearm' under your proposed system, and exactly what your system encompasses?

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

Fuck you and your gun too. If you wanted a job that required a high security clearance, you'd have to pass a polygraph test. How is applying for ownership of a deadly weapon any different in principal?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

and how do you determine raging pathological psychopaths anyway?

that's a diagnosis that's usually made only when it's too late, like after somebody's eaten their moms liver for breakfast

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

not to my knowledge. but that doesn't mean a massive number of other gun crime perps wouldn't be.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:00 (eighteen years ago)

How many, remy?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

-- o. nate, Friday, April 20, 2007 1:55 PM (1 minute ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (eighteen years ago)

I think the suggestion about attacking the manufacturers/market is a better move. As Justen points out, it wouldn't affect the bazillion guns currently in circulation, but it could conceivably keep the problem from getting *worse*. Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time. Perhaps it would be best to take the long view and apply legislation now that would have more concrete ramifications several generations from now.

many x-posts

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (eighteen years ago)

raging pathological psychopaths was hyperbolic. i thought that much would be obvious. but the point stands: why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns? suicidal depressives? convicted spousal abusers? those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years. i'm precluded from giving blood because of the time i spent in England. i don't consider it "invasive" to take my medical history, i consider it prudent.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (eighteen years ago)

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

this thread has taught me nothing except that gun collectors are giant harmless nerds who probably just like to shoot at photos of Saruman. also, maybe there should be a slightly tighter screening process on those who have already been noted as being a danger to themselves and others at some point in the recent past. at this point i don't think we can realistically do anything about the guns out there considering there millions of them out there, with probably hundreds of thousands unaccounted for by any governing body.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (eighteen years ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

No one's saying it would be easy. But who are we as a country if we can't face difficult challenges every once in a while?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not calling it hard, I'm calling it impossible.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

remy, is correct, there IS a powerful and overwhelming body of evidence that households where there is a gun and a history of domestic abuse tend to end in fatal shootings, ditto households with drug abuse

i don't know though, maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

so maybe instead of going for stricter gun control we could look at factors that exacerbate gun violence and work on those?

i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?

who knows, this might be a worthier challenge than making guns illegal

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns?

It already does. It just is not, generally speaking, as invasive as you're hoping.

Define "high risk."

convicted spousal abusers

Already on the list and denied ownership. In fact, if you get a restraining order put on you for domestic violence, the police can (rightly) confiscate your guns in the meantime.

those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years.

Can't remember if that's actually part of the background check, but it is one of the questions asked on an ATF form (and thus a federal crime to lie about).

suicidal depressives?

What other things should clinical depressives be denied? Cars? Knives? Medicines?

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

I'm not being a jerk - you're throwing out that lots of gun violence is perpetrated by high-risk 'psychological' targets - I don't believe that to be the case and have yet to see anyone show that it is.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

I'm not sure we need vastly expanded gun-purchase screening, though -- we'd do better with stricter enforcement of the types of screening we already have. (The only way criminal-history scanning fails is that a lot of the warning-sign crimes -- like threats or domestic violence -- are interpersonal crimes where people drop charges or things get plead down, and so there's no concrete record of trial and conviction.)

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

glasses dont kill people nabisco, people kill people

― Mr. Que, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

if a lot of gun violence is not being perpetrated by high risk types, that's even more depressing w/r/t society

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.reedsway.com/charlton_heston2.jpg

guns don't kill people, soylent green is people

― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

sorry

― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

"Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time"

Another wild claim stated as absolute truth! Has ILE always been this factually challenged or have I been sipping too many Long Island Ice Teas in the wee computer hours?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

Well we don't have to go pry the guns out of their hands all at once. This could be phased in gradually over a relatively long period of time. It would start by issuing a new class of gun license for people who have passed the screening, eventually the old classes of gun licenses would be phased out and people would have to apply for the new kind. If they refused, then, well, they'd be unlicensed. We wouldn't necessarily send the police to confiscate their guns.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

this is indeed the case. Enforcement is a huge issue here though - funny that that's a common tack of the NRA, to argue that there's already plenty of laws that just aren't being enforced properly. Which is totally true, but the argument is used to misdirect the debate away from the possibility of enacting any additional laws.

and yes manalishi I know what the fuck I'm talking about with old guns - no one holds up a liquor store with a cap-and-ball rifle for a reason.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

(cap and ball MUSKET I should say)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

"i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?"

In Roger's America, heal thyself, friend.

Or, you know...get a rope. Either way.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

LOL same to you, buddy

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

Old weapons do age, but generally only become ineffective due to use. A modern rifle or handgun will outlast us all, and probably our great-great-great grandchildren, if it's not being shot regularly.

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

As John said way way back - your driving privileges are (legally) more akin to the ability to carry a loaded firearm on the street. In which case you will be tested and given restrictions.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

I've said this a bunch of times already, but there is a distinction between "license to operate" and "license to purchase", and certainly "license to own", and as long as people keep flipping back and forth according to the point they're trying to make, we'll all keep circling the same things again and again.

Which is going to happen anyway, but at least it'll be more interesting to read my way.

xpost uh shakey, you might have missed my point earlier re: high power shooting and an unmodified model from 1913, but maintained guns don't wear out.

xposts yup, milo is right.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.reedsway.com/charlton_heston2.jpg

I has a gun
I has cold hands
I has need bullets
?

― StanM, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

in terms of "ineffectual" I was thinking more of how weapons tend to get regularly outmoded by, um, deadlier weapons.

Like 50 years from now the standard, most effective weapon for killing people probably won't be a handgun.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

you know like no one is using unmodified rifles from 1913 to wantonly murder people, commit crimes, etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:18 (eighteen years ago)

Presumably the new class of gun license would also be checked any time someone wanted to purchase ammo. So people with the old kind of license would eventually not be able to purchase ammo.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

Haha dudes I was mostly just being funny about the DMV vision test, but if your response to that is "driving is more like carrying concealed weapons," does that suggest you're fine with psychological testing and opening medical records for c&c permits, or telling people they have to have psychological testing in order to get them? (That's a genuine question, BTW, not a rhetorical one.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

I've never had a psych or medical test for my driver's license. I go up, put on my glasses, and look in the little vision box.

A Texas concealed handgun license is quite a bit more stringent than that. 8 hours of classes, a shooting proficiency test, fingerprints sent to the state police and the FBI for background checks, etc..

My father's got held up for three or four extra months because he'd been arrested for fighting in California. In 1967.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

I may be mistaken about this, but I don't think ammo has as long as shelf-life as a gun, so the license-check on ammo part would help to address the legacy gun problem.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't use old ammo.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

Milo you've been tricked: that little vision box is an eye test! It is secretly assessing whether or not you have untreated DIZEEZES of the EYE and BRANE! RUN!!!

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:25 (eighteen years ago)

Nope, ammo doesn't last quite as long. Problem is, you can make it yourself, so that won't work either.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

You can't make it from scratch, you need to purchase certain things like primers, gunpowder, casings, etc. These would also require a license check.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

jesus christ, who knew guns were so boring?

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

I still haven't seen any statistics on the number of gun-related deaths caused by mentally unstable people.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (eighteen years ago)

ORLY? I wonder if anyone already has any of those things? I wonder if the casings are reusable? Primers and powder, properly stored, last for a long, long time.

xposts

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:30 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

2) everyone in america having their records accessed or being questioned by police is INNOCENT until conviction

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:31 (eighteen years ago)

I still haven't seen any statistics on the number of gun-related deaths caused by mentally unstable people.

Err, isn't – excepting immediate and inarguable self defense / accidental firing – the act of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger an unstable act?

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:33 (eighteen years ago)

Any, John J, sure there's going to be some dead-enders who stockpile gunpowder and bullets and so on in airtight, temperature controlled chambers so that when the One World Government comes to stamp the Number of the Beast on their foreheads they'll be ready to stop it like true red-blooded patriots. No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:34 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, tons of people reload and really wouldn't enjoy being characterized that way, and they'd be completely right.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

Such as whether they might be purchasing the gun with the intent of killing scores of innocent people?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

o. nate, there are also people who shoot a lot (for fun) and want to keep costs down. Buying primers in the thousands at a time isn't unheard of.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

Err, isn't – excepting immediate and inarguable self defense / accidental firing – the act of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger an unstable act?

The contortions involved there aren't even worth responding to.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not talking about everyone who reloads, I'm talking about the people in John's scenario who would refuse to be psychologically screened and would stockpile their (illegal) guns.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (eighteen years ago)

oh great now there's some shooting thing goin on at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:37 (eighteen years ago)

Oh boy. How about ammonia, nate? Can I still buy that without turning my head and coughing? Robitussin? How about that? Do I need to submit to fingerprinting for that?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:37 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not talking about everyone who reloads, I'm talking about the people in John's scenario who would refuse to be psychologically screened and would stockpile their (illegal) guns.

-- o. nate, Friday, April 20, 2007 2:36 PM (50 seconds ago)

WHAT?

You know, the thing that's making this whole thread particularly irritating is that a bunch of people keep presenting uninformed "Hmmm, I think this might be true" data as facts.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:38 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, I realize that the factual statement "Many people buy thousands of primers at a time" is inconvenient for you, but it's still true.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

"Any, John J, sure there's going to be some dead-enders who stockpile gunpowder and bullets and so on in airtight, temperature controlled chambers so that when the One World Government comes to stamp the Number of the Beast on their foreheads they'll be ready to stop it like true red-blooded patriots."

You have a lot of strange ass ideas, man. Where do you come up with this shit?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

Why are proposing legislating psychological profiling? Have we investigated whether this is actually a significant problem in need of a solution.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

"You know, the thing that's making this whole thread particularly irritating is that a bunch of people keep presenting uninformed "Hmmm, I think this might be true" data as facts."

This is by far the most sensible thing NOT said by me on this entire thread.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

I've tried to avoid speculative generalizations myself - I think the only generalization I've made was about the rarity of people committing mass murder/violent crimes with really old outdated guns

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

Oh boy. How about ammonia, nate? Can I still buy that without turning my head and coughing? Robitussin? How about that? Do I need to submit to fingerprinting for that?

Obviously guns are quite different in their potential for harm from those things. The idea is to make it harder for the occasional nut job to carry out his murderous fantasy. Guns are by far the easiest way for people to do go on these kinds of rampages, hence why they are so often used for that purpose. Obviously there are other ways people can carry out mass murder - the 9/11 hijackers only needed box cutters to kill thousands - but those incidents are extremely rare, because of the difficulty involved.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

o. nate, what you don't seem to be taking into account is that VT-like incidents are themselves "extremely rare" - in terms of overall population, prevalence of firearms and their use.

Which then goes to what Fluffy and I've been requesting - hard numbers on the amount of gun violence related to mental instability/illness/etc..

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:44 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, I realize that the factual statement "Many people buy thousands of primers at a time" is inconvenient for you, but it's still true.

Somewhere this train got onto the wrong track. I never meant to imply anything about people who buy primers in bulk. I'm talking about a potential group of people in a possible future scenario that obviously I didn't communicate very well in this thread. Never mind - it's not important. The important point I'm trying to make is that the legacy gun problem will shrink over time.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

Uninformed non-factual things like Roger thinking he can still buy OTC cough medicine without having to sign in a little book if it has any ephedrine in it. :(

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:49 (eighteen years ago)

xpost Good luck with that, partner.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:50 (eighteen years ago)

No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

Wait, I thought you just wanted to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Guns are by far the easiest way for people to do go on these kinds of rampages

So why do Palestinians often use bombs instead of guns?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

You can get high as hell on Robitussin DM. That's a fact. I can walk into Duane Reade right now and buy a gallon of the shit.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

All of the violence I have seen in my life firsthand thus far has not involved guns.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:52 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, but you live in a world where you can break seven dudes' noses in a Hulk-style group fight, so getting all Steven Seagal Zen-wisdom on us isn't very enlightening.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:54 (eighteen years ago)

The important point I'm trying to make is that the legacy gun problem will shrink over time.

this is my thinking too - moving forward make new weapons more difficult to purchase/restrict their manufacture etc., and let time and inconvenience reduce the problem of the guns already in circulation.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:54 (eighteen years ago)

No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

Wait, I thought you just wanted to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Guns are by far the easiest way for people to do go on these kinds of rampages

So why do Palestinians often use bombs instead of guns?

Obviously Palestine is very different situation to the US, in terms of what materials are available as well as whether you are dealing with a highly-skilled terrorist organization or a lone nut.

Sorry, I left out the word "unlicensed" above. The sentence should have read: "No solution is going to get rid of every single unlicensed gun."

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:55 (eighteen years ago)

Wait, I thought you just wanted to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

I'm not proposing any gun control past what exists now (except I might make concealed-carry a national program so that every state has equally stringent checks - some states are looser now).

I'm saying that the only effective method of control, if you wanted to pursue one, is to eliminate them as completely as possible. All the mental-health checks and bans on scary-looking guns in the world aren't going to solve anything.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:58 (eighteen years ago)

oh wait, that wasn't directed at me. I misread what you quoted.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:58 (eighteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of guns available in Palestine. I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of explosive-making material in the US.

xposts

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:00 (eighteen years ago)

nah, not an AK-47 to be found in Palestine.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:01 (eighteen years ago)

I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of explosive-making material in the US

If you don't see any difference in difficulty between what it takes to buy a gun in this country vs. to find someone willing to sell you high explosives, and to have the know-how to fashion it into an effective bomb, then you are living in a different world than I am.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

Palestinian terrorists use bombs because they have a good bomb-making infrastructure, you're saying?

So the idea is that they're more fanatical than crazy, which makes them more determined than most random American crazies, so if you took guns away from americans, the crazies would just not bother instead of learning how to make bombs?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

A lot of crazies wouldn't. Yes, that is what I'm saying.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

OH MY GOD SERIOUSLY STOP DOING THIS.

Have you heard of these strange "fertilizers" the arms merchants are selling? Often right in the middle of the heartland of the USA?

xpost

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

Or they might try - and fail, or get caught.

xpost

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

Or perhaps this new fangled liquid death machine called "kerosene in an enclosed container"?

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

I'm just strolling through o.nate's reasoning, John. Making sure I follow it.

I think he has a flashier concept of what it takes to make an effective bomb than bombers do.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (eighteen years ago)

Weren't 20-something people killed at the Olympics by a bomb that consisted of low-grade explosives plus NAILS?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (eighteen years ago)

many, many, xposts.

Here is a section of an article written in 2002 about the reason it is so difficult to find information on the mentally ill and firearms:

Title: Guns and the mentally ill., By: Cannon, Angie, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 4/1/2002, Vol. 132, Issue 10
Database: Academic Search Premier

Records gap. The FBI's database currently contains records for about 89,570 people who should be prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems--though the government estimates that as many as 2.6 million people have been involuntarily institutionalized in the United States. Almost all of those mental health records in the FBI database come from people who were institutionalized in federal veterans hospitals. Only six states provide mental health records to the FBI database, and they provided a total of only 41 individual records.

That frustrates the FBI. "We're constantly working with the states in an effort to get more records into our system in this category," says spokesman Steve Fischer. "In most cases, it takes legislation within respective states for that to happen. That's one reason why there has been a delay."

Very few people are denied guns because of mental illness: They account for fewer than 1 percent of all denials from Oct. 1, 2001, to mid-January, according to the FBI. About 90 percent of the denials are due to previous criminal history, while fugitives make up the next biggest group of denials, 2.8 percent. "Untold thousands of people could be slipping through the cracks," says Matthew Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, a moderate gun control group. NRA lobbyist Baker says his group wants states to provide records to the background checks databases. "Every time we talk about the need for these records to be in the system, civil liberties groups come unglued," he says. "We believe those records should be in there for all prohibited groups." By whatever standard, the system falls short.

I also found an article from the New York Times (but in 1999) that stated that the majority of those who proved to be mentally ill and used a gun to cause harm, were committing suicides, not committing murders.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for you. Tis a slow day in the library.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, but you live in a world where you can break seven dudes' noses in a Hulk-style group fight, so getting all Steven Seagal Zen-wisdom on us isn't very enlightening.

-- nabisco, Friday, April 20, 2007 2:54 PM (11 minutes ago)

I specifically allowed for the possibility of being sent to the intensive care unit, if you read carefully. I never said I'd 'break seven dudes' noses,' I merely said I'd hit as many as I could, allowing the kid to hopefully escape getting beaten up.

Have you never been in a fight, nabisco?

Now, had these seven white kids been KILLING this little guy, or TRYING to, well....that's a very different story.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

Weren't 20-something people killed at the Olympics by a bomb that consisted of low-grade explosives plus NAILS?

-- milo z, Friday, April 20, 2007 4:08 PM (3 minutes ago)

are you talking about atlanta? 2 ppl died, 1 from a heart attack out of shock

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

plz stop with the hypothetical scenarios, they're really obnoxious and add nothing to the debate

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:13 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, Atlanta. 2 dead, 111 injured. I thought the fatalities were much higher.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:13 (eighteen years ago)

Our librarian thread has given us a little more information to go on. I'm curious about that FBI database. If I'm mentally ill, can I currently be prohibited from buying a gun?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

depends what state you're in.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

and if you've been forcibly committed (which requires that a judge find you a danger to yourself or others, I believe)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

xpost Rog you forgot the part about the stuffing! But don't worry, dude, I was goofing on you, no need to debate it.

xpost Mostly it seems like people use bombs for impersonal political purposes (like McVeigh or suicide bombers), and use guns for personal/emotional ones, where they actually want the experience and "power" of being there, going on the rampage. I'm not sure it's worth arguing either way: the methods and impulses aren't totally interchangeable, but of course plenty of people will just skip to the next means of hurting people.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

From the same 2002 article:

The 1968 Gun Control Act narrowly bars people from buying or possessing firearms if they have been adjudicated mentally "defective" or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

has this changed since 2002 though? not sure.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

It has not.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

What is the current working definition of "mentally ill" w/r/t arms sales? What do people currently have go through to buy a gun? What do people currently have ot go through to get a conceal and carry permit. What are people with said permits actually allowed to do?

Would a mandatory polygraph test prevented any of the recent school shootings?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

Well, what really struck me from the excerpt was this:

"Only six states provide mental health records to the FBI database, and they provided a total of only 41 individual records."

Probably more states have started to contribute, but not all . . .

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:18 (eighteen years ago)

What do people currently have go through to buy a gun?

Depends on the state. Some require permits, some require waiting periods, some have limits on the number of purchases in a month or week.

In Texas, all you have to do to buy from a gun shop is fill out the standard ATF form (4473) and get an immediate response from the federal database. To buy from an individual, no background check or correspondence with the state is required.

In California there's a ten-day waiting period and a one-per-month limit on new handguns, I think.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

there is a one per month limit in VA, also.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

Lots of concealed carry info: http://www.packing.org/

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

Oh, this reminds me of another thing: do criminal background checks pick up juvenile convictions that have been sealed or expunged?

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:26 (eighteen years ago)

Please discuss my solution:

Rifles = OK
Handguns = BAN

― Spencer Chow, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:32 (eighteen years ago)

There was a lot of talk about that upstream.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

xpost Haha Spencer we went over that at length upthread. Evidently you'll at least have to clarify "single-shot bolt-action non-assault rifles" for the first line.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

The law bars felons from possessing firearms and from getting gun permits and gun eligibility certificates. But, under the law, a person whose felony record is erased is no longer considered a felon. Thus, he is not disqualified from owning, carrying, possessing, buying, selling, or transferring firearms, in the absence of some other disqualifying condition. Nonetheless, the official authorized to issue gun permits must determine that an applicant wants firearms for a lawful use and is a suitable person to receive a permit. If the official knows of the conviction, he can deny the permit on suitability grounds.

An applicant may appeal the denial to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, and he may appeal the board's decision to Superior Court.

- source

That's in Connecticut. I'm guessing it's like that in most if not all states.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco, actually I don't mind heavier weapons, it's just the size. I feel like rifles are still useful for hunting, but also for those keepin'-the-gubmint-in-check types.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread.

― Spencer Chow, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

Spencer: Handguns are much more convenient and lighter than rifles when carrying a gun for self-defense. Irrelevant?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:43 (eighteen years ago)

I'm totally in favor of keeping sealed records sealed, but it'd sure be nice if some kind of non-specific, time-limited mark could go in the purchase database for violent crimes and gun crimes. (This would have more effect on a few everyday criminals than mass murderers, obviously, but it's sure strange to think someone convicted of a gun crime at 16 might be able to go out and buy one a few years later without even a general "high-risk" warning popping up.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

I got the impression most of those kinds of crimes don't get sealed/expunged.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

Depends on the state. I think a lot of them converted to treating practically everyone as an adult back in the crack era, but I'm sure there are still some where juvenile records are sealed as a matter of principle.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:00 (eighteen years ago)

Kerm, handguns are also much more convenient if you're a nut and want to sneak a gun into someplace.

― Spencer Chow, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

So make it inconvenient for the vast majority of gun owners to carry protection so that a tiny minority of criminals can shoot them unarmed?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:30 (eighteen years ago)

But those 'nuts' hardly ever have concealed carry permits, and hardly ever use guns that were purchased legally, so what's your point?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

Vast majority of firearm deaths are from accidents

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)

That packing.org site scares me...

Primary Gun
The first pistol you draw when a firearm is needed. Typically loaded with medium to large caliber rounds.

― Ned Trifle II, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)

Why is that scary?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:43 (eighteen years ago)

"Vast majority of firearm deaths are from accidents"

Uh, no. Only 3% are unintentional, 57% are suicides, 39% are homicides and 1% are undetermined.

They age group with the highest share of unintentional deaths is Children under 14, and that's still under 20%... unintentional and suicides combined for that age group is under 40%...

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:44 (eighteen years ago)

err you right!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:48 (eighteen years ago)

Jeez, why can't our government step in and keep all these people from killing themselves??

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:54 (eighteen years ago)

well they did put Kevorkian behind bars already

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:55 (eighteen years ago)

Jeez can't our government step in and stop high school students from blowing their faces off and using our tax dollars for their long term care?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:57 (eighteen years ago)

^ happened to a student of my mother's

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:57 (eighteen years ago)

Children under 14 shooting each other/themselves shouldn't really be classified as accidental, more "adult gun owners being negligent cockfarmers".

― onimo, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:59 (eighteen years ago)

Well, it seems pretty clear to me, judging by those statistics, what we need is Suicide Control. Ban suicide, or at least make those who are thinking about leaping off a bridge submit to intensive background checks, and ask them to please wait 6 months before doing the deed. Buying the farm in California, New York or Massachussetts is ONLY allowed with express written consent from Michael Bloomberg and the New York Yankees, and you have to apply for a permit first, which is usually only available to retired civil servants on a first-come-first- served basis. If you're jumping from a building, the building can be no more than ten and no less than five stories high. Those who resist the poison and Carbona fluid tax will be held accountable and could face up to a year in prison.

I think this can work.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:03 (eighteen years ago)

you are not funny

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:04 (eighteen years ago)

How come libertarianism has failed more completely than stalin-style socialism at achieving any political footing? how come?!?!?1

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:07 (eighteen years ago)

ugliness

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:08 (eighteen years ago)

too weak and poorly armed to beat up other rival political philosophies

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:08 (eighteen years ago)

Debatable and highly dubious claim. But I think the answer is because people seem to have grown accustomed to sucking at the teet of the government, and real conservatives have little recourse in a two party system so they continue to vote 'NOT DEMOCRAT' despite the sheer terror that is the corporation-fondling Republican Party as we know it today.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:17 (eighteen years ago)

Too individualistic to organize effectively. Anarchists + morals.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:18 (eighteen years ago)

"teet of government" (dood don't you work for the DMV??)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:21 (eighteen years ago)

maybe I'm confusing you with someone else

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:21 (eighteen years ago)

So long as we're playing misinformation factwatch on here, let's note the following: according to the CDC database output, more than 50,000 people were injured in firearm assaults in 2005, and more than 15,000 were injured in firearm accidents. More than 11,000 people died as a result of firearm homicides, and around 700 died in firearm accidents. None of these numbers include suicide or self-harm. (That's just the quick, raw output from the CDC database -- let me know if I'm entering my queries wrong and coming up with bad numbers.)

In any case, given that, I'm skeptical about claims that a "tiny minority of criminals" are working overtime to make their quotas and bring gun violence into as many lives as possible. Those numbers may reflect a minority of gun owners and users, sure -- a smallish chunk versus a reasonable, law-abiding majority. But it seems off-base to cast them as some aberrant criminal fringe when gun violence is affecting such a large chunk of the population. Minority or not, this isn't the work of some negligible psychos -- it's a fairly significant cause of death.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:23 (eighteen years ago)

What is wrong with government teets? I mean its gotta beat government cheese. Of course, communist CUBA has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA, but I'm sure if we go even more towards a market-based health care system this will sort itself out!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:24 (eighteen years ago)

i'd be curious about the numbers of civilians who saved themselves or others/prevented a crime because they had a handgun, if such studies are in fact done.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:26 (eighteen years ago)

what the Nuge's anecdotal stories of heroism don't convince you? The cops won't protect you maaaaan, only armed vigilantes can save you from crazed gunmen!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:28 (eighteen years ago)

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/Bronson.bmp

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:29 (eighteen years ago)

(Haha sorry that sounded really preachy / moralistic, just saying the numbers are high enough that it's not like "ok, a tiny number of outlaws use guns" -- their presence and harm would seem to be felt a little more widely than that.)

Felix, John Lott would be happy to provide you with lots of deeply problematic research on that point. (I don't know whether he'd chuckle or not when you mentioned how well-behaved everyone would be in the Goetzified armed-citizens future he's clamoring for.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:30 (eighteen years ago)

"teet of government" (dood don't you work for the DMV??)

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, April 20, 2007 5:21 PM (7 minutes ago)

No, I do not. Wrong guy.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:31 (eighteen years ago)

"Citizenship is for suckers."

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:35 (eighteen years ago)

lolz

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:36 (eighteen years ago)

JOIN THE MARINES!!!!!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:37 (eighteen years ago)

I believe the correct term is GOVERNMENT TITTAYS

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:38 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, no I meant a tiny minority of gun owners, who are criminals... not that only a minority of criminals use guns, though the stats I'm seeing say "Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005."

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:39 (eighteen years ago)

I don't want the gummint in my bidness, telling me I can't externalize my costs as much as possible by dumping mercury into the Willamette River, exposing my illegally hired employees to polybrominated biphenyls, or from deliberately not paying for the roads my suppliers deliver their goods to me on.

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:43 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, Kerm, I know exactly what you meant. And I'm skeptical about calling it a "tiny minority" when what looks like 75,000 people are hurt by firearms in a year. You're right -- even if every one of those involved a different gun and owner, it'd still be a minority of gun holders in this country. But you can't write it off as "tiny," like it's some kind of negligible aberration. I think that extends a little beyond incidental "guess it happens" numbers and starts affecting a wide stretch of the population pretty deeply.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:45 (eighteen years ago)

i'd be curious about the numbers of civilians who saved themselves or others/prevented a crime because they had a handgun, if such studies are in fact done.

Unfortunately, these numbers are almost always bullshit as the studies seem to be undertaken by pro-gun lobbies rather than independent sources.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:46 (eighteen years ago)

I don't want the gummint in my bidness, telling me my truck drivers need to have a certain "license for driving," that my drivers can't take handfuls of stimulants to drive for 48 hours straight, or to prevent them from hauling a 20-ton shipment over a bridge that can only hold 15.

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:47 (eighteen years ago)

but that Principal shot some crazy kid one time and saved everybody!! Didn't you hear?!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:47 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/the_principal2_jpg.jpg

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:48 (eighteen years ago)

Or rather, Kerm, I'm saying fine, call it a tiny numerical minority all you want, but the numbers are still too significant to pretend it's just some incidental exception.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:52 (eighteen years ago)

I owe no one for the success in my life, not the GI Bill will allowed my veteran grandfather and father to afford to buy a house at a nice federally insured mortgage and get a proper education, nor the publicly funded school i attended while growing up, nor the publicly maintained roads i drive to work on, nor the publicly funded universities that I attended or the federally-insured loans I took out to attend there, nor to the patent courts, federally-backed banks, publicly-designed-and-built Internet, that ensure I can actually earn a living.

There is no such thing as society, there's only me, and the rest of you can fuck right off.

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

(etc etc etc)

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not saying it's not important. 75,000 people is way important... but 75,000 is a tiny minority of the 45 million gun owners. I'm saying the vast vast vast majority of people don't commit crimes with their guns, so restricting the rights of the majority, and their ability to defend themselves from all kinds of threats, should require a lot of justification. "We should give polygraphs and psychological screenings to everyone wanting to buy a gun" fails the cost/benefit analysis by a thousand miles in my opinion... especially if the end result is fewer law-abiding good guys being armed.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

kingfish yr killin me

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

if only you had a gun!

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sorry, Shakey, i feel the truth should be told about our coddling nannystate that lets freeloaders sponge off the backs of hardworking, virtuous americans who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. These welfare programs only allow the undisciplined to be lazy and steal from my pocket. They should be put into an private industry of some kind, perhaps a "house of work," where they can at last contribute to society and earn their gruel thru the backbreaking physical labor I can to undergo as a mortgage consultant.

I'm sorry if this is too "politically incorrect" for liberals to hear.

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 23:09 (eighteen years ago)

had to undergo, rather

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 23:09 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah Kerm I think the problem here is that some people see making handgun ownership difficult as a Great Harmful Burden, while other people can't figure out what's so horrible about having a few hurdles to jump in order to get powerful, dangerous weapons.

For the record, barring some complete apocalytpic breakdown of social order that's just around the corner, I'm skeptical about the value of "good guys being armed," given vigilanteism's not always being "good" and the world's general refusal to stick to good-guy/bad-guy clarity. I'm glad for everyone who's successfully used a handgun to prevent a horrible assault, but in general I would not be particularly reassured by learning that all my nice, friendly neighbors were packing. And unlike Goetz types, I would quite happily rather get robbed, even regularly, than wind up shooting anyone. Roger will probably call me a pussy or something now, but I'm just saying the public good of non-police "good guys being armed" seems iffy to me, both on a logical level and on a personal one.

Meanwhile we happily deny the responsible public access to, like, everything based on what some irresponsible minority might do! Anything even mildly dangerous is constantly screened from us based on tiny minorities, and we tend to just as accept it as a necessary thing, because it's always something more boring and minor than guns, and there's no giant constitutional amendment giving us a leg to stand on. (Legally speaking, that amendment is the sole heavy weight balancing against the CLEAR public health issue posed by 75k injuries/deaths a year.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe another way of putting it is that even apart from the criminal minority who intentionally go out and assault people, I'm still not reassured by the thought of the law-abiding people around me ever making life-of-death decisions about others, and I don't think this nation is in quite so wild and unpoliced that we have no other choice.

And as I was alluding to earlier, a lot of gun incidents take place where the line between "criminal minority" and "ordinary people I don't want making life-or-death decisions" gets blurred -- I'll bet plenty of those who wind up shooting or threatening people in drunken arguments really do think they're the self-defending good guys.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

but wouldn't the morning commute be MUCH more fun if it were like that scene in L.A. Story?

― kingfish, Friday, 20 April 2007 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

"few hurdles" sure.. that's what we have now: background checks, fingerprinting for handguns, registrations and fees. I don't know how convinced I am that those things accomplish much, I'm alright with them. I'm talking about psychological screenings/interviews and polygraph tests and crazy invasive criminal-until-proven-innocent stuff miserably failing the cost/benefit.

As far as you being iffy about your neighbors being armed... What makes you nervous about that? Are you worried about an accident, or that one of them will snap or being in proximity to a dangerous device or what? And how much of your iffiness stems from unfamiliarity with guns? It just seems odd that we're comfortable walking among huge crowds of strangers on the sidewalk, and driving 70mph within feet of other people doing the same, but someone's got a gun and it's freakout time.

Carrying openly (like a cowboy) doesn't require special permitting, but most people don't do it because there are laws against scaring people with a gun in its holster on your hip.

You're totally right about being wrongly denied responsible public access to things. I'm against coddling across the board.

And possessing a gun while intoxicated is illegal too... Dude, how do you leave the house?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 23:47 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

Sorry to revive a touchy thread, but this story has my coworkers asking again why this kind of thing happens in America.
(I'm an American living abroad). What do I tell them?

Boy, 8, fatally shoots self with Uzi at gun show

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/boy_shoots_himself

― Savannah Smiles, Tuesday, 28 October 2008 10:25 (sixteen years ago)

this is already being discussed in a rational and clear headed manner on the disgruntled shootings thread

― Glans Christian Christian christian Christian Andersen (MPx4A), Tuesday, 28 October 2008 10:31 (sixteen years ago)

you should probably reassure your coworkers that it was for the best that the child's accidental uzi suicide genes were removed from the genepool btw

― Glans Christian Christian christian Christian Andersen (MPx4A), Tuesday, 28 October 2008 10:32 (sixteen years ago)

eleven months pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html

― omar little, Friday, 9 October 2009 02:00 (fifteen years ago)

yeah... the irony

― Nhex, Friday, 9 October 2009 03:10 (fifteen years ago)

Skipping 1100 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

*chokes on sip of beer*

― existential eggs (Abbott), Friday, 9 October 2009 03:25 (fifteen years ago)

wow, at this point I doubt there;s anything one can say about guns that hasn't been covered.

― Alex Android (Viceroy), Friday, 9 October 2009 03:26 (fifteen years ago)

True that, Android. In the US, it's really about location. Pragmatically speaking, widespread gun ownership in NYC is terrifying. In the rural West, it's no big deal and it's a given. It's a deep chasm that will never be universally applied in some proxy of federal law or under the cover of federal mandates in which both sides will be appeased. I suppose that the states and localities overall do a halfway decent job.

Gun fanatics are truly some of the biggest asswipes around. They really screw the pooch.

― The Perfect Weapon 2, Friday, 9 October 2009 06:44 (fifteen years ago)

one month passes...

I took a bit more than a year off from shooting (primarily thanks to costs), have started up again recently.

This means reading gun forums for info (I'd like to start reloading on my own to save money). Which means pounding my head against the wall reading posts from people who are 10 times crazier than Roger Adultery. It's depressing, and pointless to even engage those people on any level.

But a sub-frustration is the uniformity of their political line. There's no reason for it! Even if you want to stockpile guns for self-defense, there's no intrinsic connection to thinking the President is a native-Kenyan communist. But they do. (Althought my in-person contact with other gun owners tells me there are a lot of them just avoiding the political talk completely.)

Is it the fault of the center/center-left that they've abdicated such a large issue and such a large group of people to the right?

― smashing aspirant (milo z), Thursday, 19 November 2009 23:13 (fifteen years ago)

one year passes...

Here's a gun control thread for people to use instead of doing it on the Giffords thread.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Saturday, 8 January 2011 20:48 (fourteen years ago)

Also, most of the arguments anyone is going to make have already been made here, so it could save some bandwidth.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Saturday, 8 January 2011 20:49 (fourteen years ago)

where is roger adultery when we need him

― (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff), Saturday, 8 January 2011 21:45 (fourteen years ago)

we do not need him

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 8 January 2011 21:47 (fourteen years ago)

sorry i thought this was a debate thread

― (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff) (jeff), Saturday, 8 January 2011 21:50 (fourteen years ago)

Is it the fault of the center/center-left that they've abdicated such a large issue and such a large group of people to the right?

cmon you really can't see any correlation? 'if you want to stockpile guns for self-defense' is already suggesting a ton about someone's worldview, and in turn, political beliefs.

― iatee, Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:04 (fourteen years ago)

seriously, can we take this back over here?

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)

topic relevance lawyers are like a horrible rash on ilx

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)

would much rather live in that scary authoritarian world than the current one where innocent 9 year old girls get shot

― iatee, Sunday, January 9, 2011 1:56 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

I can't even comprehend this, dude.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)

idk try shooting at your screen, maybe it'll make sense

― iatee, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:09 (fourteen years ago)

see that's not a very convincing approach to take when confronted with people who disagree with or don't understand you.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)

Hey do you want to have an actual conversation or just be dicks to each other?

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)

haha wtf is hard to comprehend about my sentence?

― iatee, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:12 (fourteen years ago)

are you in favor of the Patriot Act? cuz that seems to run on a lot of the same kind of justification.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)

In every totalitarian state that has ever existed the value of human life has decreased, not increased. If anything there would be more 9 year old girls getting shot, or gassed, or sterilized, or vivisected...

I can also not understand someone who actually pines for a police state but I think iatee was making a (hyberbolic) point not saying he actually wished to live in Stalinist Russia.

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)

He's saying that the sentiment is hard to comprehend, not the sentence.

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)

I personally would prefer to live in the authoritarian world where people's guns are taken away than the world where it's really easy to shoot a 9 year old girl. pretty straightforward!

― iatee, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:13 (fourteen years ago)

That you think innocent people of any age are somehow safer under the boot of tyrant than everyday law-abiding people have access to guns because what they *could* do with them.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:14 (fourteen years ago)

i think some of us are saying that there are a lot of hidden costs in that world as well.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)

you see I don't think that the countries that currently ban guns are all tyrannies, is the thing, in fact they seem pretty nice

― iatee, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:15 (fourteen years ago)

Bro, you said "scary authoritarian world," so sorry if you meant "Japan" or whatever.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:17 (fourteen years ago)

i prefer to live in a world where i can coldly and calmly double-tap commie homos like you with my CCW

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)

i think he meant ""scary authoritarian world""

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)

hey look everyone cankles is back

― iatee, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:18 (fourteen years ago)

hah you gun nuts are so fuckin sensitive

― max, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)

"the boot of tyranny"

― max, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)

theyre just guns yall

― max, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)

no one is putting you in leg shackles

― max, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)

Bro, you said "scary authoritarian world," so sorry if you meant "Japan" or whatever.

― Kerm, Sunday, January 9, 2011 1:17 PM

Kind of the point though, isn't it? Places where there are handgun bans are hardly scary and authoritarian. What makes America different that suddenly not being able to go grocery shopping with a glock at your side is basically the same thing as living in a police state?

― Melissa W, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:23 (fourteen years ago)

thats how i feel when people start whining about phone tapping and shit - nooo my calls to grandma might be overheard ;_;

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:24 (fourteen years ago)

seriously, can we take this back over here?

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:04 (20 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah come on y'all let's take our country BACK

― schlump, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:27 (fourteen years ago)

I wrote an article about Tennessee gun owners a few months ago, just as a way to try to get more of a handle on their view of the world. I didn't come away from it wanting a gun, but I did come away more convinced than ever (and I was already pretty convinced) that in America we mostly just have to live with widespread gun ownership. And the good news is that, statistically, a very, very, very tiny percentage of legally-owned guns are ever used violently (or accidentally -- as horrible as kids shooting themselves or each other is, it actually happens incredibly rarely, we just tend to hear about it when it does).

Obviously widespread gun availability contributes to our relatively high homicide rate, and there's some evidence it makes our suicide rate higher, too. But those also are probably things we just have to live with. I'm not saying we shouldn't regulate it right up to wherever the Supreme Court will allow, and it's not like I think widespread gun ownership is a social good. But it's there, and starting fight after fight or fantasizing about banning guns outright is just not going to get anyone anywhere.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:28 (fourteen years ago)

y do ppl want guns so bad if theyr not gonna use them idk it just seems like ppl are all "its my right!" but i mean u gave up yr right to a democracy p easily

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:29 (fourteen years ago)

from the other thread:

The whole point of having guns in America, according to the framers of the constitution, is so we don't end up with a scary totalitarian government. All other sidepoints are distractions because that is the point of the 2nd amendment. And, in this modern day, its bullshit to think a handgun is going to be helpful in an insurgency against a rogue regime. Handguns are bullshit.

If the time comes where citizens need to stand up and fight some oppressive fascist state we're gonna want machine guns and surface-to-surface rockets and grenades and heavy artillery... in any field of battle a fucking pistol is a weapon of last resort. A militia with just glocks is certainly not a well-armed one.

Ban handguns now and forever. That's my last contribution to this gun-control derail.

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:09 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

see, I really think this gets somewhere... lotta the pro-ban people on these threads aren't making any distinctions between weapon types (which is just making y'all look clueless and big-city elitist tbh), but if you wanna talk about handguns specifically I can totally get behind that. Just leave my mom the varmint rifles, the damn groundhog ate almost all the tomatoes this year before my brother-in-law got it with a .22.

Seriously, I can't imagine anybody except like an elk hunter needing more than a 22. I'm cool w/everything else getting legalized into oblivion.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:29 (fourteen years ago)

I have no problem with hunting rifles as long as they are being used to hunt.

― Melissa W, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:31 (fourteen years ago)

y do ppl want guns so bad if theyr not gonna use them

ever been to the range, it's really fun

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:31 (fourteen years ago)

people like doing fun things

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:31 (fourteen years ago)

tams do u own any guns

― deejeuner sur l'herb (nakhchivan), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:32 (fourteen years ago)

guns should be designed to blow up if they're pointed at anything other than a deer like motorbikes should be designed to blow up if they make more than a certain level of noise which is already too loud to be honest

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)

yah but guns used for farming dont need to be "carried" if gun restrictions included clauses to do w/ using guns on yr own land for eg. i get that, my only experience of guns is like my uncle borrowing a gun to kill a fox that was getting the chickens (he didnt get the fox btw) and that seems like fine, but guns as a *weapon* is a diff thing and that is whats at issue yr just clouding it.

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)

I dunno, a single handgun did a pretty damn good job of shooting a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats yesterday...

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:35 (fourteen years ago)

Just in case people think being anti-handgun is in some way reserved for 'big city elites,' I direct you to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Special_%28song%29

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:37 (fourteen years ago)

p sure this is the first time anyones ever called me a "big city elite" also

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:38 (fourteen years ago)

what plax said.

xpost

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:39 (fourteen years ago)

jeez Viceroy I was agreeing w/you! like I am glad you were making that distinction.

not sure how that came across wrong, was more referring to iatee and kevin k there.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:40 (fourteen years ago)

also agree that overthrowing some hypothetical future tyranny with handguns is fantasy-land.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:41 (fourteen years ago)

yeah it's such bullshit that our soldiers and marines waste time with handguns.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:42 (fourteen years ago)

tams do u own any guns

― deejeuner sur l'herb (nakhchivan), Sunday, January 9, 2011 2:32 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

nah but my friend does and ive gone shootin w/him b4 its p kewl

tbh i do think marginalized groups like homos and mexicans should embrace gun ownership, cuz the cops aint savin ur ass from shit

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:43 (fourteen years ago)

xp I wasn't directing that at you sleeve, just trying to drive my point home about how I think there is more potential for a populist anti-handgun sentiment than some people may think...

Personally, my only experience with guns is with BB-guns and .22 rifles with sniper scopes my friends and I used for marksmanship competitions amongst ourselves. I'm not going to argue that shooting a gun isn't fun, or can't be a perfectly harmless sport/pastime -- cause it can be.

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:44 (fourteen years ago)

When I hear an asshole like Rand Paul bring up the hoary ol "guns don't kill people; people do" adage, I want to ask him what this guy would have used to injure or kill all these people without a gun.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:45 (fourteen years ago)

was talking about 2nd amendment private militia nutball types, not actual military ops. (xp to Kerm)

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:46 (fourteen years ago)

xp gallon of gasoline, bunch of match heads.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:49 (fourteen years ago)

that might b a little less subtle to carry in w/ u tho

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)

yup just got my protected 2nd amendment barrel of petrol

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)

dont mind me

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)

how do u feel abt *concealed* tanks of gasoline?

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:50 (fourteen years ago)

sleeve: if the actual military sees a use for handguns, that kinda pokes a hole in the argument that they're useless in an insurgency against a tyrannical government's actual military.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:51 (fourteen years ago)

in America we mostly just have to live with widespread gun ownership

I agree with this, tipsy.

Instead of yearning for ways to make handguns illegal, which is not going to happen in my lifetime no matter how many horrific crimes are committed, it seems much better to follow a strategy similar to that pursued by anti-abortion groups, where you shave away at gun ownership by imposing requirements that taken individually strike the public as being sensible, and which tend to winnow out the more irresponsible or casual gun owners.

Foremost among these new requirements should be increasing the training a person must have before acquiring a gun. The NRA should welcome this one, as it provides most of the gun safety training classes for the general public. They would see it as an opportunity to harvest more members and to increase their revenue stream. The trick is to keep tightening the requirements, adding more incrementally, until the burden of them dissuades the casual owner from even trying to buy a gun.

― Aimless, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:51 (fourteen years ago)

lol kerm do u really think ur handgun is going to help u overthrow the boot of tyranny

― max, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:52 (fourteen years ago)

glwt

― max, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:52 (fourteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

this might also work

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:52 (fourteen years ago)

Ban knapsacks.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:53 (fourteen years ago)

Ban kegs!

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:55 (fourteen years ago)

(That's go over worse than banning guns.)

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:55 (fourteen years ago)

It did not work out well the last time.

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:56 (fourteen years ago)

haha yeah

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 19:59 (fourteen years ago)

I want to ask him what this guy would have used to injure or kill all these people without a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)

There's just something I'm not totally comfortable with about the overall idea that passing more laws and having more restrictions is worth making people safer (or whether it even does). I think as far as the handgun issue goes it's like cigarettes, the harm is so well documented at this point that I don't really care about more restrictive legislation. However, the general mindset is not one I agree with, and it's kinda scary to me how it got expressed in such a nakedly authoritarian fashion earlier in these two threads.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:06 (fourteen years ago)

x-post Not a lot of impulsive bomb planting at supermarket meet and greets. I mean, yeah, he could have packed a U-Haul with explosives and taken down the whole building, too. But he didn't.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)

Banning guns is impossible. That's not even a question, tbh.

Most modern gun restrictions have been pointless. Know what the difference is between a 'hunting rifle' and a 'sniper rifle'? None whatsoever - until recently the US military was using the exact same rifle (Remington 700 action in .308) as hunters of large-ish game (big deer, elk, etc.).
The Assault Weapons Ban banned cosmetic features that didn't make even a slight bit of difference in how the guns functioned.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:13 (fourteen years ago)

Now you're just moving the goalposts, Josh.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)

Not at all. There are any number of big bad things that would kill a lot of people. But most of them require lots of planning and all are outright illegal. Which is why shootings happen all the time, but 40-lb pipe bombs do not.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:16 (fourteen years ago)

banning guns isn't impossible - trying to convince some people that banning guns is possible is impossible

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:17 (fourteen years ago)

Mass shootings do not "happen all the time."

I view fear of mass shootings (and using them as the impetus for policy) about the same as I do fear of being caught in a terrorist act (post-9/11 paranoia) or needing to carry a gun with you everywhere because of a fear of being caught in a VA Tech situation. These events are so random, unlikely and statistically insignifcant that we should not use them as the basis for policy.

(one caveat to to the AWB restrictions - 10 round magazines vs. 30 - though I don't know that that had any meaningful impact)

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)

people don't need guns

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:18 (fourteen years ago)

I never said "mass" shootings happen all the time - that's truly moving the goalposts - but multiple homicides do occur all the time.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:20 (fourteen years ago)

Most modern gun restrictions have been pointless.

A ban that concentrates on the object (the gun) and hinges upon small differences in design will obv be pointless. The only real watershed points in gun design are between sidearms and long arms, and between semi-automatic and automatic. However, restrictions based on on differences between potential owners, such as felon or non-felon, sane or insane, are not pointless. The same would apply to trained and untrained.

― Aimless, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:20 (fourteen years ago)

Banning guns is impossible. You cannot confiscate every legally owned gun in the United States. It is phyically (and politically) impossible. This would require house to house searches - because, guess what, the government has no record of the ownership of any gun, or who's bought a gun.
I live in a state where I can sell a gun to another citizen of Texas privately, without any kind of record keeping. How are they to know that I didn't sell all of them to a stranger at a gun show?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:21 (fourteen years ago)

I never said "mass" shootings happen all the time - that's truly moving the goalposts - but multiple homicides do occur all the time.

Actually, what you said was: There are any number of big bad things that would kill a lot of people. [...] Which is why shootings happen all the time, but 40-lb pipe bombs do not."

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:23 (fourteen years ago)

do you have a tattoo banning guns is impossible

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:23 (fourteen years ago)

― sleeve, Sunday, January 9, 2011 2:06 PM

Other than second-hand smoke I cannot see how cigarettes are even slightly comparable to handguns. And legislation about second-hand smoke has been a good thing imo. And I can't see how there's even a question about whether or not restricting handguns will make people any safer. I'd say that the records of countries with handgun bands pretty much speak for themselves. And still reeling over the idea that it's "nakedly authoritarian" to think that handguns should be banned/restricted, especially when no one seems to think it's particuarly authoritarian to ban and restrict other deadly weapons. No one thinks they live in a police state because they can't drive an armed tank down the expressway or can't go to the deli with a grenade or can't take their crossbow to a playground.

― Melissa W, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)

and the comeback to private sales and record keeping - initiate them now - in no way controls the ~200 million guns legally in private hands today.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:24 (fourteen years ago)

Smoking's a useful comparison, in many ways, as far as enforcement goes. Who would have guessed 50 years ago that something as ubiquitous and portable as cigarettes would be banned in virtually all public spaces, inside and often outside as well? But they did it.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)

And I can't see how there's even a question about whether or not restricting handguns will make people any safer. I'd say that the records of countries with handgun bands pretty much speak for themselves.

Do they? Britain's violent crime rate remains pretty nasty IIRC. And much of Europe's gun laws are actually a bit more free than Americans assume.
American gun crime is more about economics than the guns, IMO.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:27 (fourteen years ago)

I guess one can easily argue that cigarettes in public are not illegal - smoking them is, just as firing guns is - so that's where the comparison falls apart badly. But still!

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:27 (fourteen years ago)

Britain's violent crime rate remains pretty nasty IIRC

their murder rate isn't

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:28 (fourteen years ago)

And yet a ban would hinder a lot of impulse gun sales, and also affect ease of trade/purchase. It's legal even now to seize guns from illegal sales, and a ban on handguns would mean that all sales would be illegal and subject to seizure. And that anyone who is caught with a gun is already a criminal. multiple x-posts

― Melissa W, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:29 (fourteen years ago)

do you have a tattoo banning guns is impossible

No, I just think even suggesting that makes any kind of policy discussion irrelevant. Initiating training restrictions, etc. - theoretically feasible. Any talk of a ban, however, is not feasible.
Even when we've passed 'ban' acts, they were not and could not be applied to things people already owned - the AWB didn't take away people's old rifles or magazines. The '86 act halting production of civilian-legal machine guns didn't take away any of the machine guns in private hands. Confiscation is simply not how our laws work.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)

banning knives is impossible

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:30 (fourteen years ago)

banning milo z is impossible

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:31 (fourteen years ago)

And yet a ban would hinder a lot of impulse gun sales,

What are the stats on "impulse gun sales" and their use in crimes, btw?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:31 (fourteen years ago)

pointing out why a solution isn't workable doesn't mean you're in favor of the problem.

xps to conrad

I cannot see how cigarettes are even slightly comparable to handguns.

um because the harm to society at large from both those things is well documented and pretty unassailable at this point? like I said?

and we already live in a fucking police state, I realize I am in the minority here on that though. so by all means, give the government more power over you if you think it'll make you safer.

― sleeve, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:32 (fourteen years ago)

Maybe if all gun owners were made to a sign a pledge promising not to shoot anybody? Would that work?

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:33 (fourteen years ago)

ban ammo

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:34 (fourteen years ago)

um because the harm to society at large from both those things is well documented and pretty unassailable at this point? like I said?

But it's a flawed comparison, personal liberty vs. personal safety. Now that there a second-hand smoking bans, smoking people aren't infringing upon me at all. And I'm never going to buy cigarettes for myself. But whether or not I buy a gun for myself doesn't change the fact that I might one day die from gunfire by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

― Melissa W, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:36 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah and i might get hit by a chunk of falling satellite, but it is incredibly unlikely.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:38 (fourteen years ago)

It is probably a statistical fact that you are more likely to be shot than killed by a chunk of falling satellite.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)

^ my FIL owned/s a rifle (in UK) and narrowly missed being hit by falling satellite or something recently

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)

NB I am totally anti-gun, just thought this was funny in context

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:44 (fourteen years ago)

And it's also statistically accurate that i am more likely to get hit by a car. My point is that the chances of a non gun owner being shot by a stray bullet are extremely remote.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:46 (fourteen years ago)

"extremely remote" basically meaningless though. Don't give a shit if my (hypothetical) family member who was shot is an outlier or not.

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)

what's your point

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)

Proposed slogan: "Let's keep handguns safe, legal, and rare."

― Aimless, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:49 (fourteen years ago)

"Let's keep handguns safe, legal, and rarer than out of control cars but not as rare as chunks of falling satellite."

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:51 (fourteen years ago)

milo otm

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 20:56 (fourteen years ago)

Alright, I'm completely clueless when it comes to the gun control argument, so sorry if this sounds trolly. I'm from England but living in the US and as soon as I moved here my friends were like "are you getting a gun?!!". Can someone explain clearly (and without bringing up other non-weapons that may or may not kill you) what the benefits are of allowing people to have and carry handguns, because I don't understand. Also, if you are pro-gun, would you think it was fine if every single person in the country who was technically allowed to carry a gun, was carrying one at all times?

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:03 (fourteen years ago)

benefits - feel like a badass

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)

people won't make fun of your hairstyle

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:06 (fourteen years ago)

don't hafta take no shit

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)

can do the "dance!" thing where you shoot at people's feet

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)

# of innocuous things that make you irrationally angry would start to decline

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)

fun like a muscle car

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)

my cousin and his wife were victims of gun violence

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)

how do they feel about the internet backlash?

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:26 (fourteen years ago)

they are v strong ppl

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)

Most of the "benefits" are imaginary for the vast majority of people, but imaginations are powerful things and the gun industry has harnessed them as the engine for its sales.

― Aimless, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)

Also, getting burgled or invaded by other people who have guns is a pretty powerful thing and sort of stupid to ignore. You need to have some kind of plan in place in the case that this happens. For some people that plan involves firearms for home defense. Not for me, but I've seriously considered it.

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)

*plans invasion of kkvgz's house*

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)

If you're not actually Paul Kersey in real life then owning a handgun is basically like owning a collectible fantasy sword only a lot more dangerous to yourself and your loved ones.

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)

xp: I have a bitchin' alarm system.

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:34 (fourteen years ago)

and a pack of chihuahuas

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:35 (fourteen years ago)

which one?

* Paul Kersey (musician), Canadian drummer in the rock band Max Webster and The Hunt
* Paul Kersey (actor) (born 1970), American actor in the film Hulk
* Paul Kersey, the fictional main character in the film Death Wish
* Paul Kersey, a French DJ (Radio Monaco)

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)

The trained vs. untrained argument is interesting, because gun owners I've talked to are very pro-training -- they don't think anyone should own a gun without knowing how to use it, and how to handle it safely (i.e. not shoot anyone you don't intend to shoot). But they're split on whether it's OK to require training. Of course, most states don't require any training at all except to get a carry permit. You can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a shotgun without any proof that you've ever so much as looked at one. In Tennessee, there's some movement by hardcore gun people to do away with the carry permits altogether, on the grounds that carrying is just an extension of the constitutional right and shouldn't need special permission. But the state makes money on the permits, and a lot of gun dealers make money running the training programs, so I sort of doubt that'll really get anywhere.

There are also the open-carry zealots, but I don't really see them getting a lot of traction. One guy I talked to said it would be too much hassle to open carry, because inevitably someone will call 911 and say there's a guy with a gun walking down Elm Street, and then the cops are obliged to come and check and make sure the gun is legal and there's a legal carry permit, and so you end up spending a half hour standing around until it all gets sorted out. Plus, carrying openly sort of invites trouble of all kinds, from people who want your gun or people who see you as a threat.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:36 (fourteen years ago)

Most of the "benefits" are imaginary for the vast majority of people, but imaginations are powerful things and the gun industry has harnessed them as the engine for its sales.

This is otm, and at least some gun owners know it. One guy I talked to basically said, look, I know the statistical likelihood of me ever being in a situation where a gun would be useful is very small. But owning one makes me feel safer. You can't mount a rational argument against that, because it's not operating at a rational level.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)

btw, if anyone wants to read the views of some (relatively) sane and articulate gun nuts, here's my article. I obviously do not agree with or believe a lot of what they say, but I tried to present their views as fairly as possible. And I got a lot of very nice emails and phone calls from gun owners, mostly just surprised that an alt-weekly wasn't out to get them. So I figure if the zombie apocalypse comes, at least now I have some well-armed people I can call.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:41 (fourteen years ago)

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, January 9, 2011 4:03 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

real answer - CCW is a distinct subculture within gun ownership (and open carry is an even smaller, more fringe subculture that regular gun owners look down on), and its not something you can get every firearm enthusiast to defend. just like with every cause, there are factions within factions that make life harder for everyone with their craziness. being american doesnt automatically mean one understands 'gun culture' which is why asking a bunch of miffed lefties on ILX to explain it will prob not get u anywhere, assuming ur question is sincere

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:44 (fourteen years ago)

Also, if you are pro-gun, would you think it was fine if every single person in the country who was technically allowed to carry a gun, was carrying one at all times?

the pro-gun people I know think this, yes

― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:49 (fourteen years ago)

The irony is that it takes training to learn how not to kill yourself or other people, but little to no training to actually do it.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:51 (fourteen years ago)

Oh, I just realized ntrvp was asking about carrying handguns in public, rather than gun ownership in general. I think this is a pretty bad idea.

― kkvgz, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:53 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw my impression of all the pro-gun people i've known is that they really really like firing and owning guns and latch onto any argument that rationalizes their continued ability to do so ie it's not much to do about anything larger (constitutional rights, ability to oppose tyranny etc) than them wanting to be able to do a favored hobby

― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:54 (fourteen years ago)

oh, I was kind of talking about having a handgun in the house as well as carrying.
Tipsy: Good article, ta.
Re the self-defence issue - do you think guns used for this purpose could ever be replaced by non-lethal weapons, say tasers or some kind of tranq gun? Or do ppl consider themselves well-trained enough that they can assume they could shoot an intruder or whatever without necessarily killing them?

― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 9 January 2011 21:58 (fourteen years ago)

it's not much to do about anything larger (constitutional rights, ability to oppose tyranny etc) than them wanting to be able to do a favored hobby

I think this is true, though it's a hobby with strong cultural-identity signifiers. (Which lots of hobbies have.) But it's also one with its own constitutional amendment, which makes it unlike most hobbies. And that's really the obstacle we're always going to run into in this country. You can parse the 2nd Amendment different ways, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is going to be a big impediment to a gun-less society. I studied it a bit and finally just threw up my hands and said, you know, it's in the Constitution. It just is. Liberals who want the 2nd Amendment to not mean some kind of individual right sound a bit to me like evangelicals who just can't believe the 1st Amendment erects a wall between church and state. At a certain level, the thing just says what it says.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:03 (fourteen years ago)

re: self defense, question I have is: if you're conscientious about about locking up your guns, keeping them unloaded etc., if someone broke in and you needed to get at them and load them, would you even have the time to? would the burglar hear you fumbling around and run off anyway? just seems like too much of a highly, highly unlikely situation to be a convincing argument for gun ownership. people get off on the fantasy, though.

― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:06 (fourteen years ago)

(aa here, i at work) orrite, I'll probably be flamed to within an inch of my life but bugger it. This country has very tight firearm ownership laws and it works. If you want to own a gun, you must have a licence, take all appropriate precautions with storage, etc. It's not perfect by any means but the fact is that there are very, very few guns here compared to the US, and there's also far, far less crime involving guns. To us, the concept of fighting for everyone's right to own a gun is, as dayo said in the other thread, fucking batshit insane, even to the extreme-right looneys.

If the main reason to tote a handgun is to protect yourself from people with handguns then, um.

Oh, and classifying certain firearms as 'weapons' doesn't make any sense, given that a weapon is only a weapon if it has been used as a weapon.

re banning knives: Many cities here (Sydney first iirc) have already outlawed the possession of a knife in public. It's enforced by police spot-checking people on the streets. I don't know how effective it's been but the fact is it happens.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:07 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah, it's clear that strong gun control laws work, in countries that don't have gun ownership as a foundational right and haven't spent several decades actively promoting and pandering to the commerce of gun distribution.

But we do have it as a foundational right, there have been guns all over America since pretty much forever, and we now have a very strong and entrenched gun culture and industry. We don't really have a choice except to live with its consequences (and try to minimize the bad ones as much as possible).

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:12 (fourteen years ago)

nice article, tipsy

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:14 (fourteen years ago)

this morning on c-span some dude was like "the second amendment provides that guns should be in the hands of militias, and that's what we need, not in the hands of crazed individuals"

i was like X|

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:15 (fourteen years ago)

a militia of the crazed

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:18 (fourteen years ago)

tipsy: Yeah. I think the US's single biggest block is 'the right to bear arms', which predictably works some into a lather.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:22 (fourteen years ago)

rinse, repeat

― Kerm, Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:31 (fourteen years ago)

nice article, tipsy

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, January 9, 2011 5:14 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah that was v. well done!

― call all destroyer, Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:32 (fourteen years ago)

I'm taking my concealed handgun license class in a couple of weeks, but I have no intention to carry (I don't even keep a loaded gun at home) - it just makes the paperwork easier when it comes to buying a gun (if you have a Texas CHL, the firearms dealer doesn't have to call you into NICS)

Can someone explain clearly (and without bringing up other non-weapons that may or may not kill you) what the benefits are of allowing people to have and carry handguns, because I don't understand.

Self-defense. The odds of needing to use your carry gun are exceedingly small - but greater than the chance you'll be involved in a mass shooting or other freak occurrence.

And though it's largely ignored (by virtue of the political leanings of most of gun culture and rejection of guns by the left) there is an empowerment aspect. Union members at the turn of the century fought back against thugs and Pinktertons with guns. Black southerners used them to defend themselves in the days of Jim Crow. Groups like Pink Pistols encourage LGBTs to carry in order to defend themselves. And, yeah, for a lot of white conservatives who are fearful of the world around them, it's empowering (for better or worse).

Also, if you are pro-gun, would you think it was fine if every single person in the country who was technically allowed to carry a gun, was carrying one at all times?

No. I don't think people who are drinking should be able to carry (so no bars), and when it comes to private property people should be able to decide they don't want anyone carrying guns inside of their space.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:48 (fourteen years ago)

turn of the century before last you mean

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:50 (fourteen years ago)

actually, turn of the last century, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows what 'turn of the century' referred to.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:51 (fourteen years ago)

yes I'm sure too

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:53 (fourteen years ago)

Proponents of the self defence argument, do you think that is a univeral truth - 'if I carry a gun I will be safer' - or does it only apply in a country where gun ownership is already rife? If gun ownership were suddenly to become legal in the UK, would my carrying a gun increase my safety?

― nanoflymo (ledge), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)

That is, increase my safety relative to what it is now in gun-free UK.

― nanoflymo (ledge), Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:58 (fourteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure I'd shoot my butt off if I carried a gun.

― Jeff, Sunday, 9 January 2011 22:58 (fourteen years ago)

if pinkertons were also suddenly back in business yes

― conrad, Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:00 (fourteen years ago)

The only country I've been to with a proliferation of firearms and a high crime rate is South Africa. I know loads of people get about with guns there because (a) they are criminalz (b) they are scared of criminalz. Impossible to eradicate firearms there because border control is lax (and frankly v difficult). Also, there's so many scary wild animals (hyenas, lions/leopards &c.) that people in the country areas need rifles and such. They had a firearm amnesty recently (i.e. hand in yer guns before deadline and avoid a penalty) but I don't know how successful it was in terms of violent crime.

I can't compare SA with the US because I've never been, but I'm sure violent crime and inability to control borders effectively are similar issues. Difficult for me to draw comparisons with Aus as we (a) have never traditionally been saturated with firearms and (b) have incredibly tight border control.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:02 (fourteen years ago)

I grew up around guns: I just spoke to my dad, who got back from hunting this afternoon. He's had a concealed weapons permit as long as I can remember; it's just a part of our lives. I've never remotely wanted to own one though. What tipsy wrote here -

- is OTM. My dad made it very clear when I was young that it's a weapon and it can kill people. He is fully in favor of background checks, psychological profiling, the works. He's more pissed at crazy gun owners eroding his ability to own a gun than any lefty.

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)

I'm not sure that it statistically makes anyone safer (the odds of being in a situation where there are no outs but to shoot are pretty small). OTOH I'm pretty sure that regulated CCW doesn't make anyone less safe either. I don't want to carry a gun, but don't care if some people do.

In all honesty, I think the firearm status quo, federally and within most states, is one of the few things our government has gotten right. There's a good balance of regulation and freedom. Guns aren't the cause of American crime, nor are they solution.

There was a good cover article in Harper's a couple of months ago by a guy who got his license and carried for a time, it had a few great paragraphs on the irrational aspects of some carriers - mistaken beliefs about crime rates and likelihood of being attacked, etc.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)

Have you ever fired a gun?

― mookieproof, Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:06 (fourteen years ago)

I have!

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:12 (fourteen years ago)

they're loud!

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:13 (fourteen years ago)

pow pow

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:13 (fourteen years ago)

makes me feel like a man.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:16 (fourteen years ago)

excuse me WHAT?

― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:18 (fourteen years ago)

what to whom

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)

what
wham
whom

― nanoflymo (ledge), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:46 (fourteen years ago)

firing a gun made me feel pretty lame, actually -- i'm not a great shot

― mookieproof, Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:48 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again.

― not everything is a campfire (ian), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:50 (fourteen years ago)

milo z basically echoing my thoughts on this, for the most part.

― ullr saves (gbx), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:52 (fourteen years ago)

omg this pic

http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/images/cover.jpg

― iatee, Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:53 (fourteen years ago)

omg that kids' book. They still accept cheques which says it all imo.

I only did target practice with a pistol but I was awesome. Wouldn't trust myself with a pistol long-term as I kept waving it at people's legs by accident.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)

they use the same cover for "my parents open marriage"

― bnw, Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:55 (fourteen years ago)

Hey maybe I should write a kids' book called My Parents Open Strap-on, to bring dildos out of the closet and into the mainstream.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, 9 January 2011 23:56 (fourteen years ago)

the last gun i fired was a (us) civil war-era pistol (i have an acquaintance who is a gun collector/dealer). big cloud of smoke, no idea where the shot went

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:01 (fourteen years ago)

Adam OTM about even knives now being controlled here, and the police are allowed to spot-check for them and search/detain/arrest. So someone in the other thread said this was too police state? Hasn't bothered me none.

It does bug my bff who is involved in historical swordplay, because he has to take careful steps to carry his gear - licenced, special containers, cant take on planes at all, etc. But you respect these things.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:06 (fourteen years ago)

In fact the other day I think I read they're now making stores ask for ID for anyone buying PLASTIC KNIVES?

But I am not sure if that one was so.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:06 (fourteen years ago)

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 11:06 (33 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

'er indoors used to carry sw0rds to d4nce gigs and had to stop when that law came in. A friend of hers still does it but I don't know whether she's licensed or just breaking laws.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:08 (fourteen years ago)

If I suddenly decided I needed to carry a gun for self-protection, or have one in my house, I think I'd be completely crippled by the responsibility of being in a position to shoot: either that I should have intervened and shot someone when I didn't, or that I'd have to - in an instant- apprise an entire situation, be judge, jury and executioner and risk killing an innocent person. It's this aspect that intrigues me and, I would imagine, can't really be trained for.

― Not the real Village People, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:12 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah I couldn't live with that possibility either. Self defence or no, I cannot fathom the idea of KILLING someone.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:14 (fourteen years ago)

my dad had/has a loaded .44 in his sock drawer. pretty sure i wasn't supposed to know that as a kid but i totally did!

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:15 (fourteen years ago)

Village People otm. Also, I don't think most people consider the process of loading the gun etc., and kickback means you can't just point and fire Hollywood-style unless you're like elite military. Seems a bit like carrying a flat-pack Ikea chair everywhere in case you need to sit down.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:19 (fourteen years ago)

i imagine reality is a bit more sedate than that - just training a gun on someone is probably enough to defuse a lot of situations, it doesn't automatically turn you into dirty harry

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:19 (fourteen years ago)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, January 9, 2011 7:19 PM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark

lol what

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:20 (fourteen years ago)

dude if yr ccw why would yr gun be unloaded??

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:21 (fourteen years ago)

also btw you can just point and fire hollywood style with a modicum of practice.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:21 (fourteen years ago)

dude if yr ccw why would yr gun be unloaded??

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 11:21 (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Good point, but then obv you're increasing the risk of it going off accidentally (yes I know about safety catches etc). All right maybe I just don't like guns.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:23 (fourteen years ago)

just training a gun on someone is probably enough to defuse a lot of situations

oh sure, if there's one thing that cools a situation down it's a drawn weapon

― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)

back the fuck up bitch

― deejeuner sur l'herb (nakhchivan), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:25 (fourteen years ago)

Someone mentioned keeping one in their truck (upthread? the other thread? its all moviung too fast). All I could think was "oh so someone can break into yr car, take said gun, then bust into yr house and rob you?"

Having a gun anywhere near me would just lead me to worry someone ELSE could get a hold of it.

But, we simply dont have that culture here. Not in the cities anyway - rifles and whatnot on farms for animals is p common (and loudly defended)

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:26 (fourteen years ago)

i've fired a machine gun and it was p tite, no lie

are there any stats to back up 'self-defence' theory? or to damage it, i.e. instances of people carrying a gun in 'self-defence' who end up using it, um, inappropriately

― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)

i'm not sure what point this might illustrate, but i dunno maybe it ~captures~ the way some americans feel about handguns and their place in american society:

i know three ppl with ccw permits (hi dad!), and two of them don't even own guns, or plan to.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:31 (fourteen years ago)

HM, i know studies have been done that support both sides, but my gut feeling is that many sober gun "advocates" would quietly agree that, no, carrying a gun is not likely to effect the outcome of a statistically improbable self-defense situation. i personally feel that it's impossible to stereotype guns-as-self-defense situations in a way that could generate meaningful data. seems just as likely that a person could ace a stickup man as it is that they'd shoot themselves or a bystander or escalate the situation, or wherever.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:35 (fourteen years ago)

rifles and whatnot on farms for animals is p common (and loudly defended)

I get that, I mean if you've got sheep and a fox keeps eating them you want to act on the fox. Also p hard to conceal a rifle about one's person in bourke st.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:41 (fourteen years ago)

Didn't stop that Hoddle st dude eh?

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:42 (fourteen years ago)

iirc people who own guns are a lot more likely to shoot family members than bad guys

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:43 (fourteen years ago)

Didn't stop that Hoddle st dude eh?

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 11:42 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yeah but people like that will get hold of a firearm one way or another, same with Martin Bryant.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:45 (fourteen years ago)

i shot my cousin and his wife
xpost

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:48 (fourteen years ago)

porn shoot or

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:51 (fourteen years ago)

popel shot

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Monday, 10 January 2011 00:54 (fourteen years ago)

Mass shootings do not "happen all the time."

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 4:18 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

rolling disgruntled shootings thread 2010

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:57 (fourteen years ago)

And it's also statistically accurate that i am more likely to get hit by a car. My point is that the chances of a non gun owner being shot by a stray bullet are extremely remote.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, January 10, 2011 4:46 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

spoken like a true midwesterner. just because it's statistically insignificant doesn't mean it's not a total fucking tragedy when it does happen.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 00:59 (fourteen years ago)

Wow really thanks for opening my eyes

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:00 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw i think we should outlaw cars too

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:02 (fourteen years ago)

otm

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:02 (fourteen years ago)

i think iatee agrees with me there

loooooooool xp

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:02 (fourteen years ago)

haha

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:02 (fourteen years ago)

cars are just really big guns that can take you places

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:03 (fourteen years ago)

cars own, america owns

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:04 (fourteen years ago)

sorry. I dunno about where you've lived before jjjusten but I grew up in inner city philly - stories about innocents getting caught in cross-fire were pretty much a standard thing. so it really rubs me wrong when ppl dismiss that fact of life as 'statistically insignificant - uh, sure, if you live in places that are not big cities.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:05 (fourteen years ago)

I come from a quaint tiny burg called Minneapolis you've probably never heard of

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:07 (fourteen years ago)

er indoors used to carry sw0rds to d4nce gigs

Scottish or bellydance??

― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:08 (fourteen years ago)

latter

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:08 (fourteen years ago)

ok so 'er indoors = mom, right? why

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:10 (fourteen years ago)

inner city philly

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:10 (fourteen years ago)

minneapolis, crime capital of the world

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:11 (fourteen years ago)

dayo don't you know that most gun owners are responsible and know what they're doing

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:11 (fourteen years ago)

minneapolis's statistically insignificant crimes weren't as tragic as inner city philly's because philly had more of them.

wait..

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:12 (fourteen years ago)

We do have problems occasionally with performance swords. Can't get them on Ellis Island, for example. Or to diplomatic events. But that's only in areas with heightened security.

― Jesus Christ, the apple tree! (Laurel), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)

yeah, that's exactly what dayo was saying kerm, good job

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)

boyz2men vs hüskers amirite

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:13 (fourteen years ago)

xp to Laurel: Ah okay. I think they still do it here as long as they're not caught, and as most gigs are in the n/w suburbs with adjoining parking there's not a police presence.

ok so 'er indoors = mom, right? why

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 12:10 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't know what that means

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:14 (fourteen years ago)

minneapolis's statistically insignificant crimes weren't as tragic as inner city philly's because philly had more of them.

wait..

― Kerm, Monday, January 10, 2011 9:12 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

no, just saying that okay if you look at america's population as a whole, getting caught in crossfire is 'statistically impossible' but that doesn't mean it's uniform. your chances sort of increase by a pretty large factor if you live in certain parts of the country, i.e. cities w/ high crime rates. look, I understand most of the pro-gun arguments being made itt, but trying to justify gun ownership using statistics is some bullshit imo. just because statistically only a small # of people are killed by drunk drivers each year doesn't make it any less of a noble cause to try and reduce the number of drunk driving deaths each year.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:17 (fourteen years ago)

Hey maybe gun control advocates should look at where gun violence takes place and why, instead of ignoring poor minorities so they can demonize conservative white dudes.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:24 (fourteen years ago)

not a lot of poor minorities arguing for their right to bear arms

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:26 (fourteen years ago)

wow, who's gonna top that? xp

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:26 (fourteen years ago)

Gun control is all about demographics now?

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:28 (fourteen years ago)

Also, 'instead of'? Like only one thing can be done at a time?

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:29 (fourteen years ago)

I'm totally sympathetic to the argument that yeah, we should go after the root causes of violence in urban cities and that that would probably have a greater overall positive impact on reducing crime rates. but that doesn't change the fact that guns are pretty huge enablers to crime.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:31 (fourteen years ago)

yo iatee i know we don't always see eye-to-eye on the politics threads but i just wanna say you've been my hero on these threads, in all seriousness

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:32 (fourteen years ago)

haha I hope I've convinced you that I'm not an undercover moderate by now

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:34 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw I would hate to live in a country in which violent crime is so prevalent that I would feel the need to carry a gun everywhere, wtf. Frequently O_O at the very concept that western democracies function like that.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:36 (fourteen years ago)

dayo: but guns are enabling violence where crime already exists. More guns don't just generate crime. Gun sales skyrocketed after Obama was elected because dudes expected him to start banning guns, and violent crime has continued to fall.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:47 (fourteen years ago)

Gun control is all about demographics now?

Kind of is. It's a totally self-serving argument when the NRA/etc. argue that gun control (in the US) started primarily as a form of disenfranchisement of minority groups and the working class. But it's also true.

many xps - also willing to bet that "civilians caught in the crossfire" is statistically insignificant even in Philly

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:49 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw I would hate to live in a country in which violent crime is so prevalent that I would feel the need to carry a gun ~~every~~anywhere

― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:49 (fourteen years ago)

yeah a bunch of paranoid militia dudes buying their 6th and 7th guns didn't result in crime increases, crazy

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:50 (fourteen years ago)

People feeling compelled to carry guns has little to do with reasonable analysis of the level of violent crime. Most of the people doing it are living in rural or suburban communities anyway.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:51 (fourteen years ago)

As I was going to gun shows all through that panic, it was people buying their first gun because they thought they wouldn't be able to, not Birchers stockpiling for the Apocalypse.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:52 (fourteen years ago)

i think anecdotal evidence is def the way to go here

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:53 (fourteen years ago)

Fairly sure British violent crime rate top those of the armed to the teeth US.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:53 (fourteen years ago)

Exactly, tens of thousands of dudes buying hundreds of thousands of guns didn't result in crime increases.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:53 (fourteen years ago)

i think anecdotal evidence is def the way to go here

I know of no studies done after Obama's inauguration.

But I can guarantee I was present for several thousand more gun sales than iatee was at the time.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:54 (fourteen years ago)

"Gun sales skyrocketed after Obama was elected because dudes expected him to start banning guns"

are the stockpilers generally the same people who are selling guns to criminals, or is it the people who are selling to the stockpilers?
i could see a weird freakonomics thing where vendors who would otherwise sell to criminals find themselves in a position where it's more profitable to sell to stockpilers,
and therefore make it harder or more expensive for criminals to get ahold of guns.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:55 (fourteen years ago)

Fairly sure British violent crime rate top those of the armed to the teeth US.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:53 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dog... this is not really the issue

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:56 (fourteen years ago)

intentional homicide rate per 100k in the u.s. = 5.45

intentional homicide rate in the u.k. = 1.28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:58 (fourteen years ago)

No actual, licensed dealer sells to criminals, FYI. The paperwork requirements for being an FFL are insane and closely tracked by the ATF.

violent crime encompasses a shit ton more than "intentional homicide"

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 01:59 (fourteen years ago)

i dont think anyone is making the argument that guns increase crime rates? because why would that...? the problem with guns is that they make killing people unbelievably casual and efficient

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 01:59 (fourteen years ago)

It's a totally self-serving argument when the NRA/etc. argue that gun control (in the US) started primarily as a form of disenfranchisement of minority groups and the working class. But it's also true.

Yeah, this was the point one guy made to me about the assault weapons ban -- that it only became an issue when white people started seeing gang-war news clips of young black guys with assault rifles, and everybody freaked out. Of course, you also had black leaders calling for the weapons ban (because most of the victims were in their communities), so it's not like you can make a neat and tidy case that gun control is all veiled race fear. But it's a complicated thing, at least.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:00 (fourteen years ago)

Fairly sure British violent crime rate top those of the armed to the teeth US.

comparing non-murder crime states across countries w/ vastly different ways of reporting and classifying 'crime' is obv a super reliable way of saying which is more 'dangerous'

― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:02 (fourteen years ago)

to qualify that - some shady dealers may deal under the table, but they get caught pretty easily.
Gun dealers and the firearms retail industry are far from the primary suppliers to criminals.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:02 (fourteen years ago)

comparing non-murder crime states across countries w/ vastly different ways of reporting and classifying 'crime' is obv a super reliable way of saying which is more 'dangerous'

I'm just responding to various people (many Britishers) talking about how violent the US is in general and how that relates to firearms.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:03 (fourteen years ago)

Violent crime exists with or without guns. But you cant slay people from a moving car with a fucking baseball bat.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:04 (fourteen years ago)

it should be obvious at this point that british people have no idea what theyre talking about when it comes to the us

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:04 (fourteen years ago)

might as well just run 'em over

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:05 (fourteen years ago)

xpost

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:05 (fourteen years ago)

<3 Britishers, good luck with your Great Pint Glass Control Debate thread

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:06 (fourteen years ago)

moving to liechtenstein

― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:06 (fourteen years ago)

this dimension of the argument absolutely doesn't matter in 2010 - public black leaders are pretty universally for gun control

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:07 (fourteen years ago)

you cant slay people from a moving car with a fucking baseball bat.

Don't give Quentin Tarantino any ideas.

But at least you're not going to hit the little kid down the street.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:07 (fourteen years ago)

No actual, licensed dealer sells to criminals, FYI

Gun dealers and the firearms retail industry are far from the primary suppliers to criminals.

looool. american gun-sellers, paragons of probity. hope all yr texas bros selling carloads of guns to mexican dudes paying in cash w/ phony docs feel good abt not selling directly to actual criminals!!!!

― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:07 (fourteen years ago)

crimewave vs chillwave

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:09 (fourteen years ago)

to qualify that - some shady dealers may deal under the table, but they get caught pretty easily.
Gun dealers and the firearms retail industry are far from the primary suppliers to criminals.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:02 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

what is the source, then?

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:10 (fourteen years ago)

― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:07 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

I was gonna bring this up - the drug war in Mexico is pretty much armed by lax gun control in the US

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:10 (fourteen years ago)

dayo: but guns are enabling ~~violence~~murder where crime already exists. More guns don't just generate crime. Gun sales skyrocketed after Obama was elected because dudes expected him to start banning guns, and violent crime has continued to fall.

― Kerm, Monday, January 10, 2011 9:47 AM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

fixed that for you

as others have pointed out, hate how 'homicide' is getting conflated with 'violent crime' itt

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:11 (fourteen years ago)

Mexican dudes with phony docs! Glad we could introduce that element.
You know that every firearm sale in the US from a retailer has to go through a government background check, right? Not a lot of phony docs getting through NICS. NICS will put a hold on the sale or deny completely sometimes if your name and info are overly similar to someone with a felony record.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:11 (fourteen years ago)

from a retailer

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:12 (fourteen years ago)

milo didn't you just make the point earlier that you can easily buy guns in a private sale in texas

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:13 (fourteen years ago)

milo your argument is sounding awfully pro-control atm.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:14 (fourteen years ago)

^^^ yeah exactly. how many guns are (as you fukken bragged ITT) are not sold through retailers? like p sure that any book/article/report on the mexican drug war will point out that many of the weapons used by the cartels are purchased in america. so who iyo is selling these guns, if not 'gun-sellers'????

like lol @ ccw lol @ ur solipsistic persecution fantasyland 'need' to 'feel safe' by carting around a firearm if ur such a baby fine w/e have yr 20 guns and your scope-sight and yr cyanide-tipped bullets but the gun industry/nra's craven response to tightening up loopholes for even purchasing fukken WEAPONS that are fueling a blood-drenched war on yr southern border are just like gtfo

― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:15 (fourteen years ago)

and fwiw the dude who shot up the giffords rally apparently did so using a gun purchased from a retailer. good job at making sure he was mentally fit to own a gun, really have to hand it to the NICS

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:15 (fourteen years ago)

xps
AFAIK:
straw purchases by people acting as fronts (which is a serious felony in itself)
individual purchases in states where you don't have to go through a dealer
theft
guns smuggled into the country unrecorded

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:15 (fourteen years ago)

Per NRA talking points, clearly the solution to several related problems is right under our noses: all poor inner city folks should be armed (and educated about gun safety, natch). Then watch murders and violent crime plummet! Because who would dare perpetrate a gun crime knowing the guy (or gal! or kid!) next to them may be armed and ready for self-defense?

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:16 (fourteen years ago)

idk if this has been posted

Some members of the Capitol press corps took a 10-hour concealed handgun safety and shooting class this week – an exercise less about getting a weapon than getting into the Capitol.
Visitors now must pass through metal detectors, virtually guaranteeing delays. But there's an express lane for people with a concealed handgun permit.
The theory, apparently, is that people licensed to pack heat have undergone a thorough background check and can be waved right through.
So in the name of journalism, reporters covering the Legislature who must get into Capitol daily – sometimes several times a day – took the weapons course Thursday.
It took place outside of Austin at the hunting superstore Cabela's, a sort of saturnalia of stuffed animals, food dehydrators and camo gear.

/fuckyalli'mfromtexas

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:16 (fourteen years ago)

i admit i am not following this thread but i am not sure how the fact that criminals obtain guns through non-legal means (duh!) supports a gun rights argument

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:17 (fourteen years ago)

xp to milo

right, so how does vigorous background checks by NICS when purchasing from a retailer help with any of that, milo

pointing out that the illegal purchasing of guns is a felony doesn't prevent the illegal purchasing of guns, fwiw

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:17 (fourteen years ago)

and fwiw the dude who shot up the giffords rally apparently did so using a gun purchased from a retailer. good job at making sure he was mentally fit to own a gun, really have to hand it to the NICS

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 13:15 (44 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude I am 100% with you itt but the word 'apparently' leaves a hole big enough to drop a whale through.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:18 (fourteen years ago)

lol @ gun control stopping mexican drug cartels

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:18 (fourteen years ago)

milo didn't you just make the point earlier that you can easily buy guns in a private sale in texas

Yes, to illustrate that you can't ban guns. And you can't really control individual sale short of closing the "gun show loophole" (which I am not entirely opposed to), but we have a century of those individual sales out in the wild. Good luck confiscating 200 million guns in private hands.

and fwiw the dude who shot up the giffords rally apparently did so using a gun purchased from a retailer. good job at making sure he was mentally fit to own a gun, really have to hand it to the NICS

NICS doesn't have a psychiatric panel evaluating every buyer. It ascertains whether or not you've got a domestic abuse order against you, a felony record, etc. Pretty sure we went over the problems with requiring psychiatric screening for purchases in this thread sometime in the other three years its existed.

Lamp, you're incoherent so I'm just going to ignore you.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:19 (fourteen years ago)

its really not that hard to ban guns. you just... pass a law banning guns. grandfather in already-licensed owners if theyre going to be such whiners about it.

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:21 (fourteen years ago)

Good luck confiscating 200 million guns in private hands.

I agree with this. I'm all for firearm amnesties but honestly if you're already outside the law you're not going to give up your weapon so.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:21 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39345370/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

More significant, ATF recently identified more than 90 percent of the 158 semi-automatic assault rifles seized in May at a “narco training camp” run by Los Zetas, one of the most ruthless of the Mexican cartels, as coming from the United States. Only 13 of the weapons came from Central America, one senior law enforcement official said.

... On March 29, the dealer had sold the assault rifles to a Mexican national who had worked at a Las Vegas area Jack in the Box. The buyer purchased them for cash under a phony name, using a doctored driver’s license borrowed from a former co worker at the restaurant, according to Tom Chittum, the resident agent in charge of ATF’s Las Vegas office. Just 38 days later, the same high-powered assault rifles were at the Zetas training camp in Higueras, Mexico, 70 miles south of the U.S. border, he said.

i bet all those guns flooding into mexico are making the ordinary citizens there much safer!!!!

― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:22 (fourteen years ago)

(and I do mean 'weapon' in that context xp)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:22 (fourteen years ago)

its really not that hard to ban guns. you just... pass a law banning guns. grandfather in already-licensed owners if theyre going to be such whiners about it.

― max, Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:21 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Please Don't Troll.

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:23 (fourteen years ago)

right, so how does vigorous background checks by NICS when purchasing from a retailer help with any of that, milo
pointing out that the illegal purchasing of guns is a felony doesn't prevent the illegal purchasing of guns, fwiw

I was responding to arguments that gun dealers are out on the street handing out guns to criminals.
They have no control over who buys from them so long as the buyer meets the legal requirements.

How do you expect gun dealers to stop straw purchases? They already have to file an extra form that the ATF receives if they sell multiple guns to an individual in 5 or 7 days. (Formerly only handguns, now is going to be for rifles and handguns).

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:23 (fourteen years ago)

are the stockpilers generally the same people who are selling guns to criminals, or is it the people who are selling to the stockpilers?

No but I know of at least 3 instances where people I knew online who were stockpilers had their houses broken into and most/all of their guns were stolen by criminals.

protip: get a fucking gunsafe and lock it!

(god so many xposts!)

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)

How do you expect gun dealers to stop straw purchases?

we don't...that's the point...

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)

I was responding to arguments that gun dealers are out on the street handing out guns to criminals.
They have no control over who buys from them so long as the buyer meets the legal requirements.
How do you expect gun dealers to stop straw purchases? They already have to file an extra form that the ATF receives if they sell multiple guns to an individual in 5 or 7 days. (Formerly only handguns, now is going to be for rifles and handguns).

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:23 AM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark

idk, by making it much harder for people to buy guns, by making gun training legal, by making them having to get recertified for their gun permits every couple of years...?

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:25 (fourteen years ago)

err not making gun training legal, by making gun training mandatory

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:26 (fourteen years ago)

What point is that?

Dayo, have states that require permits to simply own guns, waiting periods and magazine/AWB caps seen their crime rates drop precipitously compared to states where it's easier?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:27 (fourteen years ago)

what the hell is the point of that rebuttal, milo? make gun control stricter in one state means people are just gonna hop the border and do it in another. make gun control a federal law and it becomes hard everywhere.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:28 (fourteen years ago)

Lamp, you're incoherent so I'm just going to ignore you.

as long as you dont shoot me!!!

― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:28 (fourteen years ago)

Maybe the drug war isn't such a good idea.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:29 (fourteen years ago)

wish he would xp

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:29 (fourteen years ago)

that we shouldn't be mass-producing and selling tools made for killing people when we have no way of realistically controlling then? xp

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:29 (fourteen years ago)

first gis result for 'awb':

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Flag-of-Afrikaner-AWB-21.png

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:29 (fourteen years ago)

i am kinda pro-freedom but i've come to believe that guns are just so horrible they should not be manufactured anymore, iatee otm

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:31 (fourteen years ago)

what would antonin scalia say abt this thread

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:31 (fourteen years ago)

what the hell is the point of that rebuttal, milo? make gun control stricter in one state means people are just gonna hop the border and do it in another. make gun control a federal law and it becomes hard everywhere.

So, laws in and of themselves don't function as controls when there are ways around them?

Like borders? And untraceable firearms that will, with proper care, last forever?

that we shouldn't be mass-producing and selling tools made for killing people when we have no way of realistically controlling then? xp

We do control them. Quite well. Fact is, people curled up in the corner at the thought of guns are about as rational as right-wingers freaking out about immigrant criminals and the coming Muslim invasion, tbh.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:33 (fourteen years ago)

he doesn't know how to use a computer ;_;

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:33 (fourteen years ago)

I guess you and I have different ideas of what 'we do control them. quite well.' means

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:34 (fourteen years ago)

lol milo I have no idea how you are arguing that the gun trade is quite well regulated in this country when you yourself have attended gun shows which are a pretty giant fucking loophole

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:34 (fourteen years ago)

i think there is some confusion about facts and opinions

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:35 (fourteen years ago)

is there much price differentiation across states? i suspect that all other things being equal, guns will figure more in crimes where it's cheaper/easier to get.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:35 (fourteen years ago)

What's the scale of gun presence in the US? Like do you get blokes patrolling the local supermarket toting an AK-47?

This is not a troll, I have no idea of the public presence of firearms there.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:35 (fourteen years ago)

am kinda crackin up at the idea of drive-by beatings

― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:36 (fourteen years ago)

AA -- virtually nil

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:36 (fourteen years ago)

I would wager that just about all gun control laws began their lives compromised within an inch of their usefulness. Ergo, I'm not sure the point debating current laws, because clearly they are ineffective if not outright disingenuous/dishonest in intent.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:36 (fourteen years ago)

you won't need to worry about those in liechtenstein xp

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:37 (fourteen years ago)

like in most places. i've seen guys in western states actually walking around with a gun on their waist, but that's like 2-3 of all of the people i've ever seen in my life. i also didn't care because they were just lolzy looking western ~dads~

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:37 (fourteen years ago)

lol milo I have no idea how you are arguing that the gun trade is quite well regulated in this country when you yourself have attended gun shows which are a pretty giant fucking loophole

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:37 (fourteen years ago)

Dayo, have states that require permits to simply own guns, waiting periods and magazine/AWB caps seen their crime rates drop precipitously compared to states where it's easier?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:27 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

stop talking about crime rates! no one gives a shit about crime rates. lets talk about murder rates.

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:38 (fourteen years ago)

Thanks gbx.

Fact is, people curled up in the corner at the thought of guns are about as rational as right-wingers freaking out about immigrant criminals and the coming Muslim invasion, tbh.

So why then do the people who freak out about immigrant criminals and the coming Muslim invasion not curl up in the corner at the thought of guns?

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:38 (fourteen years ago)

It's a giant fucking loophole... that doesn't actually cause much harm. For having 200 million firearms in the country, very very few of them are ever used in crimes and we are all far more likely to die because of a car than a gun.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:37 AM (18 seconds ago)

so clearly the way to get around this is to manufacture and sell even more guns, so we can make the number of guns used in crime rates go down even lower til it's even more 'statistically insignificant'

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:39 (fourteen years ago)

I had a guy flash a gun at me because I honked at him, followed by his girlfriend punching him in the face for being a dipshit.

Other than that I don't think I've ever seen a gun (not on a cop's hip) outside of a store/range/house.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:40 (fourteen years ago)

how else are you gonna fight off the hordes of immigrant criminal muslims

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:40 (fourteen years ago)

like, what if we just gave everybody in the US 10 guns? then there'd be over 3 billion guns in the US! and the percentage of those guns used in real crimes would be even lower! thus justifying gun ownership!

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:40 (fourteen years ago)

lol (turns on broken record) - that doesn't mean don't have to care less about people dying via gun violence, it just means we also need to focus a lot more on auto safety, which is an issue where we also do way worse than most developed countries. following your logic to its logical endpoint, the only thing we should care about is whatever the #1 cause of death is, tobacco I guess.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:41 (fourteen years ago)

For having 200 million firearms in the country, very very few of them are ever used in crimes and we are all far more likely to die because of a car than a gun.

Sorry milo but I am sick to death of comparisons like this. (a) cars have at least one function that does not involve inflicting harm on people (b) saying something is more dangerous than guns does not support the cause for guns. I hear kitchen accidents are more common than car accidents, hey let's ban kitchens.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:41 (fourteen years ago)

trans fats!

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:42 (fourteen years ago)

How long til this thread is about swimming pools?

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:42 (fourteen years ago)

So why then do the people who freak out about immigrant criminals and the coming Muslim invasion not curl up in the corner at the thought of guns?

Because their irrational fears are different than other peoples' irrational fears.

stop talking about crime rates! no one gives a shit about crime rates. lets talk about murder rates.

Why? Murders are not the only crimes where people use guns. They're also not the only crimes people defend against with guns.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:42 (fourteen years ago)

saw plenty of shotguns/rifles on racks in montana, but, again, personally, i'm just like "oh that guy's a hunter" not "oh that guy is a potential murderer"

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:43 (fourteen years ago)

What's the scale of gun presence in the US? Like do you get blokes patrolling the local supermarket toting an AK-47?

My dad, as I explained upthread, carries a pistol in a knapsack he keeps under his seat while driving. He neither mentions it nor boasts -- it's just there.

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:43 (fourteen years ago)

Sorry milo but I am sick to death of comparisons like this. (a) cars have at least one function that does not involve inflicting harm on people

As do guns.

(b) saying something is more dangerous than guns does not support the cause for guns.

Kind of does - when people start arguing that GUNS are the greatest threat to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness... it's helpful to remember that they aren't.

I hear kitchen accidents are more common than car accidents, hey let's ban kitchens.

I don't want to ban anything. Except people fretting over things that don't really matter that much, all told.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:44 (fourteen years ago)

tell that to the parents of that 9 year old girl

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:44 (fourteen years ago)

ffs

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:44 (fourteen years ago)

i think the difference is it matters "that much" to a lot (but it's not that great a percentage!!!) of people whose lives are negatively affected

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:45 (fourteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure her parents aren't posting here.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:46 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw there are countries with more guns and far easier access and they don't shoot each other nearly as much as Americans do

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:46 (fourteen years ago)

i think the difference is it matters "that much" to a lot (but it's not that great a percentage!!!) of people whose lives are negatively affected
― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:45 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark

right, tho this just serves to explain why ppl get really involved in these debates---it isn't ~necessarily~ a prescription for sane/sound/effective policy-making, you know?

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)

Sorry Milo, I wasn't saying you wanted to ban anything, just pointing out how ludicrous it is to compare gun deaths to anything else in order to make a point in favour of guns. Guns don't have a utility other than shooting things, and should be taken on their merits rather than how much damage they cause compared to something that's actually useful.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw there are countries with more guns and far easier access and they don't shoot each other nearly as much as Americans do

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:46 PM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what i get from this is "americans dont deserve guns"

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)

"People whose lives are negatively affected" is the same kind of argument conservatives make about giving victims/families more say in the criminal justice system. It's a terrible argument from them and from progressives/liberals.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:47 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw there are countries with more guns and far easier access and they don't shoot each other nearly as much as Americans do

― Princess TamTam, Monday, January 10, 2011 10:46 AM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark

you talkin about sweden? norway? those are countries which also make their gun owners undergo rigorous training and teach a culture of responsibility

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

^ this is exactly why i don't care that much about banning guns, i just feel like milo's arguments are frustrating & gun violence makes me sad
xp to tam

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

basically I don't think that gun crime or crime in general is driven by availability imo

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw there are countries with more guns and far easier access and they don't shoot each other nearly as much as Americans do

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 13:46 (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yeah, I know Switzerland is basically swimming with firearms and the incidence of violent crime there is low (xp dayo otm)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

and yeah it does kinda show that americans shouldn't have guns because we are just too fucked up

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

lol teach a culture of responsibility ok man

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

tamtam: where? i buy that there are places w/way more guns, but i'm also guessing that those are places where the guns are held by, like, paramilitary orgs and that the avg dude on the street doesn't have any meaningful access

xp ah, i did not know that about scandos/swiss

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:48 (fourteen years ago)

damn yemenis own themselves some fuckin guns

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:49 (fourteen years ago)

Okay, so for the sake of argument (and deliberately leaving the US out of it for the moment) we have:

- countries with many guns and many violent crime (SA)
- countries with few guns and few violent crime (AU)
- countries with many guns and few violent crime (CH)
- countries with few guns and many violent crime (???????????)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:50 (fourteen years ago)

yeah canks iirc all americans are made to undergo a mandatory one year stint in the military, just like in sweden

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)

last one is England

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)

tuomas is armed and dangerous

― fat sheets of rage (buzza), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)

I drive a car to dissuade others with cars from running me over. But it's OK, I took a safety course.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)

yah lets keep the violent crime/murder distinction clear

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)

some Scandinavian countries encourage the use of suppressors ("silencers"), whereas getting one hear is a many-month process that's very expensive

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)

lol wait, did I say Sweden, I meant switzerland :/

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)

Man if that list was representative its saying 90% of americans have a gun

..I know it isnt true. but yike.

Australia's in the top 20, its worth noting.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)

some Scandinavian countries encourage the use of suppressors ("silencers"), whereas getting one hear is a many-month process that's very expensive

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:52 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what does this even have to do with anything

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)

jesus - Canada is 9th?!

xposts!

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:52 (fourteen years ago)

yeah canks iirc all americans are made to undergo a mandatory one year stint in the military, just like in sweden
― dayo, Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:51 PM (47 seconds ago) Bookmark

even tho my gut reaction is to balk, severely, at mandatory service, i can't help but think it would do the US a world of good in some ways

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:53 (fourteen years ago)

worked pretty well in starship troopers

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:53 (fourteen years ago)

lol i thought it was well-known that canada was gun fucking central

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:53 (fourteen years ago)

Australia's in the top 20, its worth noting.

Of violent crime?

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:53 (fourteen years ago)

Surely due to it being hugely rural/bears n shit, skewing the gun req's? xpost

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)

Adam: no of that gun ownership per pop list

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)

brazil's a good example for the low gun ownership, high gun crime rate

but comparing america to anything but a highly developed western country is pointless

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)

hey - i spent Christmas morning sitting on a couch next to a fully stocked gun case, but 9th - i did not expect.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)

oh righto xp to trayce

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)

even tho my gut reaction is to balk, severely, at mandatory service, i can't help but think it would do the US a world of good in some ways

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:53 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

fwiw all ex-military guys I know have been very very responsible in gun ownership. lol my cousin is married to a dude who owns one of like 7 .50 caliber sniper rifles in the states. O_o

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)

Heck that list says we hold more guns per capita than mexico or columbia o_0

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)

thread needs tombot

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)

what does this even have to do with anything

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:55 (fourteen years ago)

I smell a rat with that list. I would have expected Sth Africa to be well above Australia. Presuming that list is recorded gun ownership, as Australia's got pretty tight audits on that stuff and Sth Africa's is messy as hell.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:56 (fourteen years ago)

Perhaps you're unaware that their restriction is part of the initial wave of modern gun control - and are found much more frequently in other 'more strict' countries (such as those now being discussed).
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:55 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I'm not following you milo

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:57 (fourteen years ago)

lol my cousin is married to a dude who owns one of like 7 .50 caliber sniper rifles in the states.

There are a ton of .50BMG in the US. A single-shot bolt action runs ~$2500, the military Barrett semi-auto will run you about $9k.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:57 (fourteen years ago)

what does this even have to do with anything

― max, Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:52 PM (39 seconds ago) Bookmark

i know this is your 'thing' max but could you not do it

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:57 (fourteen years ago)

i still dont get what the point is

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)

There are a ton of .50BMG in the US. A single-shot bolt action runs ~$2500, the military Barrett semi-auto will run you about $9k.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 10:57 AM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark

I should clarify - one of 7 of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_HS_.50 allowed in the US

or so he told me, I know nothing about guns

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)

As many people possess multiple weapons and many others possess none, this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation.

and so on

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)

sweden makes it easy to buy silencers and the US doesnt and that demonstrates....

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 02:59 (fourteen years ago)

girls with dragon tattoos

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:00 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw all ex-military guys I know have been very very responsible in gun ownership. lol my cousin is married to a dude who owns one of like 7 .50 caliber sniper rifles in the states. O_o
― dayo, Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:55 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

well yeah! because, you know, someone showed them how to use them. like i am totally down with mandatory training, licensing recert, etc. imo legislation like that would do more* to bring down gun deaths in the states than any wholesale ban on them

*"do more" in the "per Calorie of congressional exertion" sense.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:01 (fourteen years ago)

I'm not following you milo

'Silencers' are a bogeyman in the US, much like assault rifles and so on - oh, criminals use them to stay undetected, etc.. Getting one requires a great deal of ATF paperwork and a $200 tax stamp.
But they generally don't even bring firearm noise down to a level that won't damage your hearing without protection, except for some .22s. They don't in any way silence a gun.

But in these countries we're talking about without the Wild West gun culture of the US (or whatever), they're widely available and their use is encouraged.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:02 (fourteen years ago)

why does everything need 2 have a 'point' - why cant he just bring up some interesting little factoids huh - u guys are way too aggro, my least fav kind of ilx discussion thread is where u guys are all like YEAH BRO?? YEAH BRO???? like bullying milo into thinking guns are bad is the fulcrum on which world peace rests - just chill out testosterbros

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:02 (fourteen years ago)

that seems logical considering that there seems to be less of a risk of getting assassinated there xp

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:03 (fourteen years ago)

Those Steyrs are available here, too. I think that's the model someone got busted for selling to Iran a couple of years back?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:03 (fourteen years ago)

yeah gbx, I'm with you there - that's about as reasonable a compromise as can be hoped for in a country where the right to own guns is built into its foundational document

still doesn't stop me from thinking of guns as being totally fucking barbaric, get real dudes you're not traveling the oregon trail anymore

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:03 (fourteen years ago)

By someone I mean the manufacturer

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:02 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

and this is relevant how

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)

lol otm

xpost to dayo

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:02 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ur lucky i dont have a gun

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure it's relevant to a discussion of gun laws in Scandinavian countries and their gun cultures.

Yeeeeesh.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)

― Princess TamTam, Monday, January 10, 2011 11:02 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

sorry that you're being forced to read this thread at gunpoint, what if I were to tell you that by outlawing guns you would no longer be forced to read this thread at gunpoint, would that interest you

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)

now ur tolkein

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:06 (fourteen years ago)

only outlaws will force you to read this thread at gunpoint

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:07 (fourteen years ago)

sweden makes it easy to buy silencers and the US doesnt and that demonstrates....
― max, Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:59 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

well it demonstrates that sweden has a more sane appraisal of how/why guns are used to kill ppl, probs. outlawing silencers is precisely the sorta law that seeks to score hollow political points (heyo) with a base w/o meaningfully effecting crime or w/e. the only ppl that are ~really~ going to want a silencer are gun nuts who want cool shit, professional criminals who need it for their job (and will get one anyway), and amateur criminals who want them to be badass (and then miss anything they shoot at). making it hard to get a silencer addresses a public health problem that literally doesn't exist (ppl getting iced by guns w/silencers at a rate higher than oh i don't know lightning strikes).

anyway, ad nauseum, but i will suggest again that maybe the reason that places like norway/switz/et al seem to manage their guns better is because their populations are.....well fed? not in desperate poverty? have access to state services that actually make their lives better?

xps oh whatever

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:08 (fourteen years ago)

how expensive is an illegal handgun? is the market price insensitive because if you need a gun, you need a gun?

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:08 (fourteen years ago)

xps oh whatever

― ullr saves (gbx), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:08 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

omg someone is talking sense

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:09 (fourteen years ago)

yeah i dont know i feel like people are arguing about totally different things on this thread--im not actually defending current gun control laws like "oh its a good thing silencers are outlawed"? i dont give a shit about silencers. i want to take guns away from all americans because we dont know how to use them properly.

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:09 (fourteen years ago)

ok max

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:10 (fourteen years ago)

i think this is very otm. but only half of it. US culture just seems to worship guns.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:10 (fourteen years ago)

Westerns and action movies would be so boring if everyone used silencers. Better to keep those things hard to get, for the sake of our entertainment industry.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:11 (fourteen years ago)

i want to take guns away from all americans because we dont know how to use them properly.

― max, Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:09 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

most of them do :/ also rifles are a legitimate tool of popular resistance and u would be neutering the inevitable uprising of the working class

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:12 (fourteen years ago)

i want to take guns away from all americans because we dont know how to use them properly.

― max, Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:09 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and i'm interested in talking about things that actually have a chance of happening, so we're both going to wind up disappointed

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:12 (fourteen years ago)

right, agreed that there is a definite cultural thing at work here. it's just that you guys are obsessed with the fringe elements of that culture (gun shows!! militias!! the oregon trail!!! the mentally ill!!!! lol at these rednecks!!!) and are totally willing to ignore, like, all these boring midwesterners that shoot grouse on the weekend and keep their shit under lock and key 24/7

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:15 (fourteen years ago)

no we're not

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:16 (fourteen years ago)

oddly enough by your definition it's the fringe elements that are the problem here

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:17 (fourteen years ago)

(I am not attacki8ng you gbx, just saying)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:17 (fourteen years ago)

likewise the boring midwesterners don't have to give a shit about inner city shootings, cause, I mean, they don't live there

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:17 (fourteen years ago)

it just so happens though that those fringe elements like gun shows are how guns make their ways into areas w/ a high crime rate gbx

like I said above, as a comprormise I'm fine with responsible midwest dudes practicing responsible gun ownership! it's all the dudes who aren't, and trying to figure out why and what's going wrong w/ the current system that's enabling them, that's what I'm interested in

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:17 (fourteen years ago)

cause there are no inner cities in the midwest

― mookieproof, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:17 (fourteen years ago)

forgot about minneapolis

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:19 (fourteen years ago)

iatee see the thing is that you have actually demonstrated, in this very thread, that you dont give a shit about ppl doing something you happen to dislike in a safe and responsible manner. whereas, this boring midwesterner that hunts on the weekend that doesn't give a shit about inner city shootings is something you have literally made up.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:19 (fourteen years ago)

yeah i mean i feel for the guys who shoot grouse on the weekend but someones gotta lose out, id rather it be them than 9-year-olds trying to meet congresswomen

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:20 (fourteen years ago)

i shoot grouse in the inner city

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:20 (fourteen years ago)

I think the point is that gun control laws as they exist now make it easy for the responsible gun owning midwesterner to buy guns, but it also makes it easy for people with less-noble-purposes than shooting quail to buy guns, and that's the problem

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:20 (fourteen years ago)

need a venn diagram of the midwestern grouse shooter/inner-city gangbanger/loan psycho and how they got access to their guns

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:21 (fourteen years ago)

scuse me "lone"

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:22 (fourteen years ago)

oh i thought you really meant loan psycho! like a loan shark

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:22 (fourteen years ago)

it just so happens though that those fringe elements like gun shows are how guns make their ways into areas w/ a high crime rate gbx

right, sure! and i'm totally in favor of doing what is possible (and legal, we will not see any changes to the 2nd amendment in any of our lifetimes) to sew those loopholes up, tout de suite. i guess what i meant was not so much the substantive dangers that gun shows represent, but the easily clownable stereotypes they offer up for strawmanning. that is, the idea that "gun show culture" is somehow more culturally influential than it really is. i dunno maybe no one actually suggested that, i can't keep up

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:22 (fourteen years ago)

i grouse at shooters in the inner city

― all i gotta do is akh nachivly (darraghmac), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:22 (fourteen years ago)

oh i thought you really meant loan psycho! like a loan shark

― positive reflection is the key (harbl), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:22 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what the hell throw him in too! we do need to solve every problem at once after all

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:23 (fourteen years ago)

yeah i mean i feel for the guys who shoot grouse on the weekend but someones gotta lose out, id rather it be them than 9-year-olds trying to meet congresswomen
― max, Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

dude for real? like i "get" what yr saying, it's just....whatever. go fucking blog something

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:26 (fourteen years ago)

i don't see anything wrong with what he's saying.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:27 (fourteen years ago)

more people are allowed to own guns -> more guns are made -> more guns exist -> more guns are available for making crime

fewer people are allowed to own guns -> fewer guns are made -> fewer guns exist -> fewer guns are available for making crime

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:27 (fourteen years ago)

sorry if that's simplistic but

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:27 (fourteen years ago)

so, you know, that trade show that's full of guns, if guns ownership laws were tighter there wouldn't be as many trade shows full of guns (which aligns with the point dayo was making iirc)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:28 (fourteen years ago)

fewer people are allowed -> fewer people exist -> fewer people make crime

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:29 (fourteen years ago)

it's not that there's anything "wrong" with it, it's just intellectually lazy, and kinda offensive if you read it to suggest that saying "hey wait banning guns isn't really feasible and/or likely to stop nine year olds getting killed" is equivalent to saying that "i would prefer that a nine year old get killed than ppl in the midwest not be allowed to shoot turkey"

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:30 (fourteen years ago)

I'm kind of less sympathetic to people having guns legally to shoot birds than them having gotten one illegally because they fear for their lives.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:30 (fourteen years ago)

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 14:30 (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wow, is that really how you read that?

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)

u.s. gun cultural contains vast multitudes--we best deal with it in pithy one-liners

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)

oh no i was being intellectually lazy in the great ilx gun control debate

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:31 (fourteen years ago)

gbx you can only be disingenuous in drawing that conclusion. max was clearly saying he'd rather grouse-shooters be disarmed than 9yo girls be killed.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:32 (fourteen years ago)

xp the penalty is....getting shot

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:32 (fourteen years ago)

right but banning hunting has never been a national debate and never will be, whereas banning guns in inner cities *is* a political issue that the gun lobby and most people who support 'the right to bear arms' fight against viciously. it's ridiculous to pretend that the boring midwesterner's right to go hunting has ever been in question.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:32 (fourteen years ago)

right and it's a false binary xp

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:33 (fourteen years ago)

How are you going to differentiate between them when you ban guns?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:34 (fourteen years ago)

How are you going to differentiate between them when you ban guns?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:34 AM (1 second ago) Bookmark

you can't, guess that means all guns have to go, sorry quail hunters

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:34 (fourteen years ago)

I think my dad's most frequently shared gun brag moment as a guy with all these animal heads on his walls, a guy who was once the accountant for Freedom Arms (lol), is this time when he and my mom were young marrieds in Los Angeles. He said he was getting trailed by some guy, who he suspected was going to do crimes, and he said, "Good thing I have my gun with me." And the guy ducked away. So, there are some points I guess could be drawn from this, I don't rly want to make any of them, it's just I've heard my dad tell this story several dozens of times and I think of it when I think about the mean streets and gun crimes.

― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:35 (fourteen years ago)

sorry you can't hunt quail anymore, but have you heard, there's this thing called the internet, and people are entertained by it, in fact some people who have hunted quail and gone on the internet actually prefer the internet for their entertainment, hard to believe

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:35 (fourteen years ago)

how about, if you live/work in a neighborhood with a certain threshold of per capita murders, you can get a gun exemption, otherwise no.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:37 (fourteen years ago)

cyberquail

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:38 (fourteen years ago)

Which won't be racially sensitive/motivated at all!

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:38 (fourteen years ago)

Shoot the bastard.

http://files.list.co.uk/images/2008/11/20/FamousGrouse2.jpg

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:38 (fourteen years ago)

how about people stop hunting quail and get some new fuckin hobbies

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:38 (fourteen years ago)

what if we just traded them wiis for their guns

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:39 (fourteen years ago)

~problem solved~
http://teslastaging.com/forums/images/smilies/Gestures/userArmsCrossed.gif

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:39 (fourteen years ago)

Holy shit guys slow down.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:40 (fourteen years ago)

I don't think anyone's alluded to the possibility that, while there's overlap, people who own guns for hunting are not to be confused with people who own guns for self-defense.

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:40 (fourteen years ago)

alfred i don't think it would matter

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:41 (fourteen years ago)

why are we focusing on the people who own the guns and not the guns themselves

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:41 (fourteen years ago)

I know plenty of guys who use their rifles and shotguns between November and February for boar/deer hunting season and don't touch them the rest of the year.

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:41 (fourteen years ago)

alfred those ppl do not matter

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:42 (fourteen years ago)

their hobby is stupid

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:43 (fourteen years ago)

seems worth pointing out that being a hunter is statistically pretty unlikely so people shouldnt freak out so much

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:43 (fourteen years ago)

And they should be deprived of their hobby because a 9 year old girl died, obviously.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:43 (fourteen years ago)

jeez u guys are pretty touching about hunting!!! have you considered knitting or something

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:43 (fourteen years ago)

knitting socks out of grouse feathers

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:44 (fourteen years ago)

If someone can prove that a gun saved two lives, then we get to keep them right?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:44 (fourteen years ago)

You're still free as long as you think you want to do the things you're allowed to do.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:44 (fourteen years ago)

or would it have to be two nine-year olds

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:44 (fourteen years ago)

And they should be deprived of their hobby because a 9 year old girl died, obviously.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 14:43 (50 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Assuming you're taking the piss but I agree with this for two reasons.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:45 (fourteen years ago)

just have to prove that a gun can stop the boot of tyranny

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:45 (fourteen years ago)

lets not go down this particular road of snark guys

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:45 (fourteen years ago)

what else is there to do at this point

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:46 (fourteen years ago)

tragedy is inverse-square so..

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:46 (fourteen years ago)

if we got rid of hunting 2 generations down their grandkids wouldn't be like "damn there is something missing in my life, why am I not killing things..." plus they'd be playing halo 19 or whatever, which at that point will be scientifically, objectively more fun than hunting.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:46 (fourteen years ago)

too hard to stop from sniping itt

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:46 (fourteen years ago)

Without hunting, what do we do when deer populations overwhelm their ecosystem's ability to sustain them?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:47 (fourteen years ago)

deer are cool

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:47 (fourteen years ago)

halo 19 would probably be literal hunting, though.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:47 (fourteen years ago)

i believe i pointed this out in another thread, but deer hunting is a literal necessity in this country - they're giant rats whose population can no longer be kept in check by diminished predator populations

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:48 (fourteen years ago)

wait guys i shot competitive high power rifle while living in a metropolitan area, so i would like some help trying to figure out if i am in the midwestern dumbshit yokel hunter category or the psycho right-wing conceal carry future murderer one.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:48 (fourteen years ago)

gbx, why isn't a distinction as to the type of firearm legit?

we grant some speech protection and other speech none? why not guns?

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:48 (fourteen years ago)

Where to park my howitzer?

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:49 (fourteen years ago)

the boot of deer tyranny

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:50 (fourteen years ago)

ive mentioned this on this thread before (and i think milo mentioned it more recently) but lots of the distinctions made between guns re:lethality are totally wrongheaded but sound comforting to people that dont really know much about firearms. xxpost

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:50 (fourteen years ago)

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 14:48 (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Eco-hunting isn't just about killing animals though. I know that with elephants you have to cull an entire family, otherwise the remaining members go on a big psycho rampage, so you can't just give a bloke a rifle and say 'cull elephants plz'. Dunno about deer but I assume there are also correct and incorrect ways to manage deer populations.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:51 (fourteen years ago)

i suggested banning handguns on this very thread like 3 years ago and ppl were all, what about competitive handgun shooters, and that was the point at which i just threw up my hands and was like, whatever

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:51 (fourteen years ago)

anyway heart disease kills more people than anything else in the united states (25%) and even though cheeseburgers don't actually kill ppl instantaneously like bullets do, banning fast food would probably do more for the public good than banning guns. and like if you happen to eat big macs responsible who fucking cares, get a new food you fat fuck

xp hunt3r i'm actually willing to make distinctions, but max et al are arguing that we should ban guns, full stop

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:52 (fourteen years ago)

max sb'd guns 3 years ago and guns have yet to get 51'd -- how is this possible

― J0rdan S., Monday, 10 January 2011 03:52 (fourteen years ago)

i have nothing against hunters, but handguns are something else. apparently, this makes me unacceptable to either side of this debate.

― Yutte Hermsgervørdenbrøtbørda (Eisbaer), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:53 (fourteen years ago)

I think there are lots of reasonable measure you can take that would fall short of banning guns outright. but people like to pretend that our current laws and the current system of selling guns is more than adequate to prevent abuse of the system. w/e

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:53 (fourteen years ago)

Also there's no accountability when you just give some bloke (e.g.) a rifle for the culling of deer numbers. Let's say that bloke also takes out a load of endangered animals that are crapping on his driveway.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:53 (fourteen years ago)

trying to change the issue to be able cheeseburgers and cars is ridiculous - yeah we have to fix lots of other huge problems in our society! we should also get on that! that doesn't mean we should let crazy people buy machine guns!

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:54 (fourteen years ago)

be about

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:54 (fourteen years ago)

we don't have blokes in america so i think your post is irrelevant

― J0rdan S., Monday, 10 January 2011 03:54 (fourteen years ago)

like yeah I'd totally be down with only banning handguns and letting the high power competitive rifle shooters have at it or w/e. but then it makes it harder to resist the boot of tyranny oh no

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:54 (fourteen years ago)

i'm from around the bloke

― Yutte Hermsgervørdenbrøtbørda (Eisbaer), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:55 (fourteen years ago)

as has been previously discussed iatee (and i) believe that everyone in america should move to new hampshire and cars should be outlawed--banning guns seems more feasible at this point so thats what im going for

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:55 (fourteen years ago)

How is it 'pretending' dayo? We don't live in a lawless society with gun violence on every street corner. What would be 'good enough' for you? What numbers are you looking for?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:56 (fourteen years ago)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:53 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yes there is

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:56 (fourteen years ago)

and I think comparing guns to other causes of death in america like cheeseburgers or cars or tobacco is fallacious because guns possess certain properties that those other things just don't. guns are designed to cause damage to other things. that is their only purpose. they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't damage the user of the gun. the damage done is potentially lethal. etc. etc.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:56 (fourteen years ago)

btw I'm not sure 'fast food is worse' is on point itt

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:56 (fourteen years ago)

(xxxxxxxxxxxxxp)

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:56 (fourteen years ago)

trying to change the issue to be able cheeseburgers and cars is ridiculous - yeah we have to fix lots of other huge problems in our society! we should also get on that! that doesn't mean we should let crazy people buy machine guns!
― iatee, Sunday, January 9, 2011 9:54 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark

w/e dude, that was not what i was suggesting. and yeah guys duh i fucking know that it's apples and oranges.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:57 (fourteen years ago)

like yeah I'd totally be down with only banning handguns and letting the high power competitive rifle shooters have at it or w/e. but then it makes it harder to resist the boot of tyranny oh no

this remains epically retarded, fwiw

With even a little planning and skill, you can do a lot of damage with a "high power competitive rifle." Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps you've heard of them.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:57 (fourteen years ago)

How is it 'pretending' dayo? We don't live in a lawless society with gun violence on every street corner. What would be 'good enough' for you? What numbers are you looking for?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:56 AM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark

how about a homicide rate similar to the UK's or any other developed country that outlaws guns

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:57 (fourteen years ago)

seriously, i grew up around people who hunted -- all of whom were law-abiding and sane, and knew how to handle guns responsibly. i never saw any point in needlessly antagonizing them, even if i thought that NRA rhetoric was either wrong or wacked out.

― Yutte Hermsgervørdenbrøtbørda (Eisbaer), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:57 (fourteen years ago)

that doesn't mean we should let crazy people buy machine guns!

i agree! and we don't let them, or in fact almost anybody buy machine guns, so i dont really know what that has to do with anything

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:57 (fourteen years ago)

With even a little planning and skill, you can do a lot of damage with a "high power competitive rifle." Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps you've heard of them.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:57 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dogg compare the homicide rate w/ handguns vs rifles

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:58 (fourteen years ago)

oh why am i being serious on this thread again

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:58 (fourteen years ago)

the point isn't that they're the same, it's that the outright banning of guns would be about as feasible as banning guns. neither will ever happen. and, more to the point, banning fast food or guns or cars doesn't really address why exactly people die from those things.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:58 (fourteen years ago)

lol typo

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:58 (fourteen years ago)

and I think comparing guns to other causes of death in america like cheeseburgers or cars or tobacco is fallacious because guns possess certain properties that those other things just don't. guns are designed to cause damage to other things. that is their only purpose. they are designed to do so in a way that doesn't damage the user of the gun. the damage done is potentially lethal. etc. etc/

When you're talking public health and safety, the spirit of the inanimate object is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter what purpose on Earth guns have, or cheeseburgers have, or whatever. If the argument is about what poses the greatest harm to the greatest number of people, metaphysics don't come into play.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 03:58 (fourteen years ago)

this remains epically retarded, fwiw
With even a little planning and skill, you can do a lot of damage with a "high power competitive rifle." Charles Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps you've heard of them.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:57 AM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark

how about making gun training mandatory, making people go through very thorough background checks, psychiatrical evaluation, or how about allowing guns and banning ammo except for use at gun ranges where competitive high power rifle shooting takes place? there are lots of ways to make society safer without banning guns outright.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:59 (fourteen years ago)

youd think "ban handguns" would be a good compromise but apparently "rifles can kill people too" is an argument to... not ban anything??

ps guns dont have spirits

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:59 (fourteen years ago)

woah, quick thread. super xp:

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Sunday, January 9, 2011 8:51 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

sorry if this sounds harsh, but this post reads to me like you feel like you have a greater understanding of 'animal population management' or w/e you wanna call it than the people who are deeply invested in it just because you remember some fact about elephants in an article you read somewhere? i'm sure they have at least some, slight, tiny idea about what they're doing when they're out there bagging deer

― sleepingbag, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:59 (fourteen years ago)

there's no 2nd amendment about the right of a well-fed militia and the right to eat cheeseburgers not to be infringed, though

― Yutte Hermsgervørdenbrøtbørda (Eisbaer), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:00 (fourteen years ago)

also apparently 75% of the 10k gun homicides are due to handguns, which, if it hasn't been made before, is probably the single most compelling argument for their severe restriction or banning.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:00 (fourteen years ago)

how about a homicide rate similar to the UK's or any other developed country that outlaws guns

The UK's homicide rate is lower than ours, but not a whole lot lower than France's (which has way more guns). It's violent crime rate is higher than both the US and France.

So, are those rates entirely based upon access to weapons, or are other factors in play?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:00 (fourteen years ago)

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 14:48 (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OTFM. my house is in an area where deer are EVERYWHERE. at night they hang out in herds on people's front lawns and shit everywhere. then they run out into the road and get run over. so in addition to live deer there are dead deer everywhere too.

they're a nuisance.

― Young Guns aside, the western is not my favorite genre. (latebloomer), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:01 (fourteen years ago)

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 11:58 AM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark

wait why doesn't it matter?

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:01 (fourteen years ago)

how about ban handguns and when gangbangers start killing each other with high powered assault rifles we ban those too

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:01 (fourteen years ago)

youd think "ban handguns" would be a good compromise but apparently "rifles can kill people too" is an argument to... not ban anything??

It's drawing a distinction irrationally. Handguns are bad because criminals use them! But rifles, particularly with wooden stocks, don't look nearly as scary or seem as weird. But in reality, if someone wants to go batshit insane - and this started out arguing about mass shootings, mind you - a .308 hunting or competition rifle is going to be more than adequate to fuck up whatever the nutzo wants to fuck up.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:02 (fourteen years ago)

nabs already made the most compelling post about the inherent evil of guns-as-objects, can we not even bother

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:02 (fourteen years ago)

It doesn't matter what purpose on Earth guns have, or cheeseburgers have, or whatever.

It absolutely does! Cheeseburgers at least do positive things like keep people alive in some way. Guns only exist to inflict damage.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:02 (fourteen years ago)

oh i know all about deer and the problems they cause

max, you lived in Princeton when they were having the debate about allowing sharpshooters to kill deer from helicopters right?!?

― Yutte Hermsgervørdenbrøtbørda (Eisbaer), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:03 (fourteen years ago)

― sleepingbag, Monday, 10 January 2011 14:59 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You're a sock, right? Not responding to this.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:03 (fourteen years ago)

haha yeah that was awesome xp

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:03 (fourteen years ago)

wait why doesn't it matter?

Because policy isn't spiritual. If your argument is that guns are evil because of their one true purpose, make that argument and leave statistics and public safety out.

If your argument is that guns pose a risk to the health and safety of the general population, leave out whatever you think their purpose is.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:03 (fourteen years ago)

enh if some guy uses a gun to shoot a deer and then eats it (tho man why would you w/CWD) its proven itself as useful as a cheeseburger. stupid argument imo

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:04 (fourteen years ago)

Bang Gangbanners.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:04 (fourteen years ago)

it's also harder to conceal a high powered rifle *shrug*

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:04 (fourteen years ago)

what does it even mean, policy isn't spiritual

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:04 (fourteen years ago)

it's pretty hard to misuse a cheeseburger and kill someone with it. it's pretty easy to misuse a gun and kill somebody with it. idk why I'm even bothering

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:05 (fourteen years ago)

It's drawing a distinction irrationally. Handguns are bad because criminals use them! But rifles, particularly with wooden stocks, don't look nearly as scary or seem as weird.

yeah its totally irrational

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:05 (fourteen years ago)

if you ban fast food before banning guns, there's gonna be a lot of pissed-off people with guns.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:05 (fourteen years ago)

It's not that hard to conceal a rifle, actually.

"Ban handguns but leave rifles" is the kind of half-assed intellectual dishonesty that lets pro-lifers argue "but abortion is okay in the case of rape and incest." If it's about the ability to inflict damage (or the life of the fetus), the psychological issues in play (handguns are scary, etc.) don't come into play.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:07 (fourteen years ago)

Max, can you kill someone with a "high power competition rifle"?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:07 (fourteen years ago)

enhhhhhhh milo, the concealment thing is actually pretty central to handgun violence, i'd hazard. you can't shove a .308 down the front of your pants and walk into a convenience store like it isnt a thing. it might be "intellectually dishonest," but it certainly doesn't ignore how handguns are used

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:08 (fourteen years ago)

blunt objects due for a comeback

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:09 (fourteen years ago)

this isnt about "psychological issues"--i am equally scared of all guns--this is about the fact that the vast vast majority of gun deaths in this country are handgun deaths

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:09 (fourteen years ago)

blunt objects due for a comeback

― Princess TamTam, Monday, January 10, 2011 4:09 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

― Young Guns aside, the western is not my favorite genre. (latebloomer), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:10 (fourteen years ago)

I'm not sure why you think I've disagreed that handguns are used more often. Guess what: there are more of them. And they are more easily concealable.

But guess what, once you've banned handguns, people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead, because you've left them available. Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:10 (fourteen years ago)

theres no question that the world would be better off if handguns didnt exist - everyone should have an AK though, for armed insurrection

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:11 (fourteen years ago)

Because policy isn't spiritual. If your argument is that guns are evil because of their one true purpose, make that argument and leave statistics and public safety out.
If your argument is that guns pose a risk to the health and safety of the general population, leave out whatever you think their purpose is.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:03 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

also I really really don't get this point - why can't it be both? why can't the fact that guns are designed to be dangerous go hand in hand with referencing statistics that show a correlation between gun ownership & homicide. idgi

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:11 (fourteen years ago)

it's ridiculous that we're having the argument 'ban all guns' vs 'don't ban guns' cause on a political level that's never the fight. and I mean, we're having that argument cause some of us do actually believe the former, but that's never been the real-life issue. in reality it's 'very incremental regulation on how easy it is to buy guns' vs. 'any regulation, ever, is bad' and we can't even get that cause of (one interpretation of) the second amendment.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:12 (fourteen years ago)

i think we should just ship all of our handguns to alaska and let them slowly take each other out

― J0rdan S., Monday, 10 January 2011 04:12 (fourteen years ago)

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:10 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i still dont see why this is an effective argument for keeping handguns legal instead of being an excellent argument to ban all guns

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:12 (fourteen years ago)

An AR-15 can easily be concealed inside of a gym bag or under a coat. Or carried in a backpack in two pieces and assembled once inside of whatever building one wants to do bad things in. As can any number of other rifles in different calibers.

nb: AR-15s are used as "high-power competitive rifles" these days, along with M1 Garands and bolt actions and such

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:13 (fourteen years ago)

Do you not comprehend that rifles are actually more dangerous than handguns when it comes down to ballistics?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah and that rifles would not really function the same way in all situations in which handguns are currently now used? like okay I get it, ban handguns and you're still gonna have your bell tower shooters. but it's gonna make it harder for casual robberies and other instances of gun violence that depend on the metaphysical factors of a handgun versus a rifle.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:13 (fourteen years ago)

i still dont see why this is an effective argument for keeping handguns legal instead of being an excellent argument to ban all guns

It's an argument that you either have to ban all guns or not do something stupid and pointless like ban some guns because they spook you.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:14 (fourteen years ago)

i dont want to ban those guns because "they spook me" i want to ban those guns because they are currently being used to kill thousands of epople a year

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:14 (fourteen years ago)

in reality it's 'very incremental regulation on how easy it is to buy guns' vs. 'any regulation, ever, is bad' and we can't even get that cause of (one interpretation of) the second amendment.

but the real situation is that there is actually quite a lot of regulation of guns, and there have been plenty of moves in that direction, it just seems like that gets ignored all the time by people that are in favor of a complete ban on firearms.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:15 (fourteen years ago)

im not even bothering to type xpost anymore btw

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:15 (fourteen years ago)

that's not even getting into shotguns - take a pistol grip shotgun and a hacksaw and you've got something ~12-15 inches long total. Very not difficult to conceal if you want to take part in "casual robberies."

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:15 (fourteen years ago)

or shorter, if said casual robber is a helluva masochist

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:16 (fourteen years ago)

ban shotguns

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:16 (fourteen years ago)

like i dunno if yr trying to come at gun control from a by-the-numbers/statistics sorta angle, i'd say that the particulars of what makes a handgun appealing to a murderer are pretty u&k. i mean basically i'm of the mind where i think that policy should be shaped for the greatest benefit to the public good (less murders!) while impinging ppl's rights as little as possible (sorry dudes we do actually have the 2nd amendment, no way around it). if we make it so that ppl gotta get hella vetted to own a handgun, and take a course, and re-up their certification, and ban their resale at gun shows (not sure how exactly that could be legal, like in a non-2nd amendment constitutional way), then i'm all for it. yr competitive shooters can still get their weenie .22s, yr collectors can get their stupid desert eagles, and criminals will find it more difficult (though not impossible) to get 9mms.

if all of a sudden there's a huge uptick in gun homicide by varmint rifle, then i guess we'll have to move on to that debate. but as it is, calling for an outright ban of handguns is politically insane and probably unconstitutional, esp when its likely that other legislation could be enacted to keep them out of the hands of murderers and in the hands of people with stupid hobbies you hate but that are ultimately pretty fucking benign

xps lol i am so behind w/e, time for a beer

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:16 (fourteen years ago)

Fish and Game agencies control hunting licenses, and these licenses have certain numbers of kills attached to them that you are legally allowed to carry out, and there are a certain number of licenses given out each season (usually through a lottery system). I think that the fish and game departments probably know more about the deer populations under their jurisdiction than random ILXors who have never used a gun in their life let alone gone hunting....

But sure we can turn this thread into that argument... we might as well argue about prescribed burns in forests in that case, though...

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:17 (fourteen years ago)

this thread is moving way too fast... like a speeding bullet!

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:17 (fourteen years ago)

"ban all guns" is a terrible and impossible idea, IMO, but it's much more rationally defensible than "ban handguns, because then people will stop killing each other"

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:17 (fourteen years ago)

right except our ideas of 'quite a lot of regulation' are different, you're like the wall street guy who thinks that finance is overregulated right now.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:18 (fourteen years ago)

"people who wish to do bad things will start using rifles instead"

i don't think this would necessarily happen, at least for crimes that don't fit the rifle narrative.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:19 (fourteen years ago)

"ban all guns" is a terrible and impossible idea, IMO, but it's much more rationally defensible than "ban handguns, because then people will stop killing each other"

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:17 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah thats def my argument thanks for summarizing it so efficiently

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:19 (fourteen years ago)

right except our ideas of 'quite a lot of regulation' are different, you're like the wall street guy who thinks that finance is overregulated right now.

first part is prob true, second part is a cheap shot strawman deal but heyo, thats why this thread is always so darn much fun

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:20 (fourteen years ago)

We have this problem with possums and yet theyre still a protected spieces - you arent allowed to trap or poison em let alone SHOOT em.

― Ex Loin Tamer (Trayce), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:21 (fourteen years ago)

What crimes fit the handgun narrative that can't be accomplished by a rifle?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:21 (fourteen years ago)

and milo, i honestly don't think that corralling handguns w/legislation would mean that criminals would just move on to rifles, and certainly not with the same "success" (ugh). i obv have no data for that, it just seems...intuitive? like for real stick up kids and gangbangers are gonna go buy hunting rifles at wal-mart?

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:21 (fourteen years ago)

If your criminal activity depends on the power of a firearm and handguns are gone - do you just give up the drug trade, or do you find a new weapon to suit your needs?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:22 (fourteen years ago)

We have this problem with possums and yet theyre still a protected spieces - you arent allowed to trap or poison em let alone SHOOT em.

and yet in nz they're vermin and killing them is encouraged, gyeesh.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:22 (fourteen years ago)

Still can't believe firearms are sold at Wal-mart. We can't even buy alcohol at a 7-11 ffs.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:23 (fourteen years ago)

not banning dangerous things because people might use other dangerous things is pretty dumb

i am going to look at this thread tomorrow and be so mad at myself

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:23 (fourteen years ago)

Would violence levels remain absolutely the same? Probably not. But criminal firearm activity would most certainly begin to incorporate rifles and shotguns where handguns sufficed before.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:23 (fourteen years ago)

not banning dangerous things because people might use other dangerous things is pretty dumb

Laws that serve no ultimate good are pretty dumb, IMO

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:24 (fourteen years ago)

Playing ban-a-mole is pretty dumb.

― Kerm, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:24 (fourteen years ago)

re: handgun-specific narratives
you can't do that sideways gangsta thing with a rifle, or maybe you could, but does it look as fierce?

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:25 (fourteen years ago)

we seem to have a lot of supposed liberals who would sit at the right of the current supreme court in here - the idea that the 2nd amendment allows people to privately possess firearms is not even remotely consensus in constitutional/legal cirlces. we just happen to have a really conservative SC

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:25 (fourteen years ago)

like the reason that handguns are popular w/criminals is because they are ideally suited to street crime! it's not why they were invented, but it is disingenuous to suggest that in the context of a mugging or a shoot-out outside a club or a daylight execution or w/e that a rifle wouldn't make the whole thing waaaaay more difficult to pull off without drawing attention. i mean i am basically sympathetic to yr posish here but c'mon man

xps

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:25 (fourteen years ago)

kev otm

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:26 (fourteen years ago)

ewww "supposed liberals," kev? dude kinda figured you were better than that.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:26 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.tucsonguns.com/pic/2008-02/01-29-08-0009.jpg

Stunningly easy to create out of a perfectly legal shotgun when handguns are banned.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:26 (fourteen years ago)

What crimes fit the handgun narrative that can't be accomplished by a rifle?

Crimes where you are able to conceal your weapon until you can bust it out and shoot someone at point blank range and continue firing into a a crowd of innocents. I thought this was pretty fucking obvious, myself...

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:26 (fourteen years ago)

also Milo, shotguns have at most 4-6 rounds, not 30.

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:27 (fourteen years ago)

milo is continuing to make a terrific arg in favor of banning all guns

― max, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:27 (fourteen years ago)

milo giving us solid reasons to ban shotguns and rifles later down the line

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:28 (fourteen years ago)

lol xp

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:28 (fourteen years ago)

but gbx, if handguns are unavailable, are criminal gangs going to just stop doing 'daylight executions' and 'robberies'? Or are they going to find another way to get their firepower?

"Shoot-out outside a club" is not the most common criminal use for firearms.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:28 (fourteen years ago)

uh its a little more accurate due to shot to say that shotguns have 400-600 very small rounds honestly. xposts

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:28 (fourteen years ago)

the idea that the 2nd amendment allows people to privately possess firearms is not even remotely consensus in constitutional/legal cirlces.

also, really? like, citation please? i mean say what you will about handguns or w/e, but i am pretty certain that even an expansive reading of the constitution couldn't conclude that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically allow for people to bear arms? as alfred suggested, it seems about as cut and dried as the 1st!

xp lol jj gun nerdery is prob nagl itt

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:29 (fourteen years ago)

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

haha dude

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:29 (fourteen years ago)

I've repeatedly said that 'ban all guns' is impossible and a bad idea, but logically defensible. 'Ban some guns but leave all these other really fuckin' dangerous ones in play' is impossible, a bad idea AND logically indefensible.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:29 (fourteen years ago)

xxxxxpost that is a good point jjustin, but if you are using a shotgun like a pistol primarily the slug will hit before any shrapnel has time to spread very wide...

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:30 (fourteen years ago)

also Milo, shotguns have at most 4-6 rounds, not 30.

Right, rifles have 30 rounds. Which would still be legal when handguns are banned, natch.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:30 (fourteen years ago)

'well regulated', 'militia' = a lot of room for interpretation

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:30 (fourteen years ago)

uh its a little more accurate due to shot to say that shotguns have 400-600 very small rounds honestly. xposts

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:28 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark

not if ur using ~sluuuuuuuugs~

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)

i would be way more terrified by a dude w/a shotgun than somebody with a handgun, srsly

xpost actually wrt a sawed off shotgun the spread is much wider and immediate

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)

the fact that shotguns are called that because they shoot 'shot' is one of my favorite things btw

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:31 (fourteen years ago)

and yeah ok "club shoot-out" might not account for a lot of deaths, but "gang shoot-outs" prob account for all the tragic deaths-by-stray bullets that we are all horrified by

also dude involved custom streetsweepers are militaman sunday projects, not ready-to-hand weapons for teenagers

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)

I thought sawed off shotguns WERE illegal, otherwise WTF was ruby ridge all about?

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)

"Shoot-out outside a club" is not the most common criminal use for firearms.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:28 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah but it is a use? also would probably make the "5 year old finds dad's handgun and shoots himself w/ it" narrative harder as well. I get that you're saying some types of criminal activity will not really be negatively impacted but that doesn't mean other types won't?

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)

The Congresswoman would not likely have survived a 12-gauge or rifle round to the head. The difference in even good 'defensive' handgun ammo and shotguns and rifles is immense.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:32 (fourteen years ago)

no yeah sawed off shotguns are illegal, but since we were invoking concealable alternatives in the absence of handguns i thought that was a useful clarification

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:34 (fourteen years ago)

if certain guns carry with it less mental roadblocks to committing certain heinous acts, then it's totally defensible to target those guns versus other objects that are mechanically as lethal, even if the distinction is as cosmetic as one being painted grey and the other being painted in pink and rainbows.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:34 (fourteen years ago)

also dude involved custom streetsweepers are militaman sunday projects, not ready-to-hand weapons for teenagers

Why? That took a little more work to put a new endcap on the tube and maybe a weld. If you were willing to have something a few inches longer, all you'd need is a hacksaw and a vice to hold the barrel.
We're talking about the possibilities once handguns are theoretically banned. For not much work you can make something almost as easily hidden as a long-barrel revolver.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:35 (fourteen years ago)

Sawed-off shotguns are highly illegal without ATF paperwork (similar to getting a suppressor or purchasing a machine gun)

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:35 (fourteen years ago)

i dont really see how any gun in the hands of somebody who wants to commit a heinous act is going to have more or less mental roadblock potential

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:36 (fourteen years ago)

So someone intent on killing someone else isn't going to do if the only the only gun available to them is the My Little Pony edition?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:36 (fourteen years ago)

like the situation is kinda already there, i dont think "oh shit i will look way less cool with a shotgun/pink glock/whatever" is going to change anything

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:37 (fourteen years ago)

say hello to my little hello kitty glock

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:38 (fourteen years ago)

it's just....you can seriously restrict future access to handguns w/o banning them, and it seems v plausible indeed that accidental deaths/suicides will fall, deaths 2/2 street crime will fall (in the "perp v. civilian" category..."perp v. perp" will likely remain unchanged), and so on. the case that handguns are more dangerous because they are more convenient than, like, ballistically deadly, is pretty sound imo

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:38 (fourteen years ago)

re: Kev's 'fake liberal bullshit'
I'm a dues-paying ACLU, NARAL and IWW supporter. I voted for Obama, Kerry and Nader. (pretty sure re: Kerry, the only third-party candidate was Libertarian, fuck that)

this was my Christmas present to myself:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5241/5258493171_71dd5e445a.jpg
DSC_2559 by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:39 (fourteen years ago)

tbh i think that a lot of that assumption is bound up in the idea that gun violence is inherently driven by raging testosterone, when in actuality its just as likely to be a cold and calculated act of utility, not aggression per se xposts

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:40 (fourteen years ago)

per sex posts

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:40 (fourteen years ago)

it's not necessarily about macho cool.
if anyone is nervous at all about doing a thing, they can draw strength from a cultural script to follow, and my little pony massacres are an unwritten script.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:40 (fourteen years ago)

can't it be both jjjusten? like sure the cold and calculated acts of utility will go stay the same but maybe the raging testosterone ones will go down?

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:41 (fourteen years ago)

How did that work for the largely cosmetic federal assault weapons ban?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:42 (fourteen years ago)

i remember being amazed, having heard abt "the right to bear arms" for so long, at finding out that the amendment starts "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the health of the state" or whatever it is

― zvookster, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:43 (fourteen years ago)

i mean, are e-cigarettes having an easy time catching on, despite having nicotine on its side? vape-ing is just culturally... weird.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:43 (fourteen years ago)

tbh i have no idea, but i'm guessing that ppl in the US using assault rifles to ~actually kill people~ are more in the cold/calculated camp (ie - their "job" requires owning an assault rifle), so yeah they're gonna get their hands on em anyway. teens dont find dad's uzi and accidentally mow down their friends, and ppl don't often kill themselves with AKs, you know

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:45 (fourteen years ago)

if u ban handguns, dad's buying the AK dude.

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:46 (fourteen years ago)

also feel like banning handguns takes away from the "I own a gun for self-defense" narrative - like "I own an uzi for self defense...and for the ability to kill dozens of people in seconds should I feel like it"

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:47 (fourteen years ago)

and if you ban the Ak then everyone will be buying rocket launchers.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:48 (fourteen years ago)

i dunno, read stevens' dissent in heller? five of the most conservative justices in history came to a 5-4 decision; that's not exactly consensus.

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:48 (fourteen years ago)

self-defence against... people with guns

xxp

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:48 (fourteen years ago)

hate to break it to you but people using guns in self defense is not actually an out and out myth - yeah its less likely than some would believe, but so are most of the situations were talking about on this thread xxposts to dayo

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:49 (fourteen years ago)

i remember being amazed, having heard abt "the right to bear arms" for so long, at finding out that the amendment starts "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the health of the state" or whatever it is

why? amazed that that seems to circumscribe the right to own a gun more tightly, or that there's an expectation literally spelled out in the constitution that the gov't will probably have to face civilian insurrection from time to time? the explicit recommendation of citizen militias seems the most o_O part to me, but its obv a product of the time, and still makes sense in a purely abstract way (like ok there could in theory be a time when obama imposes a nwo police state or w/e)

xp thx kev, i don't really follow the court much, it just seems like str8 reading of the 2nd allows for ppl to have, at least, an old shotgun in the attic or something

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:51 (fourteen years ago)

and if you ban the Ak then everyone will be buying rocket launchers.

u do not wanna fuk w sawed off rocket launcher, no matter how simple it seems when u drunk

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:51 (fourteen years ago)

i do think its sad that gun control debates tend to get (on both sides) into pretty much a fingers in ears nah nah i cant hear you situation - theres a lot of factual stuff that can be useful but everybody ends up being so emotionally invested that it kinda sinks below the noise and grand pronouncements.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:51 (fourteen years ago)

dude there was no standing army, militias were handy

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:52 (fourteen years ago)

i do think its sad that ~~gun control~~ ILX debates tend to get (on both sides) into pretty much a fingers in ears nah nah i cant hear you situation - theres a lot of factual stuff that can be useful but everybody ends up being so emotionally invested that it kinda sinks below the noise and grand pronouncements.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:51 PM (47 seconds ago) Bookmark

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:52 (fourteen years ago)

lets ban standing army

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:52 (fourteen years ago)

ban the bfg-9000 imo

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:53 (fourteen years ago)

yeah i didn't mean to call anyone a "fake liberal" i was just kinda reacting to what i see as iffy recieved wisdom that the consititution clearly proscribes banning the possession of handguns.

xps

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:53 (fourteen years ago)

the assault weapons ban is a great example of that because honestly most dudes that knew a bit about guns kinda realized that it was 90% empty legislation (magazine capacity could maybe get argued although uh 10 bullets is plenty to do bad stuff with) but it sounded very satisfying if most of the info was outside yer comfort zone.

xpost to uh myself i guess?

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:54 (fourteen years ago)

ew "received"

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:54 (fourteen years ago)

this is a big derail but e-cigarettes are super popular in the southwest at least... it doesn't hurt that there are a few mid-level-marketing schemes set up to sell them.

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:55 (fourteen years ago)

amazed that something ppl refer to as so cut & dried actually isn't, is possibly conditional on being part of a well-regulated miltia, whatever that could be, whether some archaic notion of raising an army or jefferson's idea abt how revolutions shld reoccur that i read abt on a jane's addiction sleeve

― zvookster, Monday, 10 January 2011 04:55 (fourteen years ago)

and honestly i think gun debates are way worse than most ilx stuff - like the religion and vegetarian threads can be a chore but these moments seem to strike a particularly bad and dismissive vibe most of the time.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:56 (fourteen years ago)

note: i stay far away from the politics threads so i would not be surprised if they plumb the same depths

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:57 (fourteen years ago)

i do think its sad that gun control debates tend to get (on both sides) into pretty much a fingers in ears nah nah i cant hear you situation - theres a lot of factual stuff that can be useful but everybody ends up being so emotionally invested that it kinda sinks below the noise and grand pronouncements.
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:51 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah i guess this is the only reason these debates still provoke me at all. it's like...i'm open to having my mind changed on any of this, but i'd prefer some empirical reason for it, not just "guns kill ppl, ban guns, q.e.d". esp since you literally cannot just do that, and maybe shouldn't, for all sorts of reasons that aren't rooted in masturbatory gun fantasies. but when ppl roll with "guns are barbaric" and pithy one liners i just sort of assume that no one is even interested in why exactly ppl are getting killed by guns in this country. because it isn't merely because they're legal, that's just a part.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 04:58 (fourteen years ago)

Everything I read about the assault weapons ban convinces me it was the shittiest legislation of all time but did it really address the cosmetic issues when it allowed guns that looked exactly the same to still be sold?

"e-cigarettes are super popular in the southwest at least..."
see this is what worries me.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:00 (fourteen years ago)

many xposts:

I asked two pro-gun lawyers who are sort of 2nd amendment hobbyists about the whole problem that there's no way a guy with even a basement full of ammo was going to be able to stand up to some theoretical police state. One of them tried to argue that, you know, primitively armed rebels all over the world have been able to hassle full-scale armies for years. The other one just shrugged and said, basically, who cares? i.e., the practical application of the amendment doesn't matter, what it says is what matters.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:01 (fourteen years ago)

gbx, I don't think anyone itt has said 'ban all guns' or assumed that banning all guns will end gun crime.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:03 (fourteen years ago)

gbx, I don't think anyone itt has said 'ban all guns' or assumed that banning all guns will end gun crime.

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:03 AM (27 seconds ago)

i have actually, as has iatee. people don't need them, sorry

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:04 (fourteen years ago)

no, we have xp

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:04 (fourteen years ago)

"ban guns" that is

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:04 (fourteen years ago)

The argument about standing up to tyrannical government is pretty silly - if we ever get to the point that Bad Guys have won over the military, we're all fucked.

But on a smaller scale, a gun could be used to stand up to small scale abuses by the state (or someone else).

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:05 (fourteen years ago)

my mistake xxxp

― goldenarsehat.jpg (Schlafsack), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:05 (fourteen years ago)

I feel ya gbx and yeah I'm not gonna look on this thread a year from now and be like "my finest work" on ILX. basically my objection to guns is this: guns are not a priori necessary to the functioning of any developed country. there are plenty of examples of developed countries in the world w/o guns that get along just perfectly fine.

my second objection is that there are afaict no other forms of entertainment that can be so easily misused to inflict harm and death on other people.

and of course I hold these beliefs while fully cognizant of the role that guns have played in the history of the US, that it's built into the constitution, etc. and realistically, I think you and me are on the same page - stricter laws about gun ownership, mandatory training, harsher vetting, etc.

and I'd like a pony.

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:06 (fourteen years ago)

wait what is 'small scale abuses by the state'

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:06 (fourteen years ago)

sheriffs abusing black citizens?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:07 (fourteen years ago)

right but at this point in history we have better ways to deal w/ that than guns

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:07 (fourteen years ago)

was trying to think of ways to involve race in this argument xp

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:08 (fourteen years ago)

so it's like if yr gonna go to the mat and pass some g-d legislation, is "ban guns" what you want to ride for, or are there other policy prescriptions that might do the job with less gnashing of teeth and more efficacy? and while this might seem like a cynical dodge ("why not just make guns illegal AND fix healthcare??"), it's only that if you think that the actual existence/legality of guns is, like, a moral issue. which it patently is not (it really isn't, guys), which is why dudes like milo bring up "metaphysical objections" to guns and get irate about it. cf something like abortion, which imo IS a manifestly moral issue, and one i can't compromise on. ditto healthcare, and so on.

blah blah blah guns don't kill ppl, ppl do, and so on. say what you will, but that's the truth, and i think we'll have more luck and less aggro as a nation if we get to the bottom of why ppl are killing ppl instead of pretending we can cram the genie back into the bottle---we can't. (nb - nukes on the other hand, are a genie that we should do everything we can to cram back into the bottle...but that's not because nukes are evil, it's because even a single gun is wildly dangerous to millions of people at once, while a gun...isn't).

xp hella xps

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:08 (fourteen years ago)

it's only that if you think that the actual existence/legality of guns is, like, a moral issue. which it patently is not (it really isn't, guys), which is why dudes like milo bring up "metaphysical objections" to guns and get irate about it.

to clarify, and to get maddeningly meta at the same time: like if a single gun sits somewhere in someone's closet, it's not an affront to nature or my sense of morals. it's if it gets used. whereas if a single person is executed by the state or barred from an abortion or w/e, that is an immediately immoral thing. imo.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:10 (fourteen years ago)

right but at this point in history we have better ways to deal w/ that than guns

I'm not saying either is a primary reason to own a gun. Merely that there is a variation of the "boot of tyranny" argument that makes a little bit of sense.

was trying to think of ways to involve race in this argument xp

Race is tied up in gun control top to bottom, dude

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:12 (fourteen years ago)

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, January 10, 2011 1:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I think that's where I would disagree. like so far nobody has demonstrated that there is. a need. to have. a gun. that this need exists for all citizens of a country. *shrug*

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:13 (fourteen years ago)

is it immoral if there's kids in the house and the gun is loaded sitting in the closet?
xpost

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:13 (fourteen years ago)

I feel ya gbx and yeah I'm not gonna look on this thread a year from now and be like "my finest work" on ILX. basically my objection to guns is this: guns are not a priori necessary to the functioning of any developed country. there are plenty of examples of developed countries in the world w/o guns that get along just perfectly fine.
my second objection is that there are afaict no other forms of entertainment that can be so easily misused to inflict harm and death on other people.
and of course I hold these beliefs while fully cognizant of the role that guns have played in the history of the US, that it's built into the constitution, etc. and realistically, I think you and me are on the same page - stricter laws about gun ownership, mandatory training, harsher vetting, etc.
and I'd like a pony.
― dayo, Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:06 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

word, high five. and i'm pretty sure the one thing that this thread does to bring us all together is to make us all a little sheepish in one way or another.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:14 (fourteen years ago)

i didn't mean that come out dickish. i see what you're saying - but not all the way with the moral/immoral divide.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:14 (fourteen years ago)

xpost

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:14 (fourteen years ago)

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, January 10, 2011 12:01 AM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

it really depends on what kind of scenario you cook up - a compound filled with gun nuts isn't gonna do much, but some kind of nation-wide resistance movement? the afghanis fought off soviets with old ass rifles (and a few RPGs we gave em, but even taking hinds out of the picture they were still doing rugged shit like rolling boulders down mountains and knocking tanks into ravines) - plus we have the survival guide known as Red Dawn to go off of

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:16 (fourteen years ago)

lol i just saw this post for the first time in 3 years

i will say this: ilx is not the place to look for level-headed debate on gun control -- the prevailing attitude* here is that guns are bad, full stop, and debate is unlikely to change many minds
*a gross generalization, sure, but i'd say 5% of ilxors have even handled guns
― river wolf, Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:44 AM (3 years ago) Bookmark

some things never change

boom

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:17 (fourteen years ago)

thermo: w/e dude

dyao:

I think that's where I would disagree. like so far nobody has demonstrated that there is. a need. to have. a gun. that this need exists for all citizens of a country. *shrug*
― dayo, Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:13 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yeah i mean my point wasn't about demonstrating an actual human need, just that one of ilx's favorite responses to pragmatic political arguments (cf deej v. the world) is that you shouldn't sacrifice your ideals in the name of political expediency. if you think guns are inherently wrong then by god you should fight for that. but i'm personally of the mind that guns, as objects, are just things, and if i'm going to fight to eradicate an entire class of thing from the world for the betterment of humanity (and risk not being effective elsewhere because i'm w/o compromise) then i'm gonna aim higher than "guns." it's just....it seems sorta irrational, is all. like seriously lets work on disease and landmines first dudes

xp lololol hoos, the more things change

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:19 (fourteen years ago)

yeah who was that guy

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:19 (fourteen years ago)

river wolf... arooooooooooooooooo

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:19 (fourteen years ago)

xp oops sorry about that "w/e dude" thermo, didn't see your followup

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:20 (fourteen years ago)

yeah who was that guy

― end aggro business now (Hunt3r), Monday, January 10, 2011 5:19 AM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark

lawl

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:20 (fourteen years ago)

pretty sure that guy can't log in because the jackboot of the ilx moderators won't let him have two accts at one IP or some nonsense

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:21 (fourteen years ago)

that poor guy

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:22 (fourteen years ago)

Good riddance IMO

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:22 (fourteen years ago)

dont worry....he's armed

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:22 (fourteen years ago)

BIG WOLF aka the RIVER

― dayo, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:22 (fourteen years ago)

will pour the contents of 1 magazine into the road for him 2nite

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:23 (fourteen years ago)

idgi, is he big hoos? is that what everyone's saying

― Princess TamTam, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:24 (fourteen years ago)

~precisely~

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:24 (fourteen years ago)

"but some kind of nation-wide resistance movement?"

facebook and twitter would probably be more vital to any such movement than munitions, and most of the time I wish facebook and twitter were banned. for spite.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 10 January 2011 05:24 (fourteen years ago)

lol

― aka the pope (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:27 (fourteen years ago)

i would be way more terrified by a dude w/a shotgun than somebody with a handgun, srsly

xpost actually wrt a sawed off shotgun the spread is much wider and immediate

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Sunday, January 9, 2011 11:31 PM (Yesterday)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/Images/OmarLittle.JPG

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Monday, 10 January 2011 05:28 (fourteen years ago)

Guns exist and it would be impossible to regulate them to the point that there is no risk associated with the existence of guns. this is the "that train has left the station when we invented the x" problem. As indicated by popular hashtags like #fuckGFW and approximately eleventy gazillion other lessons throughout history, governments cannot effectively pick and choose which parts of the modern world they want.

Managing risk to a more acceptable level is achievable, however, and in this case you have the possibly preventative measure of a ban on "assault" weapons and accessories like the extended 30-round magazine, which it's reasonable to argue could have saved several lives the other day. However, everything that restricts the trade of guns has to be weighed against the fact that there already exists a substantial secondary market, and it is statistically sound for me to state that more Americans have died of gun injuries sustained from illegally obtained and unlicensed firearms since the assassination attempt than in the assassination attempt.

Occasionally there is something to learn from an outlier event like this one, and a reasonable control can be put in place that helps manage risk, like HR 2640 after the VT shooting, or assigning USSS details to candidates after the RFK assassination. Unfortunately, when that isn't the case, monkey brains jump for reactionary measures that amount to prior restraint or outright bans of this or that and have no measurable effect on the problem at hand.* What we are probably going to learn from this is that it is pretty difficult to quarantine crazy people before they announce their craziness to the world, unless we want to start a nationwide crazy-early-warning version of COINTELPRO, ha ha ha oh god.

If I can be allowed to try and make lemonade out of the Roberts' Court's decisions on Amendment II, at least they limit the scope of what the government can regulate to those things that have, over time, actually proven useful in improving the safety of gun business, instead of unenforceable double-jeopardy nonsense like "if you have a gun in your house it must be taken apart or fixed with a trigger lock at all times."

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Secret_Service_report_on_school_shootings

― El Tomboto, Monday, 10 January 2011 16:26 (fourteen years ago)

ty!

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 16:33 (fourteen years ago)

it is statistically sound for me to state that more Americans have died of gun injuries sustained from illegally obtained and unlicensed firearms since the assassination attempt than in the assassination attempt.

btw this is u&k, even in just a conceptual way---the assassination attempt/columbine/VT are outlier events, and not representative in any way of the dangers that guns present to society in the quite literally quotidian sense.

(cf the 'meaningless' references to silencers and so on upthread)

would also really like to know exactly how constrained the gov't is in limiting the private sale of guns and so on. it seems like it would be impossible to outlaw it completely (not just from a political standpoint, but from a constitutional standpoint, maybe?), but then again cars/houses have deeds and titles and so on---does someone that buys a handgun at a trade show get 'paperwork' with it, or do they just walk out with the thing? is the 'paperwork' in this case the serial number? idk this stuff

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 16:40 (fourteen years ago)

Is there anyone on this thread who has admitted to being a gun owner and can answer that? I've been reading this thread/thinking about it silently but can ask my father if there isn't anyone else here with personal experience. I'm actually sorta curious now as to what process he had to undergo to get the several guns/rifles that were (still are) kept in our house while I was a kid.

― ENBB, Monday, 10 January 2011 16:44 (fourteen years ago)

milo z

― call all destroyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 16:49 (fourteen years ago)

Ha - obv didn't read whole thread. Then Milo should chime in here. I'd be interested in finding out more about GBX's question re the procedures and paperwork or lack thereof.

― ENBB, Monday, 10 January 2011 16:52 (fourteen years ago)

isn't gbx a gun person

― conrad, Monday, 10 January 2011 16:55 (fourteen years ago)

Depends on the state. I've only bought guns in Texas, which is relatively lax:

As far as federal requirements go, you fill out a form 4473 that asks you for all your infomation, has a series of check boxes where you answer that you are a citizen, you aren't a felon, you aren't under a restraining order, you haven't renounced your citizenship, etc. - all pretty pointless, but I assume they exist to add punishment should someone get busted for a straw purchase or w/e.

If you live in a state where your concealed handgun license requires a thorough background check, the dealer fills out their part of the 4473 and you're on your way.
If you don't have a CHL or your state's requirements don't include a check, the dealer calls you into the NICS system to determine whether or not you can buy a gun. This takes several minutes and requires more paperwork by the FFL. I'm lucky, as I had a form of federal firearms license for a few years (I could have 'curio and relic' guns shipped directly to me), my approval never takes any time at all. The background check will either immediately approve you, deny you or put a hold on your purchase while they try to figure out if you can't buy the gun or if you're just getting confused with someone who can't. After 72 hours they have to formally deny or you can go ahead and buy the gun.

4473s are kept by the firearms licensee for a time, but there's not supposed to be any actual federal record keeping regarding who has purchased what or who's called into NICS.

In terms of personal transactions, as long as I believe I'm selling a gun to someone of legal age and not a felon, I can do so privately (so long as I'm not doing it as a dealer).

Other states are more strict - person to person transfers need to go through a FFL (I think California does this), you need a permit to get a handgun, period (NY), etc.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:20 (fourteen years ago)

isn't gbx a gun person

― conrad, Monday, January 10, 2011 10:55 AM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark

nope. i grew up with them, know how to shoot them, but i don't own any and never have. never been hunting, either, which was probably not made clear upthread.

also:

In terms of personal transactions, as long as I believe I'm selling a gun to someone of legal age and not a felon, I can do so privately (so long as I'm not doing it as a dealer).

this right here seems to be the gaping loophole. legal age is verifiable enough (check a driver's license or something), but the average person cannot verify whether or not someone is a felon, or at least not easily, as far as i can tell. and while the legal ramifications of selling to a felon might dissuade some ppl from doing it, i'd wager that unless you ~knowingly~ sold to a felon, it might be difficult to actually go to jail for it. maybe not, though. also, if a gun changed hands several times, privately, before ending up in the hands of a felon who used it for a murder, it sounds like the only way to trace the weapon is to its original, legal, point of sale. and i can't imagine how law enforcement would be able to trace the natural history of a handgun that was purchased in like ID and used in a murder in FL, possibly many years later.

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:47 (fourteen years ago)

4473s are kept by the firearms licensee for a time, but there's not supposed to be any actual federal record keeping regarding who has purchased what or who's called into NICS.

sooo...is the 4473 associated with the individual weapon, or with the gun owner? i'm guessing the "federal record keeping regarding who has purchased what" is the biggest stumbling block here, politically and maybe legally. our well-regulated militias almost certainly believe that a federal database of who the gun owners are, and what they've got in their safes, totally sells out the idea of civilian resistance to tyranny, and could no doubt be used for nefarious govt strong-arming (hmm...looks like a bunch of black dudes are registered gun owners, let's keep an eye on them!). buuuuut....we track explosives and who buys them, right? i guess i'm sympathetic to the idea that a govt that has the ability to spot aggregations of armed resistance just by checking a database might be Big Brotherish and preemptively suppressive of the revolution we won't be having any time soon, but revolutions are illegal anyway so who fucking cares

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:55 (fourteen years ago)

Yet you can sell your car privately and someone will still be responsible (in CA at least) for making sure the State knows that the title has changed. At the risk of sounding like a traditional liberal, the idea of liability and mandatory insurance seems more and more attractive. Yes, you have a right to have a gun but not irresponsibly and your right is tempered by duties.

― Le mépris vient de la tête, la haine vient du cœur (Michael White), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:56 (fourteen years ago)

also, and again this seems big brotherish and a little grating to my 15yo self's libertarian gun-shooting sensibilities, it seems like a federal database (or at least robust state-databases that the fed was allowed to hook into or w/e) would greatly ease investigative law enforcement.

like i don't care if a bunch of skinheads live in the woods with massive stockpiles of legally obtained guns. nor do i care if black panthers assert their 2nd amendment rights and start a gun club in s chicago. this contravenes how i feel about most privacy issues, but i'm kinda willing to say that if you want yr gun to be a secret gun, then its v v likely that anything you plan on using it for will be 'antisocial' to say the least

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:02 (fourteen years ago)

also wouldn't 'knowing where all the legally purchased handguns are' seem to satisfy the 'well-regulated militia' thing? like yup these ppl have guns and could be minutemen if needed, here they are!

arguing against the documentation of gun ownership might be offensive to 'american values' (lol), but i can't see how it's offensive to the constitution? i mean if yr argument of last resort against tightly-regulated-but-still-legal gun ownership (including assault rifles, heck why not) is that the govt knowing about yr guns ~defeats the purpose~ then a) you don't seem to understand how armed uprisings really work and b) might actually be a person for whom a gun isn't the best idea. the only way the govt will ever be cowed by an armed citizenry is if we can start buying tanks and fighter jets at wal-mart

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:13 (fourteen years ago)

~bloggin~

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:13 (fourteen years ago)

I'm on my phone so hard to read and respond to all the long posts.

But re: the gun show loophole, your average gun owner would not be up in arms over that any more than the background check.

But just because it's a loophole doesn't mean there's any real harm from it either. A criminal seeking to obtain a gun doesn't care about the legality of registration or private transfer. It certainly hasn't stopped anything in Cali. And because of the number of guns in the US and lack of record keeping/private sales/etc. the idea of forming a master list now is kind of pointless.

I'm pretty laissez-faire about guns because they aren't a big issue to me. There are greater risks to public health and safety than the existence of guns, there are greater risks to liberty than taking them away, there are far greater causes of violent crime than the existence of guns. The right and the left both wildly overreact to guns as an issue.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Monday, 10 January 2011 19:00 (fourteen years ago)

totally with you on the last graf, fwiw.

and while it might be sort of pointless to have a master list of guns/owners in the US (though man i'd stay away from saying Master List in a political environment), it also wouldn't hurt? and might not be political kryptonite to anyone that tried to get it to happen? maybe? vs. like an outright ban on guns or even just handguns. i dunno, it seems like tighter handgun regs/closing the loophole might strike the best balance between political expediency/actual public good than a lot of other alternatives, and might merit pursuit.

i'd ~rather~ we went after root causes instead, but i don't think it'd be a waste of time or effort to make some changes, even if the damage has already been done (fat chance keeping tabs on the guns that are already out there, but why not track from now on). we may not know what happened to the soviets nukes, but it doesn't mean it's a waste of time to monitor the ones we DO know about. overblown analogy, probs, but w/e

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 19:07 (fourteen years ago)

going after the root causes is as difficult as criminalizing gun ownership - any euro-esque social welfare program will get as much political/institutional opposition as a serious gun control program. legalizing drugs? lol.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 19:19 (fourteen years ago)

yeah :-/

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 19:19 (fourteen years ago)

though i guess i labor under the impression that since gun control is such a wildly incendiary topic, even something like legalizing drugs would generate what would appear to be sane and sober discussion by comparison

― ullr saves (gbx), Monday, 10 January 2011 19:21 (fourteen years ago)

in some places it does! those same places would probably have essentially banned guns in 2010.

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)

were it not for the 2nd

― iatee, Monday, 10 January 2011 19:22 (fourteen years ago)

as I continue to learn, with a lot of pain and frustration and headaches, this kind of thing is ridiculously hard to build even if everybody ostensibly wants to play nice and help out. legislating it into existence would just make it 2x as impossible because you'd have literally every contractor in the entire world put in a bid, and the companies that didn't win would probably sue the government, which would be settled by scrapping the entire deal and starting over. this process would probably be repeated 2x. I am not making any of this up.

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 01:59 (fourteen years ago)

2x!!

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 02:00 (fourteen years ago)

― ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 03:02 (fourteen years ago)

hm, so perhaps we should just ban them

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)

thats quite the suggestion

― Princess TamTam, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 03:05 (fourteen years ago)

lol

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 03:06 (fourteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-0Y

― Kerm, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 06:26 (fourteen years ago)

sb guns

― 1981 Nothing happened. (Trayce), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 09:12 (fourteen years ago)

I thought about creating a sock account called 'guns' and inviting everybody to symbolically SB it

okay I'm heading over to the your terrible ideas thread, see you all there

― dayo, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 09:35 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/18/south.carolina.family.shot/index.html?hpt=T2

ugh

― Indolence Mission (DJP), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 21:46 (fourteen years ago)

What that kid needed was obv. more safety training. Plus, if his family was armed maybe it wouldn't have happened.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:44 (fourteen years ago)

Couldn't have happened if we banned handguns, right?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:56 (fourteen years ago)

They should ban children.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:56 (fourteen years ago)

Couldn't have happened if we banned handguns, right?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:56 PM (1 hour ago)

salient point

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 00:33 (fourteen years ago)

well, those poor people are dead, but at least old men can still hunt small birds

― max, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:02 (fourteen years ago)

world without guns

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:OmM8cmOm_-ebUM:http://1funny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/birds-attack.jpg&t=1

― omar little, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:04 (fourteen years ago)

some interesting statistics from the mcleans article i posted on the arizona-shootings thread:

Since 1776, a total of 580,000 U.S. troops have been killed in action, including the carnage of the Civil War. In just four decades ending in 2008, the number of firearms deaths in the U.S. was 1.3 million.
According to the most recent annual data, in 2007 31,224 people died in the U.S. of gunshot wounds—12,632 of them murdered (other causes of death included suicide and unintentional deaths). A further 66,768 people survived gun injuries—44,466 of them sustained in an attack. Over the past three decades, on average about 20 mass shootings—defined as having at least four slain victims—have occurred annually in the United States, claiming nearly 100 lives each year. Some have been worse than others. March 2005: seven people dead in the Red Lake, Minn., massacre. April 2007: 32 killed in the Virginia Tech massacre. March 2009: 10 people killed in the Geneva County massacre in Alabama. April 2009: Binghamton, New York, 14 dead.
The U.S. has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands: approximately one-quarter of American adults own a licensed gun.

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:15 (fourteen years ago)

xxxxp I don't think anyone thinks gun control = no guns.

― The Hankerciser 200 (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 01:35 (fourteen years ago)

well not in my lifetime but it's the goal

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:05 (fourteen years ago)

ain't gonna happen

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:06 (fourteen years ago)

They should ban children.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:56 (Yesterday)

― Young Guns aside, the western is not my favorite genre. (latebloomer), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:07 (fourteen years ago)

not with liberals constantly reminding me of that, yeah i know xp

xp sort of otm - anyone who thinks a child should be allowed anywhere near a gun is obv insane

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:09 (fourteen years ago)

You're more likely to get children banned than guns.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:11 (fourteen years ago)

one-gun-per-household policy

― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:11 (fourteen years ago)

I'm not sure why you specified 'liberals telling you that' - is one's political ideology supposed to override reality?

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:15 (fourteen years ago)

the world changes in pretty crazy ways, maybe 100 years from now guns will just be kind of pointless cause there will be better ways to kill people / hunt birds / protect yourself from government fascism.

― iatee, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:15 (fourteen years ago)

alternatively gun people might just get iphones and realize that playing angry birds is more fun than owning a gun

― iatee, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:17 (fourteen years ago)

I own Angry Birds on both iPad and iPhone. It has never been, in any way, as fun as taking three 9mm semi-autos to the range today and shooting 250 rounds.

Sex -> laughing with pretty girls = Catan with friends ->shooting guns ->>>>>>>>>>>>>Angry Birds

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:19 (fourteen years ago)

polar ice caps melting should help

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:19 (fourteen years ago)

so I guess we just need to get gun owners laid?

― iatee, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:20 (fourteen years ago)

I have never played angry birds fwiw

― iatee, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:20 (fourteen years ago)

if not laid, then a regular game of Catan, yeah

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:21 (fourteen years ago)

so tempted to post the pictures I took at the range

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)

cool bro

― fruit of the goon (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:24 (fourteen years ago)

lol

― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:27 (fourteen years ago)

You're more likely to get children banned than guns.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:11 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why america is great in 9 words

― max, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:49 (fourteen years ago)

Sex -> laughing with pretty girls = Catan with friends ->shooting guns ->>>>>>>>>>>>>Angry Birds

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:19 AM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark

only one of these things is lethal to other people, and no I'm not talking about sex, ba dum bing!

― dayo, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 02:50 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350721/Girl-9-father-shot-dead-anti-immigrant-vigilantes-begged-life.html

man, arizona

― iatee, Thursday, 27 January 2011 05:35 (fourteen years ago)

The couple went to the front room - where Brisenia had spent the night on the sofa to be near her new dog - and spotted two people outside.

I want to throw up

― based god kwassa kwassa (dayo), Thursday, 27 January 2011 06:00 (fourteen years ago)

maybe they were hunting quail?

― max, Thursday, 27 January 2011 06:08 (fourteen years ago)

it's a good thing the family had a gun of their own so they could protect themselves

― based god kwassa kwassa (dayo), Thursday, 27 January 2011 06:20 (fourteen years ago)

'I can hear it happening,' Mrs Flores told the court describing how her daughter said: 'Why did you shoot my dad? Why did you shoot my mum?'

― buzza, Thursday, 27 January 2011 06:42 (fourteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Main_Page

Wow.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 10 February 2011 15:26 (fourteen years ago)

Hollywood and gun violence: two great tastes that taste great together!

― Aimless, Thursday, 10 February 2011 18:12 (fourteen years ago)

two months pass...

jesus.

― got electrolytes (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 19 April 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)

Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans
Jarneshia Broussard, 5, was eating a hot dog and beans

― it always seems to have dick smith in it (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 20 April 2011 11:59 (fourteen years ago)

franks n beans day was always a winner @ the school cafeteria

― cum dude (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 20 April 2011 12:04 (fourteen years ago)

ilx too good for beanie weenies?

― pshhh- "fatmanitis" is more like it- or possibly "fatmantits" (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 20 April 2011 12:18 (fourteen years ago)

Ohio is about to let people carry concealed weapons into bars and sports arenas, plus other venues where alcohol is plentiful. Should be awesome.

― Paul McCartney and Whigs (Phil D.), Wednesday, 20 April 2011 12:40 (fourteen years ago)

kid probably just wanted to hunt some grouse

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Wednesday, 20 April 2011 12:46 (fourteen years ago)

four months pass...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/09/05/2011-09-05_bloody_weekend_24_shot_in_24_hours_prompting_mayor_bloomberg_to_call_for_tougher.html

― iatee, Monday, 5 September 2011 18:47 (thirteen years ago)

bloomberg otm

― k3vin k., Monday, 5 September 2011 18:51 (thirteen years ago)

two months pass...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html

those republicans are sure tough on crime ;)

― ASPIE Rocky (dayo), Monday, 14 November 2011 12:30 (thirteen years ago)

eight months pass...

"Democrats went gun-shy in the 2000s. By 2008, Barack Obama had little to say about gun control, even trying to disavow his signature on a 1996 document signed by some Illinois legislators backing a ban on all handguns. In 2009, there were 65 pro-gun Democrats on Capitol Hill. The lobby owns the GOP, well, lock, stock, and barrel.

"Earlier this year, the Indiana state house passed -- with NRA backing -- a bill spelling out when citizens could kill police officers. Some prominent military leaders wanted military personnel to be able to discuss gun safety with troops as a way of trying to stem military suicides, many of which are committed with personally owned guns. The NRA was having none of it.

"And so it's no surprise that Obama and Mitt Romney (who once supported waiting periods and the assault weapons ban) produced mealy-mouthed statements on Friday that didn't even include the word 'gun'. Many Democrats from urban districts will continue to oppose the NRA. But the party will continue to quake, shooting after shooting after shooting, bodies upon bodies upon bodies.

"So this will happen again. And again, and again. In fact, as I said above, we are likely headed for a day in this country like the following. At a movie theater, in a mall, at a commuter rail platform, in a restaurant -- some glory-seeker opens fire. Most people duck and scatter, but a decent percentage of them produce their pieces. The gunman goes down like Warren Beatty in Bonnie and Clyde, but, since 'most people' aren't marksmen, maybe a few other people do too, and maybe, oh, a three year old.

"But hey. There's always a spoilage factor. Rights are sacred. From their cold, dead hands..."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/21/after-aurora-michael-tomasky-on-the-country-the-nra-wants-to-see.html

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 22 July 2012 08:49 (twelve years ago)

Jill Lepore's article v good on what utter and modern bullshit "The right of citizens to keep and bear arms" is.

― Andrew Farrell, Sunday, 22 July 2012 09:12 (twelve years ago)

I think this was quoted from that article in one of the other threads, but worth repeating:

That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets. That is not how civilians live. When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.

― Nhex, Sunday, 22 July 2012 16:53 (twelve years ago)

two weeks pass...

Hey I went to burning man with this guy!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/19221052/dc-man-orders-television-online-receives-rifle-instead

― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 03:01 (twelve years ago)

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Nose+Hill+Park+confrontation+makes+visitors+feel+unsafe/7050028/story.html

― max, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 13:45 (twelve years ago)

lol @ ppl from Michigan, basically

"have you been to our rodeo yet?"
"FUCK WHERE'S MY GUN"

― keeping things contextual (DJP), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 13:51 (twelve years ago)

The Great NYT debate about guns:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/polls-find-opposition-to-stricter-gun-laws.html?hpw

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 13:56 (twelve years ago)

I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, "Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye."

I hope he pronounced it with the hyphen and everything, and then firmly re-positioned his top hat and monocle as he strode away.

Wait, I know - it's because in Canada, only the criminals and the police carry handguns.

And yet their per capita firearm death rate is less than half of ours. Golly!

― Marco YOLO (Phil D.), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 13:57 (twelve years ago)

two weeks pass...

i don't even really want to talk about this but i just want to say somewhere that it's so hard not to be politically apathetic when i think about all of the mass shootings that have happened in the past month, many of which aren't even getting real press coverage (hi chicago), and knowing that there is no politician who is even going to try to do anything concrete or real about it

― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 24 August 2012 16:24 (twelve years ago)

crazy

Nineteen people were shot across the South and West sides from Thursday evening through early Friday morning -- 13 of them wounded over a 30-minute period, authorities say.
The overnight shootings peaked between 9:15 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. That's when eight people, many of them teens, were shot at 79th Street and Essex Avenue about 9:30 p.m.

― Thanks WEBSITE!! (Z S), Friday, 24 August 2012 17:16 (twelve years ago)

three months pass...

http://rumorsandrants.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/heston-cold-dead-hands.jpg

― ✧ (am0n), Friday, 14 December 2012 22:01 (twelve years ago)

[Started by Manalishi aka roger adultery in April 2007

― ✧ (am0n), Friday, 14 December 2012 22:02 (twelve years ago)

More like rifle assaultery

― buzza, Friday, 14 December 2012 22:03 (twelve years ago)

did roger adultery chime in on the internet with callous remarks today? Yes, yes he did.

― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Saturday, 15 December 2012 05:15 (twelve years ago)

oh god, where

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 06:47 (twelve years ago)

on FB. Pull the "let's not politicize this" canard and then used hashtags

― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Saturday, 15 December 2012 07:29 (twelve years ago)

pulled, rather

― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Saturday, 15 December 2012 07:29 (twelve years ago)

What I don't get is - the pro-gun people, most (some?) are presumably with SOME restrictions on ownership (children, criminals, the unstable)? but the debate seems kinda all or nothing

― coal, Saturday, 15 December 2012 14:02 (twelve years ago)

american liberals have been far too reasonable for far too long. it encourages conservatives to stake extreme positions which they defend tooth and nail. this results in a "moderate" middle ground that tilts extremely conservative. as a result, i'm sick of starting from a position of fair-minded compromise. no private gun ownership in america. confiscate them all. criminalize and heavily penalize firearm ownership, trading and manufacture. let the gun nuts beg the sane people for piddling concessions.

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Saturday, 15 December 2012 14:32 (twelve years ago)

Quoting this in full. Click through to see all the original links.

The statistics don't lie: guns kill thousands of American children every year. It is an epidemic of slaughter unparalleled in any other industrialized democracy, yet nothing is done. After every fresh massacre the public becomes further desensitized to the violence even as we are told we cannot and should not talk about the reasons why thousands of our children continue to die violent, bloody and needless deaths. American gun deaths are unique in their inability to generate political action: no one seemed to care much about the politicization of the deaths at Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center. Those thousands of needless deaths required major political action. But the needless deaths of thousands of children at the barrel of a gun barely registers a mention from elected officials.
Why is this? One reason is that the National Rifle Association has a powerful lobby. That's the story we are often told, at any rate. But it turns out that the NRA isn't remotely as powerful as their mythmaking claims. The NRA wasted $11 million attempting to defeat the President in 2012, and a full two-thirds of the incumbents who lost their House seats were backed by the NRA. The NRA boost to a candidate this election amounted to less that 2% of the vote if that. So whence comes this incredible lobbying power in the face of which the nation is collectively paralyzed in addressing the deaths of thousands of our children (and many more adults) every single year?
The evidence seems to point to the desire by both political parties to cater to exurban and rural white men who are deeply committed to gun culture. The vast majority of the opposition to commonsense firearms control comes from this group. The Republican Party cannot win without them, and the Democratic Party is still loathe to give them up entirely. The demographics of the country have shifted, but not far enough for Democrats to blithely consign themselves to losing the "bubba" vote.
But why do exurban and rural white men care so much about this issue? Most of them don't actually hunt for sport, and hunting rifles aren't on the radar for gun control, anyway. Fear that hunting will be outlawed cannot explain it. There is a lot of talk among the Tea Party crowd about the "defense of liberty" that undergirds the rationale for the Second Amendment in the first place. But while that sort of talk is satisfying and high-minded for self-styled modern patriots, the reality belies the fantasy: the vast majority of these men don't actually see themselves gunning down police and soldiers in a hypothetical Communist state takeover, and the puny small arms in question wouldn't begin to stand up to the might of America's high-tech standing army. Being an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan is a dangerous occupation at best fueled in part by anger at outside invaders, and it's highly unlikely that these passionate gun advocates are hedging against a future as guerrilla warriors shooting American soldiers from duck blinds.
But it doesn't take much time reading through conservative websites to see what actually drives the desperate need to own high-priced killing machines. There is a vast, festering paranoia in conservative circles about the "looters" and "parasites" coming to take their hard-earned material possessions in the supposed coming debt-fueled collapse of society. There is continual worry about some dark-skinned assailant attempting to enter their home and potentially steal their property. Radio shock jocks react to stories about carjacking by demanding that more people carry guns in order to litter the streets with more "dead urban thugs." There are large segments of the population that want nothing more than to eliminate subsidies to the poor and then await the desperate masses who will supposedly come to their doorstep with a lead welcome. Ron Paul and Alex Jones' legions of followers have been told to "defend your supplies from those who refused to prepare" for the supposed riots coming when EBT cards are canceled. It's doesn't take much investigation of conservative media consumer attitudes to discover that these sentiments are shockingly widespread.
It sounds too awful to contemplate, but reality is a cruel mistress. It's painfully obvious what motivates the rabidly pro-gun base: a deep-seated desire to unwind the social contract and cleanse undesirables who are allegedly stealing their tax dollars. These murderous fear-fueled fantasies have no bearing on any events that will actually take place in the real world (except possibly some decades on by climate change induced migrations), but they are strong motivators nonetheless. Unfortunately, both political parties are also motivated to hold onto the voters who carry these nightmarish visions in their heads.
What this functionally means is that we as a nation are openly allowing thousands of our children to die every year so that certain segments of the population can role-play racist murder fantasies. It's not awful to admit that this is true. It's awful that it's happening, and that we as a nation must pay the price for it with the torn and mutilated bodies of our innocence and our future.

― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Saturday, 15 December 2012 16:47 (twelve years ago)

That's a really dumb broad brush description

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:15 (twelve years ago)

There are large segments of the population that want nothing more than to eliminate subsidies to the poor and then await the desperate masses who will supposedly come to their doorstep with a lead welcome.

― buzza, Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:40 (twelve years ago)

Based on the scary right-wing gun nuts I see on FB, seems sadly tom.

― Darin, Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:46 (twelve years ago)

gah! I mean on the OTM - stupid spellcheck

― Darin, Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:46 (twelve years ago)

Again, this whole thing might be more effectively talked about if people like the author of that article remembered that there are vast swathes of liberal democrat gunowners throughout the middle of the country.

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Saturday, 15 December 2012 17:49 (twelve years ago)

well tbf those liberal gun owners aren't typically the sort that think we should have guns to prepare for the collapse of society, and if they are, they tend to be suspicious of cops, not criminals

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 18:50 (twelve years ago)

Yeah exactly, that's why I'm saying th

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:29 (twelve years ago)

approaching the argument by saying tht gunowners are all racists and hate poor people is stupid

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:31 (twelve years ago)

approaching this as an exurban/rural vs. rest of country issue isn't, tho

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:34 (twelve years ago)

I took it to mean that the racist "bubba" bloc has a disproportionate influence on gun legislation, not that gun owners are, en masse, racist paranoiacs

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:36 (twelve years ago)

the few gun owners i knew were probably liberals and probably not racists and probably didn't hate poor people but they were almost certainly crazy.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:38 (twelve years ago)

there's a big contingent of libertatrian gun enthusiasts, too. and don't forget the hunter thompson-like crazies. xp

― Aimless, Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:39 (twelve years ago)

ultimately the big reason to believe that there's hope for the future of gun control is not cause someone like milo is gonna change his mind but because the bloc he's in is going to be smaller as fewer and fewer people live in rural areas

https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/ket37/files/Gun-Ownership-and-Opinion-in-the-United-States.pdf

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:42 (twelve years ago)

I forgot about roger a enjoying the smell of his guns as one reason it's ok to have them out on the streets

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:54 (twelve years ago)

http://www.terrierman.com/kerryhunt.bmp

"Bagged me a liberal."

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 15 December 2012 19:55 (twelve years ago)

I'd like to think that banning handguns and making the acquisition of other guns (shotguns, hunting/target rifles) really, really difficult/onerous would do much to lower gun deaths of the day-to-day variety. if you're a shooter like milo, or a hunter, then who cares if you have to wait possibly months to get a gun---hunting season is limited to certain seasons, and target shooting is purely recreational.

nb this would do little to curb horrific mass shootings plotted well in advance, but statistically these aren't how most ppl are killed by guns. mass shootings with legally acquired weapons are a byproduct of our cultural fascination with the_gun (plus availability obv), and since we can neither ban or confiscate all guns everywhere (we srsly cannot do this, guys, for really obvious practical reasons), efforts should be made to figure out who spree killers are and how we, as a culture, produce them.

banning gun swaps and private gun sales would help, too, but id wager the latter would never fly for reasons that for some ppl are external to "gun control"

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:11 (twelve years ago)

fact: I bought a cd-r from RA (before I knew of his uh views) and it came wrapped in lightly oiled gun paper

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:13 (twelve years ago)

why not just make it easier for victims to sue and recover damages from everyone on the chain that provided the guns?

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:21 (twelve years ago)

lawsuits aren't the answer, i think

― beef richards (Mr. Que), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:22 (twelve years ago)

enforced mass sterilization might be

― back in judy's tenuta (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:24 (twelve years ago)

dealers can pay into an insurance pool that will give payouts in the event a gun was sold to a sketchy buyer; private person-to-person sales could result in unlimited liability. this aligns industry interests with the public against irresponsible sales of weapons, giving them higher margins.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:27 (twelve years ago)

industry interests are irresponsible sales of weapons

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:28 (twelve years ago)

the tobacco industry is fighting marijuana legalization -- imagine the gun industry fighting against assault weapons, non-dealer sales, and making guns generally more expensive.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:31 (twelve years ago)

where's al and Jesse on this one

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:31 (twelve years ago)

the gun industry is not going to fight the gun industry

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:32 (twelve years ago)

if one segment of the gun industry stands to make much more money as a result of fighting the other segment, why wouldn't they?

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:33 (twelve years ago)

as an alternative to actual gun control? no, because that would be stupid.

if the idea is to actually limit gun deaths by limiting access to guns, then wouldn't it make more sense to...limit access to guns? introducing liability seems perverse to me, for some reason. I suppose it could have a chilling effect on gun sales (ppl wouldn't sell for fear of getting sued), but no one would go for it, it's nonsensical. what if a hunter got robbed, and then the stolen gun was used in a murder? would it make any sense to sue the hunter and the gun dealer for damages? what legal standard would you use? and how could that no then be applied to cars, bricks, household cleaners? even if you made exceptions for gun deaths only, at some point it would be unethical to prosecute incidental participants (trucking company that carried the cargo, landlord of the gun store, etc)

I get what you're going for, but it would just drive gun sales even further underground, IMO.

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:34 (twelve years ago)

When the debates over we can quietly pry the guns out of their cold dead hands and melt them down, problem solved.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:34 (twelve years ago)

great ILX gun control debate...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
for me to poop on

― ✧ (am0n), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:36 (twelve years ago)

there are no segments in the gun industry, is the thing. virtually all the big companies that make hunting rifles also make AR-15s and handguns and so on

also "sketchy buyers" are impossible to identify at the point of sale, this is why we should have application processes. plus, the newtown shooter basically stole his guns from his mom. where does the liability fall there?

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:38 (twelve years ago)

well your logic is 'with tricky changes to liability we can decrease the total amount of money spent on guns, and the gun industry wouldn't fight/notice that at exactly the same rate that they fight/notice limiting access to guns'

it's like yeah, if oil companies were liable for being sued for global warming, we could def be living in a world where their interests were better correlated w/ ours. but they're not gonna just 'not notice' that they're being set up like that and a lawsuit based solution isn't any easier or more practical than gas taxes or laws.

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:39 (twelve years ago)

and just on a practical level 'more lawsuits' is not something any american anywhere wants to hear as a solution

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:41 (twelve years ago)

If a hunter got robbed and failed to report it stolen, i don't think it's unreasonable to make him liable.
if a car was sold to a dude who all through the test drive kept muttering how he was going to play GTA in real life and actually did it, I don't think it's unreasonable to make the dealer liable. If a gun store has a reputation for selling to just anyone, I don't think it's unreasonable to make the landlord liable. There's always been an ideal in law of what a "reasonable" person might do -- why should these instances be any different?

There's less of a political hurdle to basically streamline a legal process -- does any legislation actually need to be involved?

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:43 (twelve years ago)

yes

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:47 (twelve years ago)

I'm wondering how the NRA can be that powerful, lobbies shouldn't be that influent in the first place.

― Van Horn Street, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:48 (twelve years ago)

sorry i'm already like a broken record on the other thread with this, but have you checked out the Australian experience with mass shootings pre- and post 1996?

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

― collardio gelatinous, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:48 (twelve years ago)

"if oil companies were liable for being sued for global warming, we could def be living in a world where their interests were better correlated w/ ours"
let's start with making them fully liable for oil spills, and we can build on the insurance pool to cover other externalities.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:50 (twelve years ago)

if you're a shooter like milo, or a hunter,

I like how killing animals (primarily) for fun is nowhere near the top of the list of why guns are shitty.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:55 (twelve years ago)

let's start with making them fully liable for oil spills, and we can build on the insurance pool to cover other externalities.

I'm not opposed to this kinda thinking but I'm opposed to the idea that it's an easier or more political viable path than any other

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:59 (twelve years ago)

politically

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:59 (twelve years ago)

Shooting birds is pretty lame and cowardly. Why not just go around kicking kittens or something?

― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:02 (twelve years ago)

"does any legislation actually need to be involved?"
"yes"

like what, though? can't you bring suits against companies already? have they already put legislative barriers in place making it harder to sue them that require additional legislation to make it easier?

the main reason I think it's easier to go this route is that there are powerful parties (like say the insurance industry) that stand to make a lot of money in looking after the public's interest.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:03 (twelve years ago)

and not that this should come as a surprise to anyone, but the whole BAN ALL GUNS stance, aside from being practically impossible, might only serve to alienate liberal gun owners who would otherwise endorse very strict gun control measures.

I'm cool with no more handguns (which is a stance I haven't always held, see up thread iirc), and arduous application/licensing processes, and basically anything that makes acquiring a gun a pain in the ass. I'm also fine with marginalizing "gun culture." but I think if you approach the gun debate with outright banning and confiscation as the only acceptable outcome, you are, in a small way, as deluded and kinda wrong as strict drug prohibitionists. and maybe that's alright with you, I dunno.

few people need to kill animals to survive, but some (vanishingly few) do, and they live really far away from everyone else, and I think it's okay that that's possible in today's America. but we do actually need to control certain animal populations, and that's a function largely served by amateur hunters who pay for the privilege. the other alternative is ecological degradation, or paying specially certified people to do the job. I'll take the amateurs, and their money, thanks. ppl don't need to plink rounds at the firing range, but I don't care if they do. as a hobby, it seems as weird to me as any other weird hobby. I have plenty of my own.

if we're going to have a National Conversation about gun control (or abortion or taxes or whatever), then I think we need to be reasonable about it. we simply cannot round up 300M firearms in a country this vast without imposing a pretty fearsome police apparatus. we could, however, ban handgun sales, and destroy those that remain as they turn up. etc.

it's a bummer to me that some of the ppl that are all "now is exactly the time to talk about this issue!" are also the least willing to engage in any kind of discussion of gun ownership that isn't predicated on the idea that gun ownership is anything other than creepy and weird. it's like "discussing" the fiscal cliff with a tea partier or boehner or something, it's anything but a discussion.

xp collardio that AUS thing kinda buttresses my point, in a way? the law didn't ban GUNS, it banned guns that shoot real fast and are better suited to shooting people than anything else. and it made it real hard to any other kind of gun. I've already stated that I'm fine with that kind of policy. and again, 700k in a land of 12m is a different thing than 300m in a land of 360m.

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:09 (twelve years ago)

I like how killing animals (primarily) for fun is nowhere near the top of the list of why guns are shitty.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:55 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't particularly like that you seem unwilling to have any honest engagement with an issue that sorely needs addressing

I get it, you think hunting purely for sport is icky and gross---I'd tend to agree with you, personally. But I'm not ~reviled~ by people I know that go duck hunting a couple times a year, anymore than I am by people that eat a McDonald's cheeseburger a couple times a year.

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:14 (twelve years ago)

you can already already bring a suit against the landlord of a building that sold the gun to someone illegally...you would just lose the suit because they did not break any law.

gbx, the 'banning and confiscating' left needs to exist to serve the purpose that the wacko bloc does to the right-wing. 'we need to be reasonable' ignores the fact that the left has been entirely too reasonable on this particular issue.

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:18 (twelve years ago)

ok i misunderstood your point then, gbx.

― collardio gelatinous, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:21 (twelve years ago)

I know several people who live largely on the meat they take from hunting. I'm not willing to pull the trigger on Bambi but it would be hard to argue they're more careless or amoral than anyone who lives on farmed meat - up to and including the most hippie grass-fed organic free range pasture-raised stuff on the market.

lulz at the "bloc I'm in" getting smaller. I'm pretty sure libertarian socialist gun owners who held their nose and voted for Obama (because fuck Mitt Romney) is a rather small 'bloc' to start with.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:21 (twelve years ago)

i'm multi-tasking, which takes a toll on nuance, evidently. xp

― collardio gelatinous, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:22 (twelve years ago)

yes 'libertarian socialists' are a small bloc

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:23 (twelve years ago)

w/r/t landlord, could you argue money laundering? sounds more criminal than civil though. If there's no force preventing a landlord from profiting from illegal activities on his property, then I really ought to get into the landlord business.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:23 (twelve years ago)

I've made one post to this thread, don't know how that constitutes be unwilling to have an honest engagement. You have a pattern of getting on a high horse on virtually every "serious discussion" thread.
Do they eat those ducks? If so, it's still a bit perverted to me but not as much as purely for "sport".
I get that populations need to be managed, but I'd rather it be done by amateur bow hunters than amateur riflemen. It's not the act as much as the motivation that I find disturbing. I highly doubt dudes are gearing up for the weekend, stoked about managing animal populations.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:23 (twelve years ago)

and the fact that a non-creepy culture of gun ownership exists in the Midwest simply cannot be ignored. sure, maybe you personally think its creepy that someone would shoot an animal, but I know tons of progressive types that are grossed out by hunting but just kinda shrug and say "takes all sorts" because, you know, they live and work and are related to these hunters. fishing is, at a fundamental level, the same thing as shooting deer, but most ppl don't bag on fishermen for being blood thirsty weirdos. and, that, I'd wager, is because a) fish are weird aliens and b) fisherppl don't use guns. which is to say: bringing up animal welfare or the perverse thrill of the hunt or w/e is a bit of a strawman when we're talking about a public safety issue, and totally counterproductive.

a lot of ppl like hunting because they get to sit in a deer blind and bullshit with their friends/family, just like they enjoy sitting in an icehouse and "fishing". an animal that was full of life still gets aced in the end, and if that bums you out, then I don't blame you. but your feelings about killing-animals-as-practice are irrelevant to a discussion of killing-people-as-horrible-reality, inasmuch as it alienates one segment of the gun owning population whose thoughts on curbing gun violence (and environmental conservation) could likely accord with yours

xp ok GD w/e

xp gbx, the 'banning and confiscating' left needs to exist to serve the purpose that the wacko bloc does to the right-wing. 'we need to be reasonable' ignores the fact that the left has been entirely too reasonable on this particular issue.

― iatee, Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:18 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

totally agree with this, fwiw

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:29 (twelve years ago)

fwiw my friends were heavily into fishing at one point and I thought it was a shitty way thing to do for recreation

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:32 (twelve years ago)

i love to fish, personally. i learned it from my dad and have passed on to my kidsters. it gets me out into beautiful places, focuses the mind on interesting problems of hydrodynamics, entomology, etc... i have no reason to think that people who love hunting don't have similar reasons for loving it. i feel sadness every time i kill a fish, and couldn't handle it if a mammal was involved, but i'm not going to get self-righteous about it. much more disturbed by the whole animal food industry concentration camp situation...

i do think you have to be able to acknowledge the meaning of these things to many people. i don't think you have to agree with it, or subscribe to the social costs implicated, but to deny the genuine meaning of it, or reduce that meaning to crypto-fascism, racism, psychopathology, cowardice, or whatever, is to pretty much not even know what this phenomenon is that you're dealing with. acknowledge the genuine meaning, and then be as vehement as you want in opposing it nonetheless.

― collardio gelatinous, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:33 (twelve years ago)

but your feelings about killing-animals-as-practice are irrelevant to a discussion of killing-people-as-horrible-reality, inasmuch as it alienates one segment of the gun owning population whose thoughts on curbing gun violence (and environmental conservation) could likely accord with yours

Well duh. I was musing on the fact that guns are so shitty that one shitty aspect of them needs to be more or less ignored to tackle the even more shitty aspects.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:37 (twelve years ago)

― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Sunday, January 9, 2011 3:54 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is old, but is germane i think (esp given yr xp): if you want to engage the people that want to be able to do a favored hobby (which is a whole lot of gun owners), it might be a good idea not to paint them as icky Bambi slayers, at least in the political arena (tho by all means continue to say so here)

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:40 (twelve years ago)

'but you are killing animals' is only a moral argument that works with people who believe that killing animals is morally wrong

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:41 (twelve years ago)

whereas 'your hobby allows more people to die' is a moral argument that can be used in any context

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:42 (twelve years ago)

i have plenty of relatives who immediately started freaking out on 'don't ban guns' shit. of course they're all hunters. and I don't begrudge people their normal rifles. but seriously, how can we NOT put the assault weapons ban back in place? this mother legally purchased all this shit and took her boys target shooting. good going mom. no one should own these types of weapons.

― akm, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:42 (twelve years ago)

gbx you can rest assured that in the political arena I do not intend to, er, shoot myself in the foot in that manner

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:42 (twelve years ago)

right, which rules out anyone that eats meat, p much

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:42 (twelve years ago)

wait, did he have an assault rifle? I thought it was just a "normal" rifle with military styling? he def had handguns, I know that. also I think they found the rifle in the car, not at the scene.

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:44 (twelve years ago)

animal being killed for meat is no different than animal being killed for recreation, p much?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:45 (twelve years ago)

"you eat meat, you have no room to criticize hunting/fishing" is v facile

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:46 (twelve years ago)

an animal killed by an industrial farming apparatus for cheese burgers is arguably worse, morally, than an animal killed while it was minding its business in its natural habitat, but I'm not sure this is the place for going down this particular rabbit hole

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:47 (twelve years ago)

criticizing hunting/fishing from a moral perspective is a crappy way to convince anybody because even americans who don't own/like/want guns mostly don't care about gun control for the poor bambi reason and the ones who do hunt almost by definition are not going to be convinced.

― iatee, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:48 (twelve years ago)

i KNOW

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:50 (twelve years ago)

if america can flip-flop on "horsemeat--OK to eat" then it's not impossible to turn the country around on hunting/fishing, or at least bring back horsemeat.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 21:54 (twelve years ago)

how can we NOT put the assault weapons ban back in place?

Connecticut and Jersey both have assault weapon bans.

Which goes, once again, to the irrelevance of this kind of minutiae. The assault weapon ban disallowed collapsible stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc. - and magazines with capacities greater than 10. None of those things, magazines potentially aside, matter at all. An AR-15 is no more or less dangerous because it has a pistol grip than, say, a M-14/M1A (civilian version of the US military rifle that preceded the M-16). The latter actually fires a larger round.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:08 (twelve years ago)

wait, did he have an assault rifle? I thought it was just a "normal" rifle with military styling?

lotta ppl proudly ignorant of the difference imo

― call all destroyer, Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:08 (twelve years ago)

But my understanding is that the AR-15 wasn't used in the school anyway.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:08 (twelve years ago)

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

― call all destroyer, Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:10 (twelve years ago)

I don't get up in arms about "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" - I think it's pretty clear that people mean military-styled semi-autos. The point they need to understand is that styling is pretty irrelevant.

Anyway an assault rifle, by definition, is capable of automatic fire. These have been highly restricted since 1934 and civilian production stopped completely in 1986. They're also pretty much never used in crimes.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:11 (twelve years ago)

Is there an I Love Paramilitary Operations thread

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:11 (twelve years ago)

Anyway an assault rifle, by definition, is capable of automatic fire.

well not by the definition of the old law....

― call all destroyer, Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:12 (twelve years ago)

Assault weapon is defined by the various AWBs, as CAD quoted.

re: grenade launcher, grenades are destructive devices subject to the same 1934-era restrictions as machine guns, etc..

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:12 (twelve years ago)

Assault rifle and assault weapon are two different things. Assault weapon bans dealt with pistols, shotguns and other things as well.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:13 (twelve years ago)

ok yes i see yr distinction

― call all destroyer, Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:14 (twelve years ago)

was it the assault weapons ban that everyone agreed was a total failure? i feel like the political capital needed to persistently improve gun control laws to the point where they need to be would be better spent on health care.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:24 (twelve years ago)

the whole BAN ALL GUNS stance, aside from being practically impossible, might only serve to alienate liberal gun owners who would otherwise endorse very strict gun control measures.

thank you gbx... I mean, I'm all for taking the Bakunin "I will continue to be impossible as long as all others are possible" stance, but it is alienating to a degree when it's served up w/condescension (which is not what anybody is doing on this thread this time around afaict).

― sleeve, Saturday, 15 December 2012 22:40 (twelve years ago)

― iatee, Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:18 PM (2 hours ago)

don't know if anyone else has pointed this out but i just want to put this in my favorites tab or something to use the next time i or alfred or aero gets into it with iatee on the regular politics thread!

― k3vin k., Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:17 (twelve years ago)

I think the existence of the far left on an issue strengthens the dems bargaining power it's just the far left simply doesnt exist w/ real voting power on many issues

― iatee, Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:22 (twelve years ago)

and 'being really angry' doesn't make more people like you exist

― iatee, Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:23 (twelve years ago)

unless you have angry sex

― iatee, Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:23 (twelve years ago)

i'll post here what i posted in the Newtown thread:

Shouldn't this debate be a national referendum?

― Van Horn Street, Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:30 (twelve years ago)

Today in Guthrie, OK a 3 year old got a hold of a gun and shot himself in the head. So after all the media bombardment regarding guns, someone didn't think to put their gun where a toddler couldn't get it.

― *tera, Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:31 (twelve years ago)

Shouldn't this debate be a national referendum?

Not if you want to change gun laws.

You want to make guns harder to get, work on it at the state level and in the courts.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:46 (twelve years ago)

state and local laws are kinda worthless when you can buy guns in a different state/district and bring them in

― k3vin k., Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:49 (twelve years ago)

but Texas is so big

― iatee, Sunday, 16 December 2012 01:02 (twelve years ago)

state and local laws are kinda worthless when you can buy guns in a different state/district and bring them in

It's also pretty much the only way to seriously enact the gun control VHS wants. The national consensus isn't going to run that way. Change the 'blue' states when you can, wait for more reds to turn purple and so on.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Sunday, 16 December 2012 07:07 (twelve years ago)

I had to do a Ctrl-F to check to see if I still agree with what I've said in the past. Yup. I do.

― Aimless, Sunday, 16 December 2012 18:47 (twelve years ago)

me either

― k3vin k., Monday, 17 December 2012 04:18 (twelve years ago)

this is as good a time as any for people to read stevens' dissent in heller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

― k3vin k., Monday, 17 December 2012 04:19 (twelve years ago)

so so so so so so so many people, including liberals, just credulously absorb as fact the conventional wisdom that the second amendment gives people the absolute right to privately own guns and that the history of jurisprudence on the issue supports that. it's a much bigger problem than people being mean to 'liberal gun owners' (lol)

― k3vin k., Monday, 17 December 2012 04:47 (twelve years ago)

I'm not talking about being "mean" to liberal gun owners, I'm talking about basic coalition building

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Monday, 17 December 2012 04:49 (twelve years ago)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/12613/large/TMW2012-12-19colorKOS.png?1355584910

― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Monday, 17 December 2012 15:36 (twelve years ago)

more gun shops than grocery stores, McDonald's

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 20:25 (twelve years ago)

it's not actually true, only more than supermarkets ie grocery stores w/ 2m+ in sales

― iatee, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 20:27 (twelve years ago)

assuming the figure includes big box chains that sell guns as well

― an eagle named "small government" (call all destroyer), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 20:28 (twelve years ago)

If a big box sells guns, it is a gun store. (shrugs)

― Aimless, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 20:49 (twelve years ago)

yeah i don't really disagree

― an eagle named "small government" (call all destroyer), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 20:49 (twelve years ago)

bump

― sleeve, Thursday, 20 December 2012 02:01 (twelve years ago)

you needn't

― mookieproof, Thursday, 20 December 2012 02:06 (twelve years ago)

you shan't

― Online Webinar Event for Dads (harbl), Thursday, 20 December 2012 02:10 (twelve years ago)

Out of curiosity I looked at the Walmart site. Found this nifty gun:

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/79/86/81/44/0079868144115_180X180.jpg

Which it outright delineates as" for use in law enforcement, military operations, the sporting field and competitive shooting."

Notice the order there.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 02:11 (twelve years ago)

should have added "and shoplifters"

― NINO CARTER, Thursday, 20 December 2012 02:46 (twelve years ago)

I'm not entirely clear as to the causality of those two sentences, but a 10% drop may well explain any new eagerness to find solutions by its spokesmen ie the NRA.

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 20 December 2012 03:41 (twelve years ago)

Haha thanks there auto-convert - the figure is $150 billion.

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 20 December 2012 03:43 (twelve years ago)

Already interesting feature on "Fresh Air" focusing on the proliferation of assault weapons in American society. I guess guns like the AR-15 were designed c. Vietnam, following studies that revealed most soliders were not using their guns for accuracy but to simply spray bullets randomly in burst all over the place at short to medium range. Now moving on to the flaws of the '94 semi-auto assault weapon ban, and how/why Bushmaster flourished post ban...

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:18 (twelve years ago)

Interesting, Hunting has apparently been on the decline, which has emphasized the marketing of so-called "tactical" rifles that mimic military design.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:22 (twelve years ago)

"Tactical" is just a marketing term in macho-world, correct? Otherwise, meaningless.

― rihanna, will you ever win? (suzy), Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:24 (twelve years ago)

"tactless" doesn't have the same ring to it

― If I was a carpenter, and you were a douchebag (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:31 (twelve years ago)

meaningless, for sure. it's mil-speak, so it has that battlefiled aura, but there isn't a firearm in the world that couldn't be called "tactical".

― Aimless, Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:33 (twelve years ago)

New York State Common Retirement Fund reconsidering how much of its http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-backlash-prompts-gun-investment-overhaul-032547862--sector.html50 billion it invests in gun manufacturers, Smith & Wesson stocks drop 10%
I'm not entirely clear as to the causality of those two sentences, but a 10% drop may well explain any new eagerness to find solutions by its spokesmen ie the NRA.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Institutional investors probably make up a large percentage of the holders of gun stocks. If they're increasingly going to be considering dumping their holdings, that's going to drive down the stock a lot. Selloffs cause price drops, and, somewhat circularly, rumors of big selloffs cause big selloffs.

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:43 (twelve years ago)

Yeah, "tactical" is just a word to sub for "assault."

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:53 (twelve years ago)

I'm more bothered by the implications of "tactical" as a marketing term than I am by the specs of the weapons actually.

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:54 (twelve years ago)

Tactical marketing.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 17:59 (twelve years ago)

I mean I'm more bothered that there's an significant-sized demographic who sees "tactical" use as an important feature.

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago)

I mean I'm more bothered that there's an significant-sized demographic who sees "tactical" use as an important feature.

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:11 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:19 (twelve years ago)

not sure its an important feature to them as much as a cool sounding buzzword, which is equally troubling

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:21 (twelve years ago)

I mean it definitely seems to feed some fantasy beyond just protecting your home against rapists or w/e

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:22 (twelve years ago)

well i think it feeds the fantasy of home protection, but like home protection done in the most awesome badass way SEAL team 6 way possible. you're not some pussy reaching weakly for a .38 and hoping to fend off an invader, you're an ~operator~ who is neutralizing the threat before it even knows what happened, and then maybe i dunno sneaking up on the invader's buddies waiting in the driveway, might just say fuck it and go take out their leader

so yeah, it is basically fulfilling some desire to be more than a mere "self-defender"---it's giving you license to dream of societal collapse, and empowers you to believe that when the End Comes you'll be among the privileged and powerful

imo

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:28 (twelve years ago)

while obv they don't account for much actual gun violence, the post-apocalyptic fantasies of preppers are o_O to the max, esp when tied to their not-so-subtle attempts to immanentize the eschaton

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:33 (twelve years ago)

Josh, pretty much everything you wrote is somewhat wrong. Will explain when I'm not on my phone.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:35 (twelve years ago)

Those fantasies are just another form of racism dressed up in paranoid narcissism. It is the ultimate selfishness to think the world is ending in a way and at a time that is all. about. you.

How much extra insurance costs do people have to pay when they own guns? Because that's one area where there could be big/prohibitive charges for owning weaponry of any kind.

― rihanna, will you ever win? (suzy), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:37 (twelve years ago)

bated

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago)

Cool, waiting for Milo's correction. Just relaying what I heard on the radio, which I assumed was true/accurate, as I do everything I hear or see or read.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago)

the insurance question is a good one. looking quickly i see some people are urging mandatory gun insurance.

― goodbye normative genes (Hunt3r), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago)

Absolutely. Anything to better regulate the militia, riiiiiight?

Also would create a new (and necessary) market for insurance companies and maybe distract them from trying to fuck up health care.

― rihanna, will you ever win? (suzy), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:49 (twelve years ago)

I don't think you have to be an extreme nut or prepper to have some fantasies or enjoy some macho or military talk around guns.

― SHUT UP AND GET YOUR TURKEY SCIENCE BOOKS (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:53 (twelve years ago)

I guess guns like the AR-15 were designed c. Vietnam, following studies that revealed most soliders were not using their guns for accuracy but to simply spray bullets randomly in burst all over the place at short to medium range.

I thought there were some vietnam-era studies that showed that a lot of soldiers were intentionally missing or just shooting at nothing in particular.

― wk, Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:56 (twelve years ago)

a national form of gun insurance (ie redistributive tax, where milo helps pay for things like newtown) would be a good idea, but if you wanted to create a large private insurance market changes in liability would be more important than just making it mandatory

― iatee, Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:00 (twelve years ago)

wacky terbacky

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:01 (twelve years ago)

OK, looks like the AR-15 was actually the root inspiration for the likes of the AK-47 and M-16. The Bushmaster adaptation specifically was post 'Nam, and of course only semi-automatic, but did take into account a general disinterest in accuracy, unlike its original '50s design. But Milo knows best!

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:14 (twelve years ago)

just a quick factiod: in general semi-automatics are less accurate than bolt action rifles or revolvers because some of the energy used to fire the projectile is used to mechanically reload the next bullet, so the velocity drops. physics!

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:17 (twelve years ago)

Uh... even more wrong, Josh.

quick trip through military history (I grew up reading my father's history books, so this is largely separate from my hobby):
during and prior to WWII, the primary infantry weapon was a battle rifle - big, heavy, wooden stock, long barrel, firing a large round. In the US this was the M1903 Springfield (bolt-action) and then the M1 Garand (semi-auto)

near the end of WWII the Germans introduced the first assault rifle - intermediate cartridge, magazine fed, select-fire (capable of semi- or full-auto). This was the Stg44. It was lighter than battle rifles that preceded it, ammunition was lighter, allowing soldiers to carry more, magazine loading is less fussy than the methods used with bolt actions/the Garand/etc.

after the war, the Soviets had captured a shit-ton of Stg44's and decided to introduce their own intermediate cartridge (7.62x39) and similar rifle, which led to the AK-47 in... 1947.

After Korea, NATO member states decided to standardize on ammunition, starting with rifles - the chosen round was 7.62 NATO, which was basically the same as the .30-06 that had been used in American rifles.
The US military adopted the M14 in 1958 after some shady trials - it was a modernized M1 Garand. Big, heavy, wooden-stocked but capable of full auto fire and magazine-fed. Problem was, it was somewhat uncontrollable in full auto mode, heavy and expensive.

By the mid-60s, the US military had decided to modernize further and turned to the AR-15 design, turning it into the US's first assault rifle, the M-16. It fired an even smaller round than than the intermediate assault rifles (5.56x45) or battle rifles, making it more controllable. It was also lighter, allowed soldiers to carry even more ammunition, and there's less upkeep on the exterior of the rifle than one made with wood. It was problematic in Vietnam and the design was widely panned for a very long time.
Military doctrine has always been to discourage fully automatic fire from most infantry and eventually M-16s were converted to no longer had the capability, with 3-round bursts.

Which is to say that:
the AK-47 has nothing to do with the design of the AR-15 or M-16
the idea that it was designed to encourage a disinterest in accuracy is absurd - an M16/M4/AR-15 is less accurate than your average bolt-action rifle or some specific semi-autos, but it is not inaccurate
the military seeks, at every opportunity, to discourage infantry from spraying lead. It's ineffective, wastes ammo and leads to civilian casualties and friendly fire. The option still exists on most M4 carbines (separate from M16s but sharing the same basic design) but is discouraged.

Likewise, fully-automatic fire is ineffective for criminals/mass murderers/etc. because it's hard to control even in something like a M-16. Your muzzle rises further the longer you hold the trigger.

Now, on to the civilian side:
'Bushmaster' is not an adaptation or special design. They're a company that produces AR-15s, a basic design that's in the public domain. There are literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of producers of the AR-15 today.

Bushmaster is also not a dominant market force - they were one of the first companies to widely produce AR-15s for civilians aside from Colt, and they did so cheaper. So during the first assault weapons ban, Bushmaster had a huge share of the market. By the end of the ban, all the other companies had sprung up and Bushmaster was relegated to selling cheaper, mass-market AR-15s that are less reliable and less well-made. Their market share is much smaller than in the past, the end of the AWB was probably the worst thing that could have happened to them.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:46 (twelve years ago)

sorry if even more wrong sounded hostile. It's annoying when outlets like Fresh Air get basic details very wrong.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:49 (twelve years ago)

re: tactical language, I think that's largely a product of 10 years of warfare and the emphasis on special forces/operations in those wars (in media coverage, movies, etc.)
They're presented as super badasses, borderline mystical warrior-gods and so they become easy objects of fantasy

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:51 (twelve years ago)

i thought ak47s were the "spray and pray" guns?

― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 20 December 2012 19:54 (twelve years ago)

Eh, in the words of someone firing one of these things, close enough.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:01 (twelve years ago)

which gun goes "blakka blakka blakka blakka" and which gun goes "BUCK BUCK BUCK BUCK"? i only know guns from rap music

― Andrew WKRP (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:04 (twelve years ago)

We're subject to the whims of the AK-47 per cent right now, and it sucks.

― rihanna, will you ever win? (suzy), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:05 (twelve years ago)

freddie foxx switched from tech 9s to walther PPKs, tech 9s were prone to jamming

― Andrew WKRP (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:05 (twelve years ago)

what gun shd i buy for christmas

― ✧ (am0n), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:06 (twelve years ago)

http://www.racketboy.com/retro/lightgun1.jpg

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:07 (twelve years ago)

Ak-47s can be, but that's largely down to training/doctrine. AKs have that reputation from their use by untrained guerrillas/etc. and from some differences in Soviet doctrine vs. NATO/US.

A modern AK (they're not really AK-47s anymore, the Russians even use a small cartridge similar to what we use) is less accurate than your average AR-15/M4/etc., but it's not wildly inaccurate.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:09 (twelve years ago)

i think spray and pray is usually more linked to automatic handguns like uzis tbh

― tiniest homeless (jjjusten), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:10 (twelve years ago)

milo, I enjoy your historical knowledge of guns. I hope that you are curator at the world's foremost gun museum after The Great Confiscation of 2013

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 20 December 2012 20:12 (twelve years ago)

It'd be awesome if there were gun bars like there are cigar bars. Like, the only place you can carry and use and measure muzzles is in select back rooms.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:14 (twelve years ago)

"Measuring muzzles" *euphemism face*

― rihanna, will you ever win? (suzy), Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:15 (twelve years ago)

otm there should be a gun/cigarette room in each city and all guns and smoking is confined to that one room

― iatee, Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:15 (twelve years ago)

Also it is a very small room.

― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:18 (twelve years ago)

Airport lounge, too.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:18 (twelve years ago)

No ventilation, doors lock from outside.

― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:19 (twelve years ago)

also it is pitch black and there are snakes and scorpions on the floor

― iatee, Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:19 (twelve years ago)

And you should have to feed a meter, like peepshows and public toilets in France.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 December 2012 21:20 (twelve years ago)

you know what's more dangerous than guns? ping pong

― If I was a carpenter, and you were a douchebag (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 December 2012 22:33 (twelve years ago)

Texas Rep Kyle Kacal: "I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong -- ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he said. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

― If I was a carpenter, and you were a douchebag (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 December 2012 22:34 (twelve years ago)

It'd be awesome if there were gun bars like there are cigar bars.

There already is one: http://machinegunsvegas.com

― Elvis Telecom, Friday, 21 December 2012 19:39 (twelve years ago)

Coming soon to a Facebook news feed near you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:29 (twelve years ago)

What do you mean, coming soon? #sotwohoursago

― karl lagerlout (suzy), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:36 (twelve years ago)

the part of the NRA statement where he called for a database to "track" the mentally ill was fucking chilling.

― Andrew WKRP (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:37 (twelve years ago)

Hey, some of our FB news feeds are more sluggish than others. Half of mine is still making Mayan jokes.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:39 (twelve years ago)

the part of the NRA statement where he called for a database to "track" the mentally ill was fucking chilling.

http://www.hungry-for-hunting.com/image-files/hunter-tracking-deer-in-snow-resized.jpg

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:40 (twelve years ago)

Guy sounded most like a complete nutjob in need of meds (like 99th percentile of crazy) when making that suggestion.

― karl lagerlout (suzy), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:42 (twelve years ago)

Um, guys, there were lots of people - even ILXors - talking about mental health exams for potential gun buyers.
Government "database of the mentally ill" is pretty much exactly what that amounts to.

Obviously a terrible idea in all contexts.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:47 (twelve years ago)

A gun buyer is a specific subset of the mentally ill

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:49 (twelve years ago)

Are the mentally ill (meaning, those who've had inpatient mental health care, either forced or voluntary) banned/exempt from jury duty, as in the UK?

― karl lagerlout (suzy), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:51 (twelve years ago)

I think that's up to voir dire.

― Un monde où tout le monde est heureux, même les riches (Michael White), Friday, 21 December 2012 21:53 (twelve years ago)

A gun buyer is a specific subset of the mentally ill

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, December 21, 2012 1:49 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this came out as a sloppy zing by accident. My intended meaning is that subjecting a gun buyer to a mental examination is not the same as keeping a database of all those deemed "mentally ill" since not all of the people deemed "mentally ill" will try to buy a gun.

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 21 December 2012 22:02 (twelve years ago)

prefer the zing tbh

― iatee, Friday, 21 December 2012 22:03 (twelve years ago)

the zing certainly lacked the "stating what everyone can easily see for themselves" quality of my intended meaning. yet, I don't actually think that every gun purchaser is mentally ill.

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 21 December 2012 22:14 (twelve years ago)

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr251/mookieproof/huff_zps84245799.gif

― mookieproof, Saturday, 22 December 2012 05:04 (twelve years ago)

Um, guys, there were lots of people - even ILXors - talking about mental health exams for potential gun buyers.
Government "database of the mentally ill" is pretty much exactly what that amounts to.

Obviously a terrible idea in all contexts.

I know, what a terrible idea to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns. It would be like denying a driver's license to the visually impaired. Or it would be following in the footsteps of fascist states like Japan or the U.S. who have laws to prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/auroras-hard-truth-mental_b_1727695.html

― wk, Saturday, 22 December 2012 07:42 (twelve years ago)

the relevant portion since I'm sure milo won't actually read that...

Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." A person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" if a court -- or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications -- has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is "committed to a mental institution" if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life -- although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

― wk, Saturday, 22 December 2012 07:43 (twelve years ago)

but I understand that it would be a terrible injustice to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of someone who isn't actually "adjudicated as a mental defective" but merely wants to shoot up a bunch of children.

― wk, Saturday, 22 December 2012 07:45 (twelve years ago)

there are some legitimate 4th amendment concerns arising from some of the proposals by pro-gun control ppl imo

― k3vin k., Saturday, 22 December 2012 14:07 (twelve years ago)

i'd rather be judged by nuts than carried by dicks

― NINO CARTER, Saturday, 22 December 2012 14:17 (twelve years ago)

I know, what a terrible idea to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns.

You realize that's not even vaguely what I said, right?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 22 December 2012 17:40 (twelve years ago)

From Tony Horwitz via Ta-Nehisi Coates, I think this comparison of 19th century slaveholders and 20th/21st century pro-gun people is, uh, dead on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-nra-and-the-positive-good-of-maximum-guns/266571/

― WilliamC, Sunday, 23 December 2012 20:04 (twelve years ago)

I don't even get the NRA's position at this point. I mean, I am in No way surprised that they don't support a gun ban, but to respond by suggesting the solution to the overarching problem is introducing more guns, you're basically saying "We need to wait until the gunman is on the doorstep, and then deal with him", you know, never mind the fact that by the time any armed officer intervenes, several people may have already been mowed down, and that you are inviting a gunfight to happen on a school campus, one which may strike down bystanders.

― NINO CARTER, Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:31 (twelve years ago)

Not that I'm saying "OMG an armed officer on campus is a really terrible idea", but that it isn't a solution to anything. My middle school had one of them. There was no gun violence, but it had little to do with him, and everything to do with the fact that it was a relatively peaceful community with no real history of crime or violence...and half the time, he was occupied far away from the students on the other side of campus.

― NINO CARTER, Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:32 (twelve years ago)

yeah i don't get why an organization that is supported by the gun industry would suggest something that would introduce more guns.

― an eagle named "small government" (call all destroyer), Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:50 (twelve years ago)

what an incredibly oblique position

― an eagle named "small government" (call all destroyer), Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:50 (twelve years ago)

it's not like they're actually lobbying for it though, it's just 'a solution' to exist as a counterpoint to everybody else's solution.

― iatee, Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:56 (twelve years ago)

like it exists purely to clutter the 'set of proposed solutions to this problem' - that it's not credible doesnt matter so much

― iatee, Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:57 (twelve years ago)

it's like there's a massive wildfire and we could definitely slow it down with some planes dropping water and ppl are like "actually let's set some other fires, like controlled burns" and to those who would insist on at least trying the water solution they're like "as if water could actually put out a fire"

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:21 (twelve years ago)

we all have our opinions, some people think water is the best way, some people think fire is the best way, some people think adding gasoline is the best way. it's a subject w/ a lot of nuance and we don't want to put all our chips on one seemingly easy solution.

― iatee, Sunday, 23 December 2012 22:32 (twelve years ago)

and of course the only viewpoints that get any attention are the gasoline and the fire ones. cockburn would be proud

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 December 2012 00:45 (twelve years ago)

maybe proud isn't the word

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 December 2012 00:53 (twelve years ago)

“It’s a challenge to see how well you can do,” Mr. Andrews, 58, said of target shooting. “It’s like bowling or any other kind of sport. You want to see if you can do it better the next time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/owners-of-assault-weapons-dismiss-idea-of-federal-ban.html

― iatee, Monday, 24 December 2012 02:21 (twelve years ago)

the 'athleticism' on display must be pretty breathaking

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 December 2012 02:24 (twelve years ago)

I hiked to the top of Doe Mountain today (don't be impressed...it's only 500ft elevation gain from the parking lot). Here's the view (that's not me)

http://www.pjmweb.com/photos/2008-Arizona/N7027-From-Doe-Mountain.jpg

As I sat at a similar spot to that, contemplating the beauty of nature and all that crap, enjoying the peacefulness a temperate Arizona winter afternoon, BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM...BOOMBOOMBOOM...BOOM rang out across the valley for about 30 minutes, off and on. Knowing that some outdoorsman was getting pleasure from letting off round after round, that certain pleasure that only a firearm can provide, well that just amplified my own sense of well being and relaxation.
(all this to say that even when they are not being used to kill things, they can still be fucking annoying and unsettling. Made me recall how I'd go play tennis, unwinding from the stresses of a work week, and then CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK...oh yeah, there's a gun club range just behind those woods. Super.)

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Monday, 24 December 2012 02:41 (twelve years ago)

well you should have brought a gun along. if you had let off some rounds of your own, you'd have barely noticed those shots across the valley.

― collardio gelatinous, Monday, 24 December 2012 04:43 (twelve years ago)

Not sure which of the many gun/shooting threads to post this on, but from my old hometown:

http://gawker.com/5970973/gunman-shoots-firefighters-responding-to-large-residential-blaze-in-western-new-york

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 24 December 2012 15:37 (twelve years ago)

christ. i have a lot of family in webster. (i'm from binghamton)

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 December 2012 17:24 (twelve years ago)

firefighters need guns

― iatee, Monday, 24 December 2012 17:26 (twelve years ago)

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/there-was-a-firefight.gif

― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Monday, 24 December 2012 17:34 (twelve years ago)

nice

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 December 2012 22:58 (twelve years ago)

Made me recall how I'd go play tennis, unwinding from the stresses of a work week, and then CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK...oh yeah, there's a gun club range just behind those woods.

it's like you don't know how fucking irritating my neighbors ball machine is at 7:00 am/pm.

jk i don't have that kinda neighborhood

― goodbye normative genes (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 25 December 2012 00:09 (twelve years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lyj-Ua2pSY

― Gorge, Wednesday, 26 December 2012 18:35 (twelve years ago)

This was an email. It's a post now. I'm self-plagiarizing!

Fuck gun people. I mean really, fuck them. I come from skeet shooting back country rednecks and grew up most of my life in the heart of goddamn dixie. I've shot skeet with an 18 gauge and a .38. I qualified on an assault weapon and cleared a jam in the middle of my last magazine while doing so. I work with a large number of people who really, really enjoy the hobby of target shooting. Guns are incredibly powerful tools. For murdering other people.

The vast majority of guns bought and sold today are expressly designed for killing other human beings. If you want to hunt animals for sport, frankly, we have all kinds of fancy bows and arrows that are actually better for hunting than noisy, smelly rifles. If you want to kill humans as expediently as possible because Red Dawn, or some other flavor of fantasy Bourne/Taken/Death Wish/Punisher/Walking Dead crap has taken over your lobes, you should be in a pit with other people like yourself. Fuck gun people.

If you must shoot birds for fun and/or sustenance, a 20 gauge pump action shotgun can be your friend. If you must shoot in the general direction of a herd of deer to clear a road, the same weapon will suffice. There is absolutely no reason for a civilized human being to desire an arsenal on par with their local SWAT. If you really believe that every citizen deserves the right to arm themselves with military grade weaponry, please move to one of those shitty fucked up joints in Africa where it might come to pass that a 9 year old orphan pops you and your entire family for living in the wrong shack on the wrong day. I'd prefer to live in a country that doesn't let that happen.

Fuck gun people. I'm a dad now and I'm done pretending I give a flying fuck about the insipid "rights" of people who think their privilege to keep a collection of murder weapons in their own home overrides my privilege to go to my office, to send my child to school, to run errands, without fear.

Fuck gun people.

― El Tomboto, Thursday, 27 December 2012 06:47 (twelve years ago)

That sets up a false dichotomy between "arsenal on par with their local SWAT" and "20-gauge pump shotgun." Pump shotguns, for instance, are very much a police weapon and there's very little real difference between a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge.
What does "military grade weaponry" mean?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 06:58 (twelve years ago)

why don't we try an experiment where we actually make a legislative difference between the 20-gauge and the 12-gauge, or any other number of measures of firearms anybody can have and firearms only the cops and military can have, and see if there's "very little real difference?" because this country doesn't know yet. Frankly any pump shotgun is better than a fucking assault rifle as far as public safety is concerned, but I'd like to start negotiating as far to the UK as possible.

What do you think I mean by military grade weaponry? Your guess is half as good as mine.

― El Tomboto, Thursday, 27 December 2012 07:07 (twelve years ago)

If it's designed to kill avians and ungulates, one at a time, and miss a lot, and resist being operated by a neophyte, that's fine.
If it fails to resemble any of the above criteria, it's a murder weapon, and it should be illegal.

― El Tomboto, Thursday, 27 December 2012 07:14 (twelve years ago)

So the pump action shotgun you refer to (all shotguns, actually) should be every bit as illegal as the "SWAT arsenal." False distinctions are pointless. Everything that shoots a metal object out one end at a high rate of speed is fucking dangerous.

Pump-action shotguns are responsible for more crime than 'assault rifles.'

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 07:22 (twelve years ago)

so?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 07:45 (twelve years ago)

So sentiments like "frankly any pump shotgun is better than a fucking assault rifle as far as public safety is concerned" are rather absurd.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 07:59 (twelve years ago)

But your stances aren't?
The point is there is no legitimate reason any civilian should own a fucking assault rifle, so let's start there with banning.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 08:25 (twelve years ago)

If you want to ban 'assault rifles' because they're scary and look similar to military rifles and "no one should own one" and blah blah blah, good for you. You literally cannot be argued with - you've decided they're evil, so the argument is over.

But when others choose to bring in things like "public safety" and comparisons to shotguns and such, statistics and uses matter.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 08:32 (twelve years ago)

yes, i've "decided they're evil", what a close-minded fool I am. How can a man of logic and reason even discuss the matter with me?
The only reason people are discussing anything other than "guns are fucking awful, let's get rid of them" is because idiots have poisoned the debate to where that is too "extreme" a position ("think about people's investments! the awful consequences to law-abiding citizens!!" blah blah blah) and so we're left with "ok fine, let's get rid of the military/swat-grade weapons"...but then there's men of logic and reason who argue with even that so...fuck gun people.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 08:40 (twelve years ago)

Shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, handguns of all types, semi-automatic rifles - they're all, quite literally, "military-grade" weapons. That's why it's a pointless and useless distinction.

Granny, while I question acknowledging you, I didn't insult you. I stated a fact - you're a decided party and you openly state the reasons for your stance. Those reasons cannot be argued with or changed.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 09:01 (twelve years ago)

But you are not a decided party? Your reasons can be argued with or changed? Gimme a break.
Certain firearms have capabilities that surpass those needed to "designed to kill avians and ungulates, one at a time". These are military grade/murder weapons/assualt weapons/WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. Certain cars possess more powerful images, better suspensions, lighter frames which are not needed to carry out the driving tasks of ordinary people. We call these "sports cars". The dividing line can be blurry, but still, sports cars exist. No one can make a valid argument that they need to go 0-60 in 3.4 secs to take the kids to soccer practice.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 09:15 (twelve years ago)

It's not because they're scary or because I think they're evil or blah blah blah, it's because there's no legitimate reason why any civilian should be allowed to one one imo. The less guns the better, and this is where we start.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 09:18 (twelve years ago)

About 20 people have argued with you about this for the past 2 weeks and you haven't budged one iota. But yeah, I'm the decided party here, you're the man of logic and reason just waiting for a good argument to sway his mind.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 09:20 (twelve years ago)

Yes, I'm a decided party. Not once have I suggested that I'm not. I've been arguing numbers and uses. Not once will you find that I've argued guns are a god-given right or a key to our ability to stand up to the evil, commiefascist government, or any of the drivel that is your right-wing counterpart.

Second paragraph of your first post there just highlights that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to guns and "capabilities." Not only are you implacable for reasons you've set in stone, you may simply be too dim to even consider things on a factual basis if you wished to.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:30 (twelve years ago)

What would you consider a reasonable restriction to come from all of this, milo?

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 27 December 2012 10:33 (twelve years ago)

Pump-action shotguns are responsible for more crime than 'assault rifles.'

agreed with all of that!

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 13:54 (twelve years ago)

milo makes the best arguments for why guns should be banned, seriously

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 13:57 (twelve years ago)

Everything that shoots a metal object out one end at a high rate of speed is fucking dangerous.

but not inherently dangerous, see.

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:06 (twelve years ago)

I've beefed with Milo before, enough to drive me into this once-a-week conceit in fact (a conceit which is now dissolving, Slothrop-like, assimilating into the All, the everything-and-nothing welter, finding oblivion through multiplication, its own Counterforce).........but if you want my two cents, gun control isn't the primary issue here, it's a secondary concern, and the focus should be elsewhere. Namely, upon the extent to which young men* can become isolated within society, cast adrift and left to gather their fears, insecurities and grievances into an inexorable ball of aggression, which can be let out in numerous ways, not all of which involve guns. Banning guns (and I am not a fan of any sort of prohibition) will close one avenue - a potentially lethal avenue - but it will not close others. And it will enable the criers of society to congratulate one another on a job well-done, whereas in fact the problem, holistic and debilitating, will go unaddressed.

I know that the visceral atrocity of gunned-down children is shocking, abhorrent and completely disgraceful to any kind of cogent moral outlook. I know that a blanket ban of guns would make such a spectacle rarer, if not entirely absent (would be interesting to examine the prevalence of European gun-rampages, whether by truly dedicated evildoers like Breivik or acts of incoherent despair like MOATY). But it won't stop hammers to heads, knives to chests, or the endless means of suicide, which is more tragic (if less atrocious, senseless and evil) than murder. The problem lies deeper, and it lies with a lack of fellowship, community, respect or company. Things which have been partially atomised in our age, as we've been reduced towards our own anointed demographics and encouraged to worship individual progress. Troubled individuals need the help of all around them. They need empathy, care and understanding. And then there won't be these abysmal killings.

*or anyone else, but young men in this case

― torn between Carl Jenkinson, Scott Walker and Malcolm X (once a week is ample), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:13 (twelve years ago)

Ta-Nehisi Coates round table discussion on guns.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:14 (twelve years ago)

but if you want my two cents, gun control isn't the primary issue here, it's a secondary concern, and the focus should be elsewhere. Namely, upon the extent to which young men* can become isolated within society, cast adrift and left to gather their fears, insecurities and grievances into an inexorable ball of aggression, which can be let out in numerous ways, not all of which involve guns. Banning guns (and I am not a fan of any sort of prohibition) will close one avenue - a potentially lethal avenue - but it will not close others. And it will enable the criers of society to congratulate one another on a job well-done, whereas in fact the problem, holistic and debilitating, will go unaddressed.

how is this an either/or? go ahead and take steps to address isolated young men*, which to me would seem a exponentially more difficult issue, and and incredibly vague at that. in the meantime, take concrete steps to reduce the number of fucking dangerous (but not inherently dangerous) killing machines in the United States. do both. i wouldn't worry so much about the criers self-congratulating because a)they do that anyway, no matter what, for eternity, and b) they're not even doing anything about guns in the first place. their strategy is not to do something meaninful about guns and ignore isolated young men* while they self-congratulate - it's to stall until about 1-2 weeks from now, when the entire gun issue is completely forgotten again. until the next time some one murders a few dozen people again.

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:34 (twelve years ago)

oawia it's worth nothing that 'isolated young men' exist in p much every society everywhere but it's only in america that they can also go to wal-mart and get guns via a cursory background check

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:39 (twelve years ago)

xp it's deliberately vague - i don't want to be prescriptive as to how we can install a worldwide pastoral care network but there's a movement to be opened up in there somewhere

banning guns 'until we have a society more conducive to mental stability' might be a bandaid measure but it would create so much opposition and an illegal market, all for something that 'truly dedicated evildoers' will find a way to override anyway. i loathe the symbolism of guns and gunplay - the veneration of instant death, grotesque hits of testosterone (see my post on having killed something with a gun - momentary sense of achievement and subsequent tasty flesh consumed eventually by nauseous realisation of immaturity) but if they're what keep some people happy then surely some kinda spooky Orwellian solution like microchipping every gun and sending an automatic alert to the feds if they get within 500m of a school/university is preferable

strikes me that purchasing a gun should require the same kinda show of dedication and good sense that purchasing a car does. both kill lots of people in the wrong hands aye

― torn between Carl Jenkinson, Scott Walker and Malcolm X (once a week is ample), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:47 (twelve years ago)

it would create so much opposition and an illegal market

we won't really know if this will happen until we try so let's just try and see, okay?

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:49 (twelve years ago)

'why don't we just fix the simple and easily solvable problems that are poverty and social alienation and psychological illness instead of laying all the blame on guns'

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:49 (twelve years ago)

memetic worldwide drive towards fellowship. expressed crudely, 'think of anyone left behind? pay them a visit. give them some of your time'*. youtube, popstars chanting it. catchphrases. the COMMODIFICATION of COMMUNITY, ironic huh, well use the tools of the oppressor, they're there right

*fine line between this and condescension or even 'clowning of the loner', needs refinement

― torn between Carl Jenkinson, Scott Walker and Malcolm X (once a week is ample), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:53 (twelve years ago)

Jeffrey Goldberg is such an idiot that I can't read more than a few sentences of that "round table".

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:53 (twelve years ago)

as zs said, there is nothing either/or about this oawia.

yes we should attempt to have a more lovey hippie whatever society, yes we should have better mental health services, ps we should ban guns because they greatly intensify whatever violence there is in a society, and there always will be a certain element. there is no solution that can't be made 'even better' by also banning guns.

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:57 (twelve years ago)

certain types of gun make it too easy to kills lots of people and these types of guns should not be readily available. i was sure we'd come at least that far, that that was p much the accepted position to start from,no?

― banlieue jagger (darraghmac), Thursday, 27 December 2012 14:59 (twelve years ago)

yes, certain types of guns means all guns ever made, so ban all guns, problem solved

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:00 (twelve years ago)

like what is the gun that its not easy to use to kill a lot of people with? wait I found it

http://i.imgur.com/MoKOX.jpg

ban all guns except for this one

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:06 (twelve years ago)

ok lemme be really real here

i cdnt give two shits personally if guns were banned or not, altho i tend to find prohibition a bit of an admission of defeat

i am sympathetic to both sides of the debate, altho i find gun-veneration distasteful

i think banning guns would be so momentous and shocking to the us psyche that many people would assume that the paradigm had shifted for good, whereas it really wouldnt have - there wd still be isolation and there wd still be resultant evil

rly cant see how there wouldnt be a booming, extortionate underground market and how it wouldnt be possible to get hold of a piece very, very easily

this shit goes WAY deeper than a legislative banned/not banned dichotomy. maybe after a few generations there'd be an institutionalised lack of attraction to guns, but that wd take WAY longer than a serious, determined mental-health wake-up campaign, which we are as a globe in dire need of right fucking now, and im not sheepling you guys coz i know you agree

how wd a ban be enforced? interested. im open-minded to yr arguments but im unsure how they can be practically manifested. i know its not an either/or but i really dont want to lose the big picture amidst the hypothetical legislative restriction of one type of lethal weapon

p.s. in britain we have a so-called KNIFE CRIMEWAVE. cant ban knives, right? yeah so the campaign is 'what are you packing', showing youths with table-tennis bats n whatnot in their jeans. kinda lame but its positive, hinting in the right direction

― torn between Carl Jenkinson, Scott Walker and Malcolm X (once a week is ample), Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:07 (twelve years ago)

I would take a knife crime wave over a gun crime wave any day if the fucking week, twice on Tuesdays

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:11 (twelve years ago)

p.s. if i end up bludgeoned to death by a ping-pong-bat-wielding thug you have my permission to posthumously permaban

― torn between Carl Jenkinson, Scott Walker and Malcolm X (once a week is ample), Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:12 (twelve years ago)

dont hear of too many multi-victim random knifing sprees

― banlieue jagger (darraghmac), Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:17 (twelve years ago)

you can think of this better if you visualize a little model

let's say s = social factors that contribute to someone wanting to commit a violent act, p = psychological factors, e = economic

s + p + e ends up being the likelihood of someone wanting to commit a violent act

w is ease of access to tools for violent crime. 'w' is higher in a brazilian ghetto w/ guns everywhere and lower in an indian ghetto w/o guns everywhere.

x is 'prevention' that isn't already factored into previous variables, so like, police/laws. and m is the murder rate.

(S + P + E) * W - X = M

is fixing social problems going to help lower the murder rate? yes, it will lower s.
is trying to fix povery goign to help? yes. it will lower e.
would doubling the police force help? yes (probably.)

but no matter what s+p+e currently add up to, and no matter what other things we're doing at the same time to fight crime there is no reason not to also want to lower w.

guns are highly efficient tools that were ultimately designed to kill. every other discussion we're having about what to do to fix society does not change that fact. anything we can do to make them more difficult to acquire is, in itself, a step in the right direction and is not coming at any real social price beyond 'it's a little harder for milo to play shoot the paper'

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:21 (twelve years ago)

but no matter what s+p+e currently add up to, and no matter what other things we're doing at the same time to fight crime there is no reason not to also want to lower w.

you're forgetting that there's a giant NRA logo above the equation that's shitting all over everything

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:23 (twelve years ago)

people who are like 'no u see we must attack ~the root~ of the problem, which is s+p+e' are being deceitful. there is no such thing as ~the root~, there are countless contributing factors to someone getting murdered and we should do as much as we can to fight all of them. including, but not limited to making it more difficult for people to acquire tools that were developed to kill people.

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 15:29 (twelve years ago)

Second paragraph of your first post there just highlights that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to guns and "capabilities." Not only are you implacable for reasons you've set in stone, you may simply be too dim to even consider things on a factual basis if you wished to.

you're an ass, fuck off

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:30 (twelve years ago)

you're apparently not bright enough to get the basic fact that guns are killing machines, and therefore they freak people out more than involuntary homicides from DUIs or even murders by other means. you have argued that they are not inherently dangerous, and they weren't designed to kill things. these things are asinine, absurd, moronic. you're dispassion, you're mocking and contempt of others fears on this subject, your clinging to "the numbers" (1 death is a tragedy, 1000 is a statistic) is disturbing. fuck your "factual basis", only fact is "guns=killing machines", a fact which you are too dim to grasp apparently.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:36 (twelve years ago)

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

this is a good start, as gun owners should be treated like people w/ a history of sex crime

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:37 (twelve years ago)

milo's clinging to 'the numbers' isn't disturbing it just suggests he sucks at math

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:41 (twelve years ago)

Gun violence may be a complex, multifactorial issue, but some aspects (e.g., background checks, or the lack of them in many instances) are pretty straightforward. Sensible improvement in such areas would save lives, and forgive me for being so boring, but that would be a good thing.

Jerry Nunziato, former ATF special agent and head of the National Tracing Center at ATF, on the gun show loophole:

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/detail/jerry-nunziato

Nunziato again, on the extent to which the ATF has allowed itself to be controlled by the gun lobby:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2012/dec/27/shortcomings-prevent-tf-curbing-gun-violence/

― collardio gelatinous, Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:04 (twelve years ago)

you're apparently not bright enough to get the basic fact that guns are killing machines, and therefore they freak people out more than involuntary homicides from DUIs or even murders by other means. you have argued that they are not inherently dangerous, and they weren't designed to kill things. these things are asinine, absurd, moronic. you're dispassion, you're mocking and contempt of others fears on this subject, your clinging to "the numbers" (1 death is a tragedy, 1000 is a statistic) is disturbing. fuck your "factual basis", only fact is "guns=killing machines", a fact which you are too dim to grasp apparently.

That's sweet and all, but we were talking about types of guns, remember? Shotguns and 'assault rifles.' I didn't mention "murders by other means."

I certainly didn't suggest that guns are "not inherently dangerous," you twit.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:45 (twelve years ago)

You do that to ensure they're not dangerous, Z S. Obviously guns are dangerous - they fire a metal projectile at high speeds that can wound or kill - but that doesn't mean they're inherently dangerous or malicious.
You also follow those rules to ingrain proper handling - you don't point the gun at your friend even when you know beyond belief that it's not loaded so that you don't accidentally do that when it is loaded.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:26 PM (1 week ago)

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:49 (twelve years ago)

no I agree with milo, guns are not inherently dangerous, in fact they're not dangerous at all.

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:50 (twelve years ago)

for me to poop on

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:51 (twelve years ago)

^^^the great ilx gun control debate ;)

― torn between Carl Jenkinson, Scott Walker and Malcolm X (once a week is ample), Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:53 (twelve years ago)

You forgot the other part, Z_S.
"by inherently dangerous, I mean that without something in the chamber a gun is just a block of steel in an odd shape"

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 17:59 (twelve years ago)

You didn't mention murders by other means, I did. You did mention reckless homicide by DUI and equate it to murder by firearm about a zillion times.
I'm against all guns, shotguns, assault rifles, cap guns, all of them. The only reason I am making differentiations among them (it's idiocy to argue that they are all equally dangerous...this is not about statistics, the number of deaths attributed to them, it's about design of the weapon. an atom bomb is more lethal and destructive than a slingshot. everything that shoots a metal projectile isn't magically equal to every other thing that does so) is because that seems to be a good place to start restricting gun "rights" because no civilian needs to kill lots of moving targets quickly.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:00 (twelve years ago)

and a lightbulb without electricity is just glass in an odd shape, the fuck is even your point

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:01 (twelve years ago)

xp - in the specific context of a gun I know to be unloaded, there is no inherent danger to them.

But that's why the first safety rule is to check - until you are absolutely sure that it is unloaded, every gun is assumed to be loaded and thus dangerous.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:02 (twelve years ago)

the fuck is your point

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:04 (twelve years ago)

cars don't go til you put gas in them, great insight

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:05 (twelve years ago)

milo's clinging to 'the numbers' isn't disturbing it just suggests he sucks at math

― iatee, Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:41 AM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah. he's sort of like the geir of guns, or like one of those libertarians who just repeats "that's bad econ"

― k3vin k., Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:06 (twelve years ago)

not to be picky, but i brought that up because you just said "I certainly didn't suggest that guns are 'not inherently dangerous,'", when in fact you have said "Obviously guns are dangerous - they fire a metal projectile at high speeds that can wound or kill - but that doesn't mean they're inherently dangerous or malicious." later you further defined your definition of 'inherently dangerous', but that doesn't matter here. you didn't just suggest or imply that guns were not inherently dangerous, you actually typed out the words "that doesn't mean they're inherently dangerous".

anyway.

i'm kinda surprised you're still resorting to this argument that there is no inherent danger to a gun, and that's why the first safety rule is to assume the gun is loaded and dangerous. you know, a shipping container full of raving insane lions that haven't been fed in 2 weeks isn't inherently dangerous - that's why you take safety precautions to make sure that they don't claw their way out of the container and eat everyone.

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:08 (twelve years ago)

The only reason I am making differentiations among them (it's idiocy to argue that they are all equally dangerous...

Thing is, we were talking about one kind of gun ("pump-action shotgun") in comparison to assault rifles. They are "equally dangerous" by any measure - and the former are "more dangerous" statistically.
See, even if you just want to make this about mass killings... shotguns are used in mass killings. They're idiot-proof, unlike more complicated semi-automatic rifles where things routinely go wrong.

Tombot was introducing the "well, grandpa's duck shotgun isn't as bad" angle, and that angle is bullshit.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:08 (twelve years ago)

it's cool that all gun owners everywhere all remember to check first, if the gun is loaded, because guns are just these hunks of metal that aren't dangerous, and can't kill people

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:09 (twelve years ago)

Let me restate my posisiton then in light of this: I am against the combination of guns and bullets.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:10 (twelve years ago)

no, see, the guns are just pieces of metal that shoot bullets out and can kill people. they're very dangerous! that's why the first rule when you handle these dangerous objects is to assume they're loaded, even if you're almost absolutely sure that they aren't. because they're very dangerous. and that's why guns aren't inherently dangerous.

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago)

no, guns are inherently dangerous because they're just these big hunks of metal that just happened to be shaped in this way that is incredibly safe and poses no threat to other human beings at all

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:12 (twelve years ago)

i just...i can't even begin to figure out what to do with that. to make sense of it you'd have to get bill and ted to fly you back to aristotle's time and successfully propose a new branch of philosophical semantics or something

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:13 (twelve years ago)

I don't know what's so difficult about context, ZS.
In that exchange, you used "inherently dangerous" before me.
"if guns aren't inherently dangerous than why does everyone who uses them follow the sacred code of gun safety (never point a gun at someone else, always assume it's loaded, etc)?"

I was, responding only to your question about how they can be seen as not inherently dangerous - and that is, when you know the gun is unloaded. Guns are dangerous because of the speedy metal projectile, yes? Well, if you know that there is no projectile, no gunpowder and no primer - then there's nothing that can hurt you, yes?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:13 (twelve years ago)

nothing in the world is inherently dangerous even an atomic bomb is not inherently dangerous you need somebody to set it off, you need people to be around it to die

think about it guys milo has a point

what even is 'danger'...do guns even exist? where am I?

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:13 (twelve years ago)

Excuse me for speaking for him, but I think Tombot was trying to throw gun people a bone. All guns suck, but ok if you realllly need a firearm, you can have these certain varieties of them as I can somewhat see a legit non-murder use for them.
Milo you're still denying the differing designs of guns and what those designs are intended to do.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:13 (twelve years ago)

this is like if socrates was from texas and was also an idiot

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:14 (twelve years ago)

max was actually the first person to talk about "inherent danger" and another poster pointed out how he doesn't see them as inherently dangerous.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:14 (twelve years ago)

xxp bill and ted seem like pretty cool guys, doubt they'd take a trip through time to support gun rights. "no dude ... that's not excellent." "wait ted, there's something ... that's not excellent?" "no bill ... not this time."

― Spectrum, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:14 (twelve years ago)

guys I just got this stuff in from california ... forgot the name but I think part of it might be 'blueberry...'? anyway ... *passes out*

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:15 (twelve years ago)

can inherency be inherent

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:16 (twelve years ago)

isn't the only truly dangerous thing...life itself

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:16 (twelve years ago)

without life, there is no danger

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:16 (twelve years ago)

without danger, there are no guns

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:16 (twelve years ago)

and another poster pointed out how he doesn't see them as inherently dangerous

and you agreed

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago)

without guns, there is no life

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago)

without life, there are no guns

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago)

with guns, there is life

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago)

Excuse me for speaking for him, but I think Tombot was trying to throw gun people a bone. All guns suck, but ok if you realllly need a firearm, you can have these certain varieties of them as I can somewhat see a legit non-murder use for them.

And that's stupid, and bad policy. Which was my point. You've banned lots of things that cause little harm, but kept other things that cause somewhat more harm - and if you want to get into arguments about barrel length, let me offer you a secret people have known for ~150 years: all it takes to convert a "duck shotgun" to a "hide it under your coat shotgun" is a hacksaw. That's not true of semi-automatic rifles.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago)

with danger, there are no guns

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago)

without life, there are no danger guns

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago)

with life guns, there is danger

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago)

guns danger, life without

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago)

if life is dangerous and guns are dangerous...is life really a gun?

― iatee, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:18 (twelve years ago)

we should pass a law requiring that the name of guns be changed to 'life gun,' to show how important and indispensable life guns are to living

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:20 (twelve years ago)

life guns, giver of life

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:20 (twelve years ago)

REMINDER: in the history of man, a life gun has never ever senselessly taken away a human being's life.

― 乒乓, Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:22 (twelve years ago)

Yes it's bad policy, because the good policy would never become law because of gun dipshits. The less guns the better, and restricting access to certain guns on ANY basis that would make it through the barricades the gun lobby has put up is Step #1. I don't care what harm they actually do, and that other things cause more harm. It's a symbolic ("guns are bad, this law shows many people think this") and pragmatic ("you nuts won't give much ground on this, so this is the weak half-measure we're left with") act. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Fuck stats, fuck "bad policy". It's the Obamacare of gun laws.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:25 (twelve years ago)

It's the Obamacare of gun laws.

My sentiment exactly. Or, the anti-La Pierre of gun thinking. Yes, whatever strengthened gun control legislation could possibly be enacted will undoubtedly be imperfect, but start somewhere. Now.

― Rocking Disco Santa (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:33 (twelve years ago)

The less guns the better, and restricting access to certain guns on ANY basis that would make it through the barricades the gun lobby has put up is Step #1.

it's also worth pointing out that because of this, Goal #1 of the NRA et al. is to oppose any action that could possibly lead to restrictions on any gun, no matter what the situation or context. that's why you get ridiculous situations like the leader of NRA blaming Newtown on absolutely everything EXCEPT guns, and in fact trying to play offense by suggesting that we put more guns in public schools (in the hands of police officers). that's how big industry lobbies work, guns and otherwise. on environmental issues, the polluting lobbies are omnipresent, no matter how small the matter at hand. they will not give an inch on anything, even if it's some innocuous suggestion for a slight improvement to a bureaucratic process to make things easier for everyone. the core message is We Are Everywhere, Watching You and the result is that no one can possibly imagine taking significant action on anything because hell, if they're fighting this hard on this tiny issue, how could we possibly beat them on the most important stuff?

rambling, but all of which is to say that one of the reasons people get pissed here, milo, is that for all intents and purposes your positions end up sounding a lot like the NRA.

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:39 (twelve years ago)

reminds me of bjorn lomborg. he gets publicity by trying to portray himself as a "skeptical environmentalist", and he takes a different approach than Big Oil, but in the end, he's fighting for the exact same outcomes that the big polluters desire

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:41 (twelve years ago)

Milo do you even recognize the catch-22 you've constructed? Only a full ban and confiscation of guns would be effective (though you've said you wouldn't even support this...presumably because alcohol also kills people so it would be unfair??), would be "good policy". But that won't happen, therefore, anything you propose as an compromise I get to shoot down as being "stupid" "bad policy" "emotional" "ineffective".

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 December 2012 18:47 (twelve years ago)

One thing that seems to come up a lot is the idea that these aren't 'assault' weapons, or that they are functionally equivalent to smaller, less threatening weapons - they just happen to look like military weapons.

Which misses the point: how these guns look is very important to the issue. Manufacturers spend huge amounts of money advertising their products, depicting them as sexy, powerful objects, associating them with wider ideas like self-reliance, patriotism etc.

I would imagine that the cultural content of a specific gun type would affect how it is used. Given that there is no reason to make guns look like more powerful versions of themselves that certainly could be something to look at restricting. I don't know how the USA deals with tobacco advertising, but it's banned here, and I would think that a ban on gun adverts would be a (admittedly small) part of whatever changes come out of these considerations. Perhaps the 1st amendment creates problems with that, I don't know.

― the so-called socialista (dowd), Thursday, 27 December 2012 19:47 (twelve years ago)

I would imagine that the cultural content of a specific gun type would affect how it is used.

What does this mean?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:03 (twelve years ago)

Um, I suppose I mean that the ideas or associations that are attached to the gun would alter people's behaviour with it. Just like ideas advertised around cars effect how people use them. I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with a better way to express myself.

― the so-called socialista (dowd), Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:27 (twelve years ago)

i think someone should take a survey of a few select survivalist compounds in montana to see what type of guns they prefer. I guess you could list out different uses for guns and see what each person prefers.

potential uses for guns:

[ ] protect against the tyranny of the federal government and that damn judge
[ ] fighting off waves of blacks and poor people who want to mooch off my hard labor when the obamapocalypse comes
[ ] shooting pieces of paper/flying discs/animals with poor fuzzy animal families who will likely mourn their deaths
[ ] giving a sense of personal power and purpose in an atomized, disconnected society
[ ] violent crimes
[ ] war
[ ] killing lots of people for some crazy ass reason
[ ] assassinating that damned n****** obama who wants to take away my freedoms
[ ] protect me and my loved ones from crimes that only exist in my paranoid brain. whoops, my son just shot his face off.

― Spectrum, Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:30 (twelve years ago)

oh yeah, forgot to include suicide/murder suicide (bonus points for murdering pregnant girlfriend).

― Spectrum, Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:35 (twelve years ago)

Basically the most benign and responsible cultural narratives surrounding and shaped by guns are still not that awesome. animal culling. I think that's it?

― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:40 (twelve years ago)

had an awful conversation with my [beloved family member] about gun violence and control on christmas eve eve. wound up with him angrily accusing me of being a lying idiot for advocating an aggressively anti-gun stance. the following night, after family christmas dinner, he argued that white people are the only ones who really suffer from racism in america today, which i mostly left alone, cuz where do you even go?

family: they fuck you up

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:48 (twelve years ago)

note: i didn't bring either of these topics up

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Thursday, 27 December 2012 20:49 (twelve years ago)

― the so-called socialista (dowd), Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:27 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you mean culture creates reality? get outta town

― Tome Cruise (Matt P), Thursday, 27 December 2012 21:06 (twelve years ago)

the best way out of a tense gun control debate with family, I've found, is "Look, regardless about how you feel about citizens having guns, I think we can all agree that we'll need some sort of weapons for the upcoming *wave your hands in the air* Zombie Apocalypse" and then while everyone's laughing try to sneak away,

― Cunga, Thursday, 27 December 2012 21:09 (twelve years ago)

you mean culture creates reality? get outta town

Ha, yeah. I'm probably just having an inarticulate day. So does the US allow tobacco ads? Either way, if you have mandatory health warnings I suppose that's a precedent for restricting advertising.

― the so-called socialista (dowd), Thursday, 27 December 2012 21:27 (twelve years ago)

I kind of think that's OTM though - I mean not zombies but the reasons behind the rise of Zombie Culture - the whole right-wing thing is that times of ease and plenty and the benevolent government are fake and eventually everything's going to be a resource race of people who are Like You vs people who are Not Like You and your fancy rights (or unconstitutional extension of rights to those Not Like You) will go right out the window. And tbh a lot of the news suggests that this might be getting closer (environemental upheaval, near or far fuel shortages), but in ways that aren't straightforwardly processed by your beliefs, so they leak around the edges into lolzombies and don't take our guns.

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 27 December 2012 22:27 (twelve years ago)

Bash sorry things getting tangled - these are the reasons for Zombie Culture, they apply to most people obviously, but particularly with the survivalist right and their love for guns (and lack of desire for the government to do anything about it (and to an extent lack of a desire for anyone to do anything about it as it will involve Shit Getting Real and they have a PhD in Real-ity)).

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 27 December 2012 22:32 (twelve years ago)

The US allows tobacco ads, yes.

Um, I suppose I mean that the ideas or associations that are attached to the gun would alter people's behaviour with it.

Well, my question here was less about what you meant specifically than its importance. The guys getting dressed up and spending $600 for a weekend of being taught to shoot better by a former Delta Force soldier might freak ILXors out or look weird and may even have some weird ideas about politics - but he's not dangerous.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 28 December 2012 01:42 (twelve years ago)

he's just an odd shaped piece of organic material

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 December 2012 02:07 (twelve years ago)

he's dangerous in the same way you're dangerous: perpetuates and defends gun culture

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 28 December 2012 02:08 (twelve years ago)

believe me if i took one of these fantasy courses, everyone's insurance premiums should go up.

― Philip Nunez, Friday, 28 December 2012 16:25 (twelve years ago)

Great Gun Control! ILX, Debate!

The Buckeye Firearms Foundation will be providing free firearms training to teachers and school administrative staff. This announcement following the devastating shooting that left 27 dead at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT in December.
As of Wednesday, the Armed Teacher Training Program has attracted more than 600 applicants from several states including Ohio, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.
"We knew this would be popular, but the response has exceeded out expectations," said Jim Irvine, Chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. "People doubted if we would fill the first class. That happened in hours. This is something many in our schools have been asking about for a long time."
While the state of Ohio generally prohibits firearms at school, the law includes a provision that allows teachers and staff to carry firearms if approved by the school board.
The Armed Teacher Training Program is completely voluntary.
"No one will be forced to be armed if they choose not to. The strategy is the same as ordinary concealed carry. No one will ever know who is or is not armed. Those who seek to do harm in schools should be met with armed resistance, even before law enforcement shows up. Over time, schools will no longer be considered easy, risk-free targets."

the

― "reading specialist" (Z S), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 20:05 (twelve years ago)

Over time, schools will no longer be considered easy, risk-free targets.

News story of 2022:

As more and more would-be mass murderers who target schools are finding out these days, it is less easy than it used to be a few years back, when anyone could walk into a school and kill a few dozen children before dying themselves. Last year, for the first time since 1973, the average number of dead children per school attack fell below 5, an important psychological threshold, says NRA president Dick Tracy III, who credits the fall to the growing numbers of fully armed and body-armored teachers. "This is a triumph of our No Teacher Left Unarmed gun policy," a beaming Tracy said.

― Aimless, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 20:15 (twelve years ago)

meanwhile in kentucky...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1484956/kentucky%20xmas.png

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 20:20 (twelve years ago)

a man was shot and killed one block from our house on Monday night. We live in what is considered to be a quiet and very safe residential neighborhood and in fact moved in the spring in order to get to a slightly safer area. : /

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, 4 January 2013 06:44 (twelve years ago)

A quote for the ages:

"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history."

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 January 2013 15:51 (twelve years ago)

okay what the hell

― Solange Knowles is my hero (DJP), Friday, 11 January 2013 15:52 (twelve years ago)

Have a feeling the guy just heard about slavery the other day when he saw Django Unchained.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 January 2013 15:53 (twelve years ago)

i think he's mixing up his black civil rights leaders

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 January 2013 15:54 (twelve years ago)

just a bit

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 January 2013 15:54 (twelve years ago)

If Lincoln hadn't watched Our American Cousin that fateful night, I would have married my college crush.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 January 2013 15:55 (twelve years ago)

But your college crush was Mark Wahlberg.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 11 January 2013 15:56 (twelve years ago)

"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history."

Priceless

― Designated Striver (Tom D.), Friday, 11 January 2013 15:56 (twelve years ago)

If Martin Luther King Jr. had a gun when someone with a gun tried to shoot him, and knew where and when that shooter was going to strike, then maybe he could have shot that shooter first before someone else shot MLK for shooting someone, and the entire country erupted into an armed race war.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 11 January 2013 15:59 (twelve years ago)

someone send this link to TNC please...

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:00 (twelve years ago)

If Sharon Tate had had a gun etc etc etc

― Designated Striver (Tom D.), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:00 (twelve years ago)

if only the millions of free Africans who chose to emigrate to the USA had been given guns on arrival

― non-elitist melted poo (Noodle Vague), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:01 (twelve years ago)

if only the native Americans had had the foresight to spend their money on firearms instead of cholera-riddled blankets

― non-elitist melted poo (Noodle Vague), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:03 (twelve years ago)

If only Buzz Aldrin had had a gun he could have been the first man to walk on the moon not Armstrong

― Designated Striver (Tom D.), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:03 (twelve years ago)

If only every foetus was given a firearm upon conception

― heartless restaurant reviewer (ledge), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:03 (twelve years ago)

if only Elvis had had a gun

― non-elitist melted poo (Noodle Vague), Friday, 11 January 2013 16:04 (twelve years ago)

if only guns had guns when obama banned all of our guns

― arby's, Friday, 11 January 2013 18:37 (twelve years ago)

If only Randy Weaver had had a gun

― REBEL YELL FOR HUGS (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 11 January 2013 20:12 (twelve years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

I'm glad this lady had an assault rifle and was able to defend herself. Oh wait it was a revolver? Nevermind.

― pun lovin criminal (polyphonic), Saturday, 12 January 2013 00:43 (twelve years ago)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nra-app-practice-range-86174.html?hp=f3

― iatee, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 02:29 (twelve years ago)

ahaha. my crappy local FOX affiliate (WNYC) just reported on an attempted burglary of a home on that was on that interactive gun owners map. the entire story was on how criminals can use that map to find homes with guns, and at the end of the story they say, "it's too early to know if the criminals actually used the map in choosing this residence." what the hell is that.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 03:14 (twelve years ago)

sounds like local news

― Z S, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 13:56 (twelve years ago)

The gun map (two counties in NY): http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 14:58 (twelve years ago)

The commenters at NPR enter the debate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748/n-y-website-posts-map-of-people-with-gun-permits-draws-criticism

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:02 (twelve years ago)

xxp local news with a fox attitude, i.e, right-wing fear mongering paranoia. i miss the days when fox attitude meant al bundy flushing a toilet to wild hooting and hollering.

― Spectrum, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:06 (twelve years ago)

Gawker also released a list: http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-assholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:07 (twelve years ago)

I'm still not sure which part I feel more creeped out by: that someone can just release all this information publically, or that I'm surrounded by LOADS of people with handguns who I was blissfully ignoring until now.

― Nhex, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:08 (twelve years ago)

it's weird because I thought one strand of the gun rights movement was that owning a gun increases your personal safety since criminals will know not to fuck with you, so why wouldn't you want criminals to know your address? after all they'd know you have a gun and wouldn't come rob u rite??

― 乒乓, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:13 (twelve years ago)

someone can just release all this information publically,

This information is already public. Just because you have to look for it doesn't mean you can't find it.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:14 (twelve years ago)

xp: They might come and steal your guns.

― how's life, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:20 (twelve years ago)

I'm not with the NRA, but I'm definitely with the privacy advocates. Publishing these names is not journalism.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:23 (twelve years ago)

sure it is

― iatee, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:26 (twelve years ago)

Michelle Malkin and other conservative bloggers have published names and addresses, using publicly available records. And just shrugged it off when people got harassed.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:27 (twelve years ago)

Charming.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_harassed_for_it/

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:28 (twelve years ago)

Jesus. I realize there's a conspiracy theory for everything, but these people are a special kind of horrible.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 15:37 (twelve years ago)

wow. i'm speechless. some people are dangerously unhinged. and they're armed.

― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 15 January 2013 16:27 (twelve years ago)

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

― mookieproof, Tuesday, 15 January 2013 17:44 (twelve years ago)

Jesus. I realize there's a conspiracy theory for everything, but these people are a special kind of horrible.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Otm. I was genuinely shocked to read this stuff today. Shouldn't have been, I know, but ... people can still surprise me, I guess.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 00:43 (twelve years ago)

― mookieproof, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:44 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My God. It's completely one thing to oppose gun control (also the completely RONG opinion, but hey, I'm trying to meet halfway)...another to insult the survivors by essentially saying "the weapon that killed your kids should still be legal and we're going to give one away as part of our pro-gun promotion".

This gets passed off as Patriotism in 2013, folks.

― NINO CARTER, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 00:46 (twelve years ago)

I'm not with the NRA, but I'm definitely with the privacy advocates. Publishing these names is not journalism.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:23 AM (9 hours ago)

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 01:21 (twelve years ago)

― mookieproof, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:44 PM (7 hours ago)

i'm gonna enter this just so i can put it toward my retirement

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 01:22 (twelve years ago)

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:21 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

On a related note, this privacy advocate is publishing public records that contain social security #s: https://acluva.org/5594/state-may-not-stop-privacy-advocate-from-publishing-records-found-on-government-websites/

Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

Today’s ruling reaffirms a June 2009 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that the law, commonly referred to as the “anti-B.J. law,” violated Ostergren’s First Amendment rights. Payne ruled that Ostergren had the right to post the Social Security Numbers of Virginia legislators, Virginia Executive Officers and Clerks of Court whenever the numbers were obtained from a government website accessible to the public.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 01:46 (twelve years ago)

Is it just me or is the most obviously stupid argument ever made in the history of American politics:

The group released a a tough TV ad that calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having daughters with armed guards while he expresses skepticism at the NRA’s call for armed police in every American public school.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2013/01/nra-obama-ad-01-15-13-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra-unleashes-hounds.php?ref=fpa

The NRA ad is titled, "Protection For Obama's Kids, Gun-Free Zones For Ours?"

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 14:44 (twelve years ago)

Fair share of security? WTF does that actually mean?

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 14:45 (twelve years ago)

obama wants to take your guns so he can use them for his own security and be even more safe, when he is already so safe

― iatee, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 14:47 (twelve years ago)

Pope-mobiles for the masses!

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 14:51 (twelve years ago)

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:21 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That they are made public and that they are being published. A lot of personal information on private citizens is made available. Publishing that information takes it one step further. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about a right-wing blog publishing personal info: http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house
On a related note, this privacy advocate is publishing public records that contain social security #s: https://acluva.org/5594/state-may-not-stop-privacy-advocate-from-publishing-records-found-on-government-websites/
Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:46 PM (Yesterday)

yeah i mean i'm not sure publishing the list of gun owners has any value, but you think it should be illegal?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 16 January 2013 22:51 (twelve years ago)

it could be useful for people buying houses etc

― iatee, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 22:54 (twelve years ago)

not saying that it's good that this is public, but someone should cross reference that with sex offender databases.

― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 16 January 2013 23:00 (twelve years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Thursday, 17 January 2013 05:04 (twelve years ago)

Wow, who knew John Howard would be good for something

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 January 2013 06:49 (twelve years ago)

"killed by weird cultists"

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 January 2013 13:47 (twelve years ago)

yeah i mean i'm not sure publishing the list of gun owners has any value, but you think it should be illegal?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If the information is available to the public, why should it be illegal for it to be published? I'm critical of the act, and I'm skeptical of of the reasons behind publishing this information, and in the format it was published. But I certainly don't think it should be illegal to publish information that's publicly available, unless there is a pattern of harassment, for example, but then were not making publishing information illegal, we're making harassment illegal.

I just think that the act of publishing the names and addresses of private citizens should be weighed very carefully and be of some value beyond, "I can do this. Fuck you, people who disagree with me."

I'm agnostic about whether the names and addresses of people who apply for a background checks should be publicly available. I assume that you are made aware of that when you apply. I haven't followed the arguments for making this information available to the general public. I just lean toward preserving privacy.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:06 (twelve years ago)

These are the kinds of discussions we hold often in our student newsroom. If it's legal, is it ethical? Etc.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:08 (twelve years ago)

xxp: that's a great phrase.

― whose black line is it anyway? (how's life), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:10 (twelve years ago)

Poppy Bush is a squish, what does he know

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:12 (twelve years ago)

another shooting, this time at Lone Star College in Houston.

Have there been more school shootings in the last few months, or is the "normal" level (ugh) of gun violence at schools just getting more national media attention than usual?

― Z S, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 19:31 (twelve years ago)

Forgot to link to the story:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8963781

― Z S, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 19:31 (twelve years ago)

it's probably a certain % the copycat effect and a certain % increased media attention

― iatee, Tuesday, 22 January 2013 19:32 (twelve years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html

― iatee, Sunday, 27 January 2013 17:40 (twelve years ago)

i think this might be the saddest interview i've ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLLfZZateY

― Z S, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 05:56 (twelve years ago)

all he can do is return to his son and the things he did, it's ineloquent and fragile

― Z S, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 06:00 (twelve years ago)

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County has issued a radio message suggesting that residents consider how to protect themselves from crime, including, perhaps, firearm training. “With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option,” the sheriff said in the recording, one installment in the periodic public service messages he issues. “You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back,” he said, later suggesting that residents consider taking a certified course in firearm safety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/wisconsin-sheriff-makes-a-pitch-for-gun-training.html

― Je55e, Thursday, 31 January 2013 21:55 (twelve years ago)

CA Dems go HAM on gun control

― Welcome to my world of proses (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 February 2013 16:58 (twelve years ago)

the latest bookforum had an interesting review of Gun Guys, Dan Baum (albeit a review filled with unnecessary quotes). laborious manual transcription excerpt:

The real story of Gun Guys, though, is that of social class. Baum sees his fellow liberals' pursuit of gun control as an evasion of bigger truths concerning social and economic inequality. In sizing up the liberal penchant for equating violent crime with the simple circulation of firearms, Baum asks, "How much more convenient was it to ignore the totality of the lives lived by young black urban men - the group most likely to die by gunfire." But as Baum notes, black perpetrators and victims of gun violence aren't the ones who make gun control impossible. That group would be "the partially educated, rural, middle-aged guys in the bulge of the gun-guy demographic who hadn't seen a real wage increase since 1978." These are the men who rail against the media even though it's mostly on their side, who loathe politicians although they almost uniformly do the gun lobby's bidding, who respond to the real crises of their lives - lost jobs, lost houses, and the broken families that so often follow, "the cloud of indignities" that mark life in the downwardly mobile middle class - with the purchase of an AR-15 and the solidarity of the shooting range.
Sad? Yes. But crazy, no. There's a "scaffold of logic" around the obsession with guns in this subculture, Baum writes. "When community is no longer an option, individual sovereignty becomes an illusion of last resort. Is the media to blame? Sure. And the banks, too, "free trade" and the evisceration of American manufacturing, the collapse of labor and the rise of the big-box stores that replace mom-and-pop gun shops, which had stocked their cases with beautiful eccentricities of "deeply grained woods" and steel "knurled with an eye to artistry." By contrast, Walmarts now teem with "vast ranks of coal-black plastic," ugly Glocks, and absurdist AR-15s, the weaponistic equivalent of a Big Mac - cheap, deadly, and weirdly satisfying.
It's that last bit that explains why we have guns. Not because of their simple availability or lethality - but because there is a pleasure in the rituals of gun ownership and the act of discharging weapons and the stories we tell about them."

― Z S, Friday, 8 February 2013 17:29 (twelve years ago)

Sounds about right, coinciding with the rise of rightwing religious culture. Future shock and late-period capitalism has pretty much given us several annoying decades to try and survive thru.

― The New Jack Mormons! (kingfish), Friday, 8 February 2013 17:38 (twelve years ago)

the collapse of labor and the rise of the big-box stores that replace mom-and-pop gun shops, which had stocked their cases with beautiful eccentricities of "deeply grained woods" and steel "knurled with an eye to artistry." By contrast, Walmarts now teem with "vast ranks of coal-black plastic," ugly Glocks, and absurdist AR-15s, the weaponistic equivalent of a Big Mac - cheap, deadly, and weirdly satisfying.

This is horrible and stupid. Most gun stores are still "mom-and-pop" shops; Wal-Mart, when it does sell guns, doesn't sell handguns and has only recently sold AR-15s. Their mainstay is still hunting rifles. Big outdoor chains that do sell guns are more than happy to sell you wood and steel hunting rifles and shotguns (which make up over half the inventory of every Cabela's/Bass Pro/Gander Mtn/Academy I've been to) and revolvers in addition to modern plastic guns.
The 1911 - now 102 years old - is a top seller and at any of these places you'll find a half dozen (or two dozen, in some places) variations on the model.
We have Glocks and AR-15s because the technology exists to have them now, they're lighter, simpler and less maintenance intensive.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 8 February 2013 21:37 (twelve years ago)

When community is no longer an option, individual sovereignty becomes an illusion of last resort.

So poignant and true.

― sleeve, Friday, 8 February 2013 21:49 (twelve years ago)

sounds like the tagline for a Rock movie

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 February 2013 21:49 (twelve years ago)

glad milo cleared that up

― manti 乒乓 (k3vin k.), Friday, 8 February 2013 22:27 (twelve years ago)

i don't really buy the "scaffold of logic" shown there tbh, but i'd need to see the orig article and work out a more considered response.

― goole, Friday, 8 February 2013 22:30 (twelve years ago)

horrible AND stupid

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 8 February 2013 23:43 (twelve years ago)

To those who feel that the second amendment is about being able to defend and retaliate against oppressive and tyrannical agents of government: Chris Dorner is your poster child.

― Loud guitars shit all over "Bette Davis Eyes" (NYCNative), Wednesday, 13 February 2013 06:41 (twelve years ago)

Milo, I'm really enjoying your posts. Your arguments are as sharp as razors and you're also impressively prolific. Do you blog or publish or is this your only forum? This is such a massive thread that I haven't been able to read everything, so I'm not sure what you think about concealed carry laws. What do you think about extending concealed carry rights to all able-bodied adults without violent criminal convictions? Since most well-dressed white Americans can go decades or entire lifetimes without being frisked or even questioned, they're already able to carry illegally concealed weapons without much risk. It seems to me that laws against concealed weapons disproportionally penalize minorities and disadvantages groups. Thoughts?

― Jak, Saturday, 23 February 2013 04:57 (twelve years ago)

laws against concealed weapons disproportionally penalize minorities and disadvantages groups.

I would suppose that would depend on how one views the 'advantages' that come with carrying a concealed handgun wherever one goes. afaics, the only advantage it confers is the ability to draw one's gun from its holster and fire it at someone. As advantages in life go, this one seems... somewhat questionable.

― Aimless, Saturday, 23 February 2013 05:11 (twelve years ago)

Since wrongful convictions do not have a flat racial spectrum, I guess we just have to legalize everything now.

― that Django got me Nuages (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, 23 February 2013 07:42 (twelve years ago)

I wonder how many lifetimes it's been since the highlander was frisked

― that Django got me Nuages (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, 23 February 2013 07:46 (twelve years ago)

A friend of mine is in construction, and works some pretty bad neighborhoods. Last night he mentioned considering carrying a gun at times, so I brought up the gun fallacy: if you feel so threatened you need to carry a gun, let alone possibly need to use your gun, the person or persons threatening you will likely kill you before you have a chance to use it. The hero with a concealed gun only seems to have an advantage where either few have guns or gun violence is rare. Dabble in packing where people get shot all the time and you're asking for trouble, unless you're some on the prowl draw-first vigilante. And those stories rarely end with medal ceremonies, and mostly exist in the movies.

I liked his compromise, though, of carrying a dramatically extendable police stick. Those things look scary.

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 23 February 2013 14:29 (twelve years ago)

I wonder how many motherfuckers who wore those Metallica throwing star shirts actually went out and bought throwing stars? I hadn't thought about it before, but they probably had a huge boost on the throwing star industry!

― how's life, Saturday, 23 February 2013 14:40 (twelve years ago)

This is such a massive thread that I haven't been able to read everything, so I'm not sure what you think about concealed carry laws. What do you think about extending concealed carry rights to all able-bodied adults without violent criminal convictions?

Well, I kinda go two ways on this. Prohibitions on concealed carry doesn't stop crime; licensed concealed carriers are much less likely to commit crimes than the population at large - but concerns about giving everyone carte blanche to walk around strapped without oversight is justifiably worrisome to a lot of people.

I think there's probably some merit to two-tiered carry laws - unlicensed open carry is legal but to carry concealed you need a license/background check; or unlicensed concealed carry is legal but going through a background check/licensing process gets you certain privileges that are still restricted for the unlicensed.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 23 February 2013 16:52 (twelve years ago)

So I've read a lot from pro gun, anti gun control people about how much they value responsibility, guns are not toys, you never leave a loaded gun lying around, etc, etc.

I suppose it leaves me wondering a) how responsible, in this practical sense, is American gun culture and b) if there isn't another kind of responsibility that's being missed here, as in, the responsibility of not being 'proud' of guns or emotionally attached to them, and just seeing them as items you own? Because you could follow all the gun safety rules but if you're still getting excited by your guns, as a culture, then that might be as much of a source of trouble as any technical lapses in safety.

Not an American and don't own a gun, so apologies if this comes across as ignorant. Am trying to understand this more.

― cardamon, Saturday, 23 February 2013 16:58 (twelve years ago)

i like the idea of a litmus test that refuses permits to people who are a little too excited about having a gun, but japanese gun fetish magazines really put the american ones to shame, so it's certainly possible to divorce an unseemly enthusiasm from practical violence.

― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 23 February 2013 18:12 (twelve years ago)

horrifying ebay motors link

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/School-Bus-Yellow-Riddled-over-6000-bullets-/271160830619?pt=Buses&hash=item3f2271ea9b

― how's life, Sunday, 24 February 2013 01:14 (twelve years ago)

Not everyone enjoyed their elementary or secondary educational opportunity. Some less than others.

― Aimless, Sunday, 24 February 2013 04:09 (twelve years ago)

Django, you say that since criminal convictions are not fairly racially distributed, "we should just legalize everything," obviously sarcastically. But isn't that kind of the exact direction that thoughtful modern societies are heading in? In the US, certainly we've eased if not eliminated restrictions on birth control, cohabitation, drug possession and certain sex acts--in part because these laws were widely seen as disproportionately affecting women, homosexuals or minorities (obviously talking about broader historical trends, not the last few election cycles). In addition, this is the exact reason given for eliminating the death penalty. So why doesn't it apply to the gun control issue?

Josh, I sympathize with your friend and any others who have to live or work in exceedingly violent neighborhoods. Maybe it's propaganda, but I've read convincing arguments that heavy restrictions on gun ownership/carrying rights lead to more dangerous neighborhoods. If your threatened construction worker friend and enough of his co-workers packed, it seems to me that the threateners would quickly learn about the new status quo and they would avoid construction sites and workers at all costs.

I simply don't believe that most dangerous criminals actively look for firefights. Most of them are grown-up playground bullies who want money and credibility but they're not brave. The few unbalanced types who don't have that self-preservation instinct may go out in a blaze of "glory" and make it into the headlines, but I think that most criminals are looking for easy marks - to prey on the weak. Maybe I'm misremembering the sensationalistic "scary gangs are out to get us" news stories, but it seems like they're constantly bemoaning about how most of the victims of gang violence aren't gang-affiliated.

Just musing here, but does a lot of the disagreement on this issue stem from geographical cultural differences? Despite how some like to say that the U.S is homogenous, but in the non-urban West I grew up in, the word "gun culture" doesn't really register. I've known so many gun owners with completely variant attitudes and beliefs that I can't figure out what that term really means - never mind the fact that it seems to mean different things depending on who is using it. Sometimes the "gun culture" is the pistol owners who make the decent rifle owners look bad, sometimes "gun culture" is the mean semi-automatic rifle owners who make the hunters look bad, and sometimes "gun culture" means all private gun owners. If "gun culture" is bad I'm against it, but first I have to understand what it even means.

― Jak, Monday, 25 February 2013 10:38 (twelve years ago)

Mao Zedong said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." It's one of those "too iconic to be true" quotes but I just checked it and I guess it's from Chapter 5 of the the Little Red Book. The quote really resonates with me, for some reason. Our civil institutions are great, but sometimes I wonder if the threat of violent retribution isn't the only thing keeping everything from falling apart.

― Jak, Monday, 25 February 2013 10:53 (twelve years ago)

Oops, I guess I was responding to "Sufjan" not "Django," forgive me, it's late.

― Jak, Monday, 25 February 2013 10:56 (twelve years ago)

In addition, this is the exact reason given for eliminating the death penalty

there are other strong reasons for eliminating the death penalty asides from its disproportionate use against minorities.

― ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (Z S), Monday, 25 February 2013 13:19 (twelve years ago)

my reasons for being anti gun and anti death penalty are pretty much the same. the death penalty is too expensive, doesn't actually work, and there's too much risk of wrongfully killing an innocent person. the cost of legal guns to society is too high in terms of the number of lives lost, guns don't actually work for their stated purpose of protecting us from tyranny or arguably even self defense, and too many innocent people are killed by guns either intentionally or accidentally.

― wk, Monday, 25 February 2013 16:37 (twelve years ago)

one month passes...

Just another law-abiding gun another, ndb, move along: http://gawker.com/5992400/caught-on-camera-angry-driver-starts-fight-with-teens-who-cut-him-off-pulls-out-a-gun-after-getting-beat-up

― ARE YOU HIRING A NANNY OR A SHAMAN (Phil D.), Tuesday, 26 March 2013 13:56 (twelve years ago)

"going armed to the terror of the people"

cool charge

― goole, Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:34 (twelve years ago)

"The most ardent advocate of gun rights, the National Rifle Association, casts the link between guns and suicide as something of a virtue. 'Gun owners are notably self-reliant and exhibit a willingness to take definitive action when they believe it to be in their own self-interest,' the NRA wrote in a fact sheet, called 'Suicide and Firearms,' on the website for the group's lobbying arm. 'Such action may include ending their own life when the time is deemed appropriate.'"

holy shit, tbh.

― Another turning point, a stork fuck in the road (ledge), Thursday, 28 March 2013 11:39 (twelve years ago)

Gun store nixes Mark Kelly's AR-15 purchase

"MacKinlay said he sent a full refund to Kelly and nixed the transaction because Kelly made statements in the media that the rifle purchase was "for reasons other then (sic) for his personal use.""

― Let's talk more my bunny! (doo dah), Thursday, 28 March 2013 13:02 (twelve years ago)

Because no one would ever buy a gun to make a political point

― "Turkey In The Straw" coming from someplace in the clouds (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 28 March 2013 15:59 (twelve years ago)

The city council in a small north Georgia town voted Monday night to make gun ownership mandatory – unless you object.

Things that are not an Onion article...

― Je55e, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 14:44 (twelve years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo

for some reason i feel like i've had a similar conversation

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Saturday, 20 April 2013 17:41 (twelve years ago)

cool that milo z agreed to be interviewed on tv

― 乒乓, Saturday, 20 April 2013 18:06 (twelve years ago)

i did like the whoop dee doo ending

― Nhex, Saturday, 20 April 2013 18:37 (twelve years ago)

sadly due to the nature of internet message boards, such closure is not possible here

― Nhex, Saturday, 20 April 2013 18:37 (twelve years ago)

In a city still reeling from a shooting rampage that killed six and severely injured a congresswoman, contrasting giveaways are being proposed for a handful of its working-class neighborhoods.
One would dole out free shotguns to poor adults. Another would hand out free school supplies to needy children.
Talk of the gun giveaway has divided residents in the Tucson neighborhoods of Midvale Park, Pueblo Gardens and the Grant-Campbell area. These communities now find themselves thrust in the middle of a nationwide conversation about gun ownership after they were singled out by a fellow Tucson resident as high-crime neighborhoods that he believed could benefit from free firearms.
Shaun McClusky, a real estate agent who lives in the Tucson area, said he heard about the Armed Citizen Project and contacted the group's leader, Kyle Coplen, a post-graduate student in Houston. Coplen's initiative has raised about $13,000 to purchase shotguns that would be distributed in seven cities, perhaps more.
Recipients will have to pass a background check and will be given special training before receiving a free shotgun.
"It's about home protection," McClusky said. "If you are a single mom or dad and can't afford a shotgun, we'll give one to you."

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/13/nation/la-na-ff-hometown-tucson-shotguns-20130414

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Saturday, 20 April 2013 21:36 (twelve years ago)

They should give the people a choice, a free shotgun or $500.

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 20 April 2013 21:42 (twelve years ago)

Why wouldn't you just take the shotgun and rob the other guys?

― Nhex, Saturday, 20 April 2013 22:50 (twelve years ago)

once you become a gun owner you're always responsible is my understanding

― brony james (k3vin k.), Saturday, 20 April 2013 22:58 (twelve years ago)

two weeks pass...

i can never remember which thread i use to post updates to the unfolding 3D printer gun debacle, so i guess i'll just use this one.

Eight months ago, Cody Wilson set out to create the world’s first entirely 3D-printable handgun.
Now he has.
Early next week, Wilson, a 25-year-old University of Texas law student and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, plans to release the 3D-printable CAD files for a gun he calls “the Liberator,” pictured in its initial form above. He’s agreed to let me document the process of the gun’s creation, so long as I don’t publish details of its mechanics or its testing until it’s been proven to work reliably and the file has been uploaded to Defense Distributed’s online collection of printable gun blueprints at Defcad.org.
All sixteen pieces of the Liberator prototype were printed in ABS plastic with a Dimension SST printer from 3D printing company Stratasys, with the exception of a single nail that’s used as a firing pin. The gun is designed to fire standard handgun rounds, using interchangeable barrels for different calibers of ammunition.
...Update: Defense Distributed’s political opponents aren’t waiting around for its printable gun to be finished and uploaded before calling for it to be banned. Congressman Steve Israel issued a press release Friday responding to this story: “Security checkpoints, background checks, and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser,” his statement reads. “When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago, I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science-fiction. Now that this technology is proven, we need to act now to extend the ban on plastic firearms.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/03/this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos/

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Monday, 6 May 2013 01:31 (twelve years ago)

i should have included this paragraph as well: "Technically, Defense Distributed’s gun has one other non-printed component: the group added a six ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act. In March, the group also obtained a federal firearms license, making it a legal gun manufacturer."

i had mainly been dreading 3D-printed guns because it would be another way for criminals to get their hands on a weapon without regulation, but i didn't even think about the fact that you could carry them past metal detectors. ugh

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Monday, 6 May 2013 01:35 (twelve years ago)

wait idgi ppl can basically make origami guns? they just print them out?

― 'scuse me while i make the sky cum (k3vin k.), Monday, 6 May 2013 01:44 (twelve years ago)

It IS pretty weird that that bit from the end of In The Line of Fire is becoming reality

― Nhex, Monday, 6 May 2013 01:45 (twelve years ago)

i remember reading when i was a kid about ppl in prisons making guns from magazines or something, i am very confused as to how all this works but it scares me

― 'scuse me while i make the sky cum (k3vin k.), Monday, 6 May 2013 01:46 (twelve years ago)

I'm not particularly afraid of this. Not yet anyway. There are already so many guns available that a few ppl with the expensive equip to gin up a plastic toy able to shoot a few rounds doesn't seem like a big deal. But the future...

― goole, Monday, 6 May 2013 02:07 (twelve years ago)

To repeat my hobbyhorse: with a nice steep Pigovian tax on ammo it wouldn't matter what kind of gun was out there.

― goole, Monday, 6 May 2013 02:09 (twelve years ago)

(what if you could print ammo?)

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Monday, 6 May 2013 02:20 (twelve years ago)

I'm not particularly afraid of this. Not yet anyway. There are already so many guns available that a few ppl with the expensive equip to gin up a plastic toy able to shoot a few rounds doesn't seem like a big deal. But the future...

yeah I agree, this isn't that alarming

― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Monday, 6 May 2013 02:30 (twelve years ago)

ya there are plenty of metal guns to be banned first, lets keep our eyes on the prize

― danielle steel in the hour of chaos (m bison), Monday, 6 May 2013 02:39 (twelve years ago)

if we can't even muster political will to ban freakish nu-guns that nobody likes, banning guns that people are used to might be too lofty a goal at the moment.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 6 May 2013 18:46 (twelve years ago)

ppl are already accustomed to getting shot by a wide variety of fine firearms you see,

― sleepingbag, Monday, 6 May 2013 18:48 (twelve years ago)

It's a single-shot zip gun - you can build one out of parts from Home Depot without needing a $25k 3-d printer.

The whole project still looks like libertarian circle-jerking designed in large part to troll liberals, IMO.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 6 May 2013 18:57 (twelve years ago)

sad but true, c.f. the shootout part of boston bombing.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 6 May 2013 18:59 (twelve years ago)

^ feelin this

(xpost to milo)

― ḉrut (crüt), Monday, 6 May 2013 18:59 (twelve years ago)

one day 3d guns will be the issue that unites liberals and conservatives against circle-jerking libertarians.

― Philip Nunez, Monday, 6 May 2013 19:04 (twelve years ago)

xp yeah, i kind of agree. they're even somewhat upfront about the design being more for symbolic use than practical

― Nhex, Monday, 6 May 2013 19:04 (twelve years ago)

It'll be cool when the 2nd amendment protects a citizen's right to own 'defense' nanobots in the year 2043.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 6 May 2013 19:08 (twelve years ago)

three weeks pass...

My cousin's wife sent this forward yesterday (names removed):

So today was dress up like a movie character or someone from a story book you like. Typically, he wanted to be a cowboy: he picked Clint Eastwood (the Good, the Bad & the Ugly) but he was not able to use any fake weapons in his holster ... you can't even do a paper rendition (or even draw) of a gun or knife in school these days and no lassos either. While we can all agree weapons don't belong in school, I don't think any of us ever imagined that dressing up like a cowboy for fun would ever be so controversial ..... After some discussion about what to do with his empty holsters, he decided to arm himself with the Constitution -- so that even though he can't go dressed up like the cowboy he wanted, he is still packing! (Thanks to his aunt for the pocket Constitution ... )

Context: the boy's dad -- an obnoxious conservative -- is a hunter and has taught his son to use weapons. I grew up around guns and have endured more than one hunting expedition, but way before the rash of gun catastrophes I was uneasy. Am I wrong in thinking this email is creepy?

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:04 (twelve years ago)

the last sentence is pretty creepy

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:10 (twelve years ago)

in general tho I would say cowboy costume does not require a gun so wtf

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:11 (twelve years ago)

also: the boy's eight years old

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:11 (twelve years ago)

I still remember vividly the quiet "why don't you take that home" talk I got from my teacher when I brought my Megatron Transformer to school

― they are either militarists (ugh) or kangaroos (?) (DJP), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:13 (twelve years ago)

That's a different problem: Megatron was a fucking disaster as a robot when transformed.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:14 (twelve years ago)

you can't even do a paper rendition (or even draw) of a gun or knife in school these days

When i was in middle school (mid-90's) we had someone get thrown out of school cos he brought a tiny Star Trek phaser and was fake shooting it at a teacher. Though yeah, I know, "these days", Obama's anti-free speech state, yaddah yaddah yaddah

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:27 (twelve years ago)

"Packing the Constitution stuff" is asinine, obviously. I don't have a problem with kids playing with toy guns, but I'd completely understand a school not wanting anything that looked like a gun inside the building.

Circa 1990, my teacher asked me to bring my air rifle to use as a prop in our class play (Pilgrims or frontiersmen or something) and the school didn't care about me wandering around with it all day.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:30 (twelve years ago)

After some discussion about what to do with his empty holsters, he decided to arm himself with the Constitution

amazing that the 8-year-old boy decided to bring the constitution into it, all by himself.

― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Thursday, 30 May 2013 22:23 (twelve years ago)

His friend went as a Native American for a cowboys-and-indians theme. They wouldn't let him bring a bow and arrows so he brought a stack of broken treaties.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 31 May 2013 16:21 (twelve years ago)

wittle bitty cowboy could pack a blanket full of smallpox.

― wmlynch, Friday, 31 May 2013 19:20 (twelve years ago)

my sister just sent me a photo of the assault rifle cake her friend had made for friend's son's 15th bday. what in the fucking fuck.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 31 May 2013 21:52 (twelve years ago)

friend: "no it's ok, he's 15 now"

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 31 May 2013 21:53 (twelve years ago)

almost to mass murderin age

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Friday, 31 May 2013 21:55 (twelve years ago)

http://gawker.com/pop-tart-gun-tyke-gets-lifetime-nra-membership-refuses-510531201

― Huston we got chicken lol (Phil D.), Friday, 31 May 2013 21:56 (twelve years ago)

And remember, using kids as political props is bad. Until it isn't. Also, too.

― Huston we got chicken lol (Phil D.), Friday, 31 May 2013 21:57 (twelve years ago)

thought you wrote the assault rife shot cake, Granny.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 31 May 2013 22:01 (twelve years ago)

should've noted that this boy's parents are...a litigator and corporate attorney.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 31 May 2013 22:02 (twelve years ago)

that's a terrible gun, kid

― they are either militarists (ugh) or kangaroos (?) (DJP), Friday, 31 May 2013 22:34 (twelve years ago)

it's a terrible gun and I'm walkin with spiders (bc old pop-tarts attract ants, and ants attract spiders)

― a very generous Cordoban (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 May 2013 22:59 (twelve years ago)

when I was in 6th grade (1977) our teacher did an exercise where she had two guys from class go out to "run an errand" and then come back, get into an argument, have one "shoot" the other with a cap gun, and then they both ran out the door. The teacher asked us to write down exactly what happened, what they said, what they were wearing, etc. - it was a lesson in subjectivity of the observer. I've never forgotten it, but more and more I think "wow I am old, that would never ever happen today"

― Flat Of NAGLs (sleeve), Friday, 31 May 2013 23:14 (twelve years ago)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/batavia_geneva_st_charles/chi-10-hurt-in-shotgun-accident-at-gun-club-20130605,0,392342.story

another fun day at ye olde gun range

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 5 June 2013 22:32 (twelve years ago)

Make sure you're following David Waldman's #gunfail series at Daily Kos. He's on Week 21: http://www.dailykos.com/news/GunFail

― hashtag sizzler (Phil D.), Wednesday, 5 June 2013 22:44 (twelve years ago)

Because the incident was an accident, police said there will be no criminal charges.

This shit drives me nuts. Since when is negligence which leads to injury not chargeable just because "it was an accident?" Auto drivers can't get away with that, why should gun owners?

― hashtag sizzler (Phil D.), Wednesday, 5 June 2013 22:46 (twelve years ago)

lol auto drivers get away with that every day

― iatee, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 22:48 (twelve years ago)

True. But people at least have the good taste to get pissed about it sometimes.

― hashtag sizzler (Phil D.), Wednesday, 5 June 2013 23:09 (twelve years ago)

http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20130607prescott-valley-boy-shoots-kills-father-abrk.html

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, 8 June 2013 07:10 (twelve years ago)

http://i.imgur.com/aT9r7w2.jpg

― 乒乓, Sunday, 9 June 2013 13:10 (twelve years ago)

Oh hey just a homemade drone w/a remote control handgun nothing to see here move along

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxThXvuP4Vo

The best part? This effort is all to advertise *smartphone screen protectors.* Just think what a REALLY motivated person could do.

― hashtag sizzler (Phil D.), Friday, 14 June 2013 19:06 (twelve years ago)

that is insane yet strangely satisfying. digging the vaporwave soundtrack.

― ttyih boi (crüt), Friday, 14 June 2013 19:09 (twelve years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/free/20130716arizona-boy-shot-fort-huachuca.html

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 17 July 2013 00:32 (eleven years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://news.yahoo.com/fire-fears-trigger-u-rocky-mountain-ban-exploding-024811964.html

The U.S. Forest Service has blamed the targets for lighting 16 wildfires since 2012, seven of them in the five-state region under the ban. The blazes together cost more than $33 million to put out.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, 6 August 2013 06:19 (eleven years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.kmov.com/news/just-posted/Police-Gun-safety-219327371.html

LANCASTER, Ohio (AP) -- Police say an instructor at a central Ohio gun safety class has accidentally shot a student.

― badg, Wednesday, 21 August 2013 16:14 (eleven years ago)

lol

― sleepingbag, Wednesday, 21 August 2013 16:17 (eleven years ago)

"...(the student) tells the newspaper it appears (the instructor) didn’t know the gun was loaded..."

― Auspuff (doo dah), Wednesday, 21 August 2013 16:19 (eleven years ago)

I mean, seriously

― OH MY GOD HE'S OOGLY (DJP), Wednesday, 21 August 2013 16:28 (eleven years ago)

that is comedy direct from god. i have no other way to interpret it.

― sleepingbag, Wednesday, 21 August 2013 16:34 (eleven years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Gun-rights-rally-to-break-long-Alamo-tradition-4907464.php

i sincerely hope all these people just go ahead and shoot each other

― sleepingbag, Friday, 18 October 2013 22:52 (eleven years ago)

three weeks pass...

Guns & Ammo editor steps down following pro-gun control editorial

― Lo Ambient Limit Switch (doo dah), Sunday, 10 November 2013 22:20 (eleven years ago)

eh fuck em all

― twist boat veterans for stability (k3vin k.), Sunday, 10 November 2013 22:34 (eleven years ago)

He just didn't love guns enough

― reckless woo (Z S), Monday, 11 November 2013 02:37 (eleven years ago)

two months pass...

http://i.imgur.com/ZhJjF31.jpg

― 龜, Wednesday, 29 January 2014 14:15 (eleven years ago)

aw, he shd start a pacifist rival publication to axe cop

― in fact, do read if you hate me (imago), Wednesday, 29 January 2014 14:33 (eleven years ago)

one month passes...

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) is expected to sign a bill that even the National Rifle Association is calling the most “comprehensive gun bill” in recent state history. It allows guns in bars, nightclubs, and government buildings without security checkpoints such as libraries. It eliminates criminal charges for those who accidentally bring their guns to the airport or other secured buildings where guns are prohibited. It even expands the state’s Stand Your Ground provision to allow felons to invoke the defense, and allows guns in public schools by authorized teachers and administrators.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/25/3418602/georgia-governor-expected-to-sign-the-most-extreme-gun-bill-in-america/#

WTF?

― ▴▲ ▴TH3CR()$BY$H()W▴▲ ▴ (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 26 March 2014 15:46 (eleven years ago)

It eliminates criminal charges for those who accidentally bring their guns to the airport or other secured buildings where guns are prohibited.

I thought the airport gun laws were a federal issue?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 26 March 2014 16:39 (eleven years ago)

Yeah, Atlanta-Hartsfield is one of the biggest in the world, that can't be right.

LOL @ 'accidentally' bringing your guns to the airport. Does that work if you are Muslim?

― ▴▲ ▴TH3CR()$BY$H()W▴▲ ▴ (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 26 March 2014 16:42 (eleven years ago)

Yeah they have to mean eliminating any state charges that exist over/above fed charges, surely.

― andrew m., Wednesday, 26 March 2014 16:47 (eleven years ago)

This year there have been two cases of high school students in my county accidentally bringing their guns to school in their cars.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/south-river-high-student-expelled-for-having-shotgun-in-car/article_46e48299-e807-5751-8d23-bb9bbf7b4800.html

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/shotgun-found-in-student-s-truck-at-southern-high-school/article_6602ec3a-9eb6-5517-8bdc-3b64d6779757.html

― how's life, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 16:56 (eleven years ago)

this happened once when i was in HS, kid had a hunting rifle back there and had forgotten in #countryshit

― rhyme heals all goons (m bison), Thursday, 27 March 2014 03:24 (eleven years ago)

*it

― rhyme heals all goons (m bison), Thursday, 27 March 2014 03:25 (eleven years ago)

Sure, and I can basically see that happening with some regularity pre-Columbine.

― how's life, Thursday, 27 March 2014 09:33 (eleven years ago)

fwiw this was post columbine

― rhyme heals all goons (m bison), Thursday, 27 March 2014 10:08 (eleven years ago)

the georgia stuff feels like the policy equivalent of trolling.

"you want gun control, eh?"

― espring (amateurist), Thursday, 27 March 2014 10:27 (eleven years ago)

I thought we figured all this out already. No? Oh, well.

Seriously, though, thanks to NRA nuts and their obsession with concealed carry, every fucking building in my city now has to have a decal of a gun with a slash through it to show that guns are not welcome. The elementary schools, places of worship, bookstores and coffee shops ... as if the prohibition of guns in those places is the exception, not the rule. So dispiriting to volunteer in my kids school and see the stupid stickers up. What does it teach them? That everyone in the city is likely packing? Is that the NRA long game, to try to convert America's youth to their paranoid ways? I can imagine their retort now.

"Maybe if we begin teaching our kids about gun skill and safety and let them carry them we could prevent the next whatever. If only the liberals would allow kids to carry guns to school..."

Throws $10 million dollars at some asshole running for some public office.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 27 March 2014 12:42 (eleven years ago)

had another otherwise-relaxing hike marred by the loud, intermittent POPPOPPOP of someone enjoying their gun shooting hobby. way low on the list of shitty effects of gun culture, but point being that even when it's someone being a "good gun owner", following all laws, being conscientious about keeping their guns out of kids' hands, etc, just having it around for peace of mind and target practice, it's at the least an annoying fucking hobby. Used to play tennis at courts near the local gun club, ahhh what a peaceful way to spend a weekend afternoon, the sunshine, the friendly athletic competition, the incessant POPOPOPOPOPOP.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 27 March 2014 17:37 (eleven years ago)

idk i'd kinda like that

― coops all on coops tbh (crüt), Friday, 28 March 2014 04:11 (eleven years ago)

Seriously, though, thanks to NRA nuts and their obsession with concealed carry, every fucking building in my city now has to have a decal of a gun with a slash through it to show that guns are not welcome.

my city is like this too, every business and office has one of those stickers. except the gun shop, i guess.

― espring (amateurist), Friday, 28 March 2014 17:53 (eleven years ago)

Concealed carry obsessives are pathetic, but that's some "Ugh, why are all these signs in Mexican too" bullshit. The horror, the horror of gun pictograms in my line of sight.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 28 March 2014 18:30 (eleven years ago)

Yeah, nothing horrible about seeing a no-handgun sign in the front door of an elementary school.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 March 2014 21:44 (eleven years ago)

True the gun control crowd are a lot like racists

― badg, Friday, 28 March 2014 22:37 (eleven years ago)

for those with any interest in the 3d printed guns debate: http://gizmodo.com/join-the-debate-3d-printed-guns-or-government-regulati-1555676392

― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 22:29 (eleven years ago)

i dont even have a gun, but if i mention that to people, they dont seem to like it one bit!

― cog, Tuesday, 1 April 2014 22:51 (eleven years ago)

two months pass...

damn, a couple dudes were murdered (shot to death) by a career criminal the other night in the Central District of Seattle and they turned out to be friends of friends :(

― uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:09 (eleven years ago)

I didn't know them personally but I've never had gun violence hit so close to home.

― uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:10 (eleven years ago)

Aw man, that's fucked up. I'm sorry.

― Stephen King's Threaderstarter (kingfish), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:12 (eleven years ago)

(naturally the murderer was from my hometown, go figure)

― uppers epilepsy sh@kedown (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:16 (eleven years ago)

for a minute i thought we were on the right track: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-open-carry-gun-activists-behavior-downright-weird/

but then: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-official-shaming-open-carry-texas-gun-groups-was-a-mistake/

my parents live in a suburb just northeast of dallas (i live in the city proper) and they've seen people carrying openly (i.e. holsters on hips) at the local grocery store. not quite the same as toting rifles or AKs to local businesses, but it's a step in the wrong direction regardless. my question - isn't this kind of shit illegal? why aren't these fools being arrested?

― building a desert (art), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:20 (eleven years ago)

Sorry, Rev. Hearing this stuff gets worse as one ages.

It's not illegal in some states, art.

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:22 (eleven years ago)

It's not illegal in some states, art.

but in places where concealed carry is still the law of the land, people carrying weapons openly in this manner are committing some kind of crime, right? i'm not trying to be obnoxious, i want to know if i can call the cops if i see people carrying guns in this way.

― building a desert (art), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:28 (eleven years ago)

some states have open carry laws

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:35 (eleven years ago)

In Texas, yes, "open carry" is still illegal. There may be a loophole where if the gun is unloaded it's okay - some yahoos were doing that in California a couple of years ago (gun on one side, magazine in pocket).

In some states open and concealed carry are both legal.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 21:35 (eleven years ago)

my wife was out with her friend and they saw a dude brandishing an AK-47 on the side of the road, presumably walking from the open carry demo at a chili's

these people are fucked up

― smooth hymnal (m bison), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:48 (eleven years ago)

i want to know if i can call the cops if i see people carrying guns in this way.

if you know how to dial a phone, you can call them, but that doesn't mean they'll do shit about it. the nra has lobbied through quite a few "open carry" laws in a large number of states, including sidearms (e.g. idiots), not just long arms (e.g. hunters).

― Aimless, Thursday, 5 June 2014 03:31 (eleven years ago)

two weeks pass...

Just from today:

MONTOURSVILLE – State troopers in Lycoming County are investigating an early-morning shooting at a party on Weldon Street.
Authorities told Newswatch 16 that Cody Gorsline, 24, Williamsport was flown to Geisinger Medical Center near Danville with life-threatening injuries.
Police said Gorsline was shot in the head around 2 a.m.
Troopers said Gorsline died from his injuries Monday.
Police say the victim had come to Derek Gair’s home for Gair’s surprise birthday party and that the two men went into an upstairs bedroom so that Gair could show Gorsline a gun.
According to police Gorsline was shot in the head as both men were handling the gun.

A new father is dead after what appeared to be a bizarre, accidental shooting Tuesday night.
Steven Justin Ayers, 33, and his wife had gathered family members to celebrate the homecoming of their 3-day-old baby — born on Father’s Day. But the celebration at 2502 Michigan Court ended shortly after 6 p.m. when a stray bullet entered the home from more than 200 feet away, struck Ayers in the back of the head and killed him instantly.
Moments earlier, Charles Edward Shisler, 62, had picked up a loaded 9mm pistol in his residence, adjacent to the Ayers’ home, and the gun discharged. Shisler was in his backyard at 3708 W. 25th St. by the time Bay County Sheriff’s Office deputies arrived minutes after the shooting, according to arrest reports.
Shisler was initially uncooperative with deputies and “extremely belligerent,” according to arrest reports. While in custody, waiving his right to remain silent, Shisler told officers the shooting was accidental.
“The damn gun doesn’t usually shoot,” Shisler’s arrest report quoted him as saying. “You have to squeeze the hell out of the trigger to shoot it.”

FREEDOM! SMELL IT!

― Disagree. And im not into firey solos chief. (Phil D.), Thursday, 19 June 2014 15:41 (eleven years ago)

We both shot him! Double Jeopardy!

― Try Leuchars More! (dowd), Saturday, 21 June 2014 19:47 (eleven years ago)

His "Don't blame me! Blame the gun!" defense is contrary to NRA received wisdom, which assures us that guns do not kill people.

― Aimless, Saturday, 21 June 2014 19:52 (eleven years ago)

Yeah, that's the shit they always pull. "It just went off! All on its own!"

― Disagree. And im not into firey solos chief. (Phil D.), Sunday, 22 June 2014 03:35 (ten years ago)

it's definitely possible to accidentally shoot a gun, which is just another reason to ban all guns

― k3vin k., Sunday, 22 June 2014 12:57 (ten years ago)

http://i.imgur.com/4a7clh9.png

― 龜, Monday, 30 June 2014 13:41 (ten years ago)

speaking of...

Missouri School Districts Start Training Teachers To Carry Concealed Weapons In Classroom

For a $17,500 fee, districts that opt in to the 40-hour program receive training for two staffers from current law enforcement officers through the Shield Solutions training school. Teachers are required to spend five hours in a classroom and 35 hours on the range with the required firearm, a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol. Ten districts have undergone the training thus far, with three more having signed contracts and even more in negotiations, according to The Kansas City Star.

― Karl Malone, Monday, 30 June 2014 13:50 (ten years ago)

unconscionable imo

― gbx, Monday, 30 June 2014 14:03 (ten years ago)

Who could've predicted that "GUNS EVERYWHERE RAAAWWWR" would lead to confrontations between permit holders, I'm shocked, etc.

http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/todays-top-stories/x1736693358/First-day-of-new-gun-law-leads-to-arrest

― Queef Latina (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:37 (ten years ago)

I mean why didn't they shout "OPEN CARRY BUDDIES!" and hi-five each other

― Star Gentle Uterus (DJP), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:40 (ten years ago)

it's almost like it's unsettling whenever you see someone openly carrying a gun

weird

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:40 (ten years ago)

possibly racist vaguely inscrutable macro that just popped up on facebook
http://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10325598_686712828050789_7324895739350886353_n.jpg

― Look at this joke I've recognised, do you recognise it as well? (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:41 (ten years ago)

yeah good old "you're not helping" politics from the left (also that's been floating around for weeks)

― Star Gentle Uterus (DJP), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:42 (ten years ago)

I've been watching a lot of Deadwood lately. Maybe if we build some open carry saloons, the people who want open carry will just shoot each other.

― Sufjan Grafton, Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:50 (ten years ago)

Only possibly racist?

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 17:56 (ten years ago)

at least in the context i saw it in, that macro was placed as "pro gun rights people, your double standards are exposed by dipset" so the racism is maybe a little less overtly intended

― Look at this joke I've recognised, do you recognise it as well? (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 18:00 (ten years ago)

i have a 'if u outlaw guns then only boss hogg outlawz will have guns' joke but fuck that macro

― it's not a fedora, it's a trill bae (m bison), Wednesday, 2 July 2014 18:15 (ten years ago)

if you take the guns from the citizenry, only rappers will carry guns

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 2 July 2014 23:53 (ten years ago)

One argument recently favored by the pro-gun media and lobbyists is that gun control is inherently racist, because poor blacks need free access to guns to protect themselves and their families from inner city violence. The USA is kinda fucked up.

― Aimless, Thursday, 3 July 2014 00:04 (ten years ago)

one month passes...

https://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images.thehollywoodgossip.com/iu/t_xlarge_l/v1407246777/xmy-parents-open-carry-book.jpg.pagespeed.ic.AsVbFdjifn.jpg

― mookieproof, Thursday, 7 August 2014 02:50 (ten years ago)

which one is supposed to be the child? also why is bob the builder open carrying, he has lots of heavy tools and machinery he can use to kill people.

― owe me the shmoney (m bison), Thursday, 7 August 2014 02:53 (ten years ago)

no one knows what it's like behind blue eyes

― mookieproof, Thursday, 7 August 2014 02:56 (ten years ago)

fuck man, everyone here seems to have mistaken guns for their goddamn lungs or something, it is completely impossible to float the idea that they are hurting people. everyone is apparently in chains unless they own a gun, such is the pathology of us culture. they are all in chains but a stick isnt going to help w that.

― mattresslessness, Thursday, 7 August 2014 03:20 (ten years ago)

choice to use police e-fit style illustration actually incredibly poignant

― schlump, Thursday, 7 August 2014 04:05 (ten years ago)

two weeks pass...

uzis don't kill people, nine-year-old girls do

― mookieproof, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 17:55 (ten years ago)

Glad she didn't get killed herself like that kid at the gun show in Massachusetts did a few years back.

― how's life, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:06 (ten years ago)

^^^

― Star Gentle Uterus (DJP), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:08 (ten years ago)

it's just bonkers even by dumb paper target shootin standards to allow a 9 yr old girl to fire an uzi.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:13 (ten years ago)

scratch "girl" and you are completely OTM

I don't know if I'd trust myself to fire an Uzi and I'm an old-ass adult

― Star Gentle Uterus (DJP), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:14 (ten years ago)

ha i didn't mean that to sound sexist, i'd probably have said "boy" there too. anyway anytime i've had an opportunity to fire a gun i've politely declined (since i hit adulthood i mean, i fired a few in my teenage years.) those things terrify me.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:16 (ten years ago)

Ronald Scott, a firearms safety expert, said ........ "You can't give a 9-year-old an Uzi and expect her to control it,"

― Nothing less than the Spirit of the Age (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:23 (ten years ago)


                              CHARLES VACCA RIP
                       +-+         ###                               |   |
                    \--+ +-________) (_______________________________|  o|
                _____/===%====/======------------------------------------!\
 ______________/ / //! ||||||||||||| (%) ================    ======      ! X
'______________! ! !!! ||||||||||||||| ._================_.. ======   -- ! X
               \\\\\\\ o||XX|||XX||o||_!  o   { o    }     |===----------!M|
                """"""\_!_!_|_!_!_!!!/ !________!-------___X____________ !-.
                                       |    "X  ||__|  |.            ^\\ o |
                                       | |    / |!     ||              \\  |
                                       |     /""|!!!   |"               || |
                                       "----"   |!!!!! ".               || |
                                                |!!+-+!!|                | |
                                                |!!|:|!!|                | |
                                                `--+-+--"                `-"
                                                 |%%#|
                                                 |%%#|
                                                 |%%#|
                                                 |%%#|
                                                 |#%#|
                                                 |###|
                                                 |###|
                                                 +---+

― Nothing less than the Spirit of the Age (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:27 (ten years ago)

why is the limit even 10 years old? Do you really gain Uzi touting ability in that one year?

― Peeking at Peak Petty (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:38 (ten years ago)

Congrats to those parents, though, for scarring the child with the experience of killing a man when she's this young.

― Welcome to my spooooooky carnival! Hope I don't... blow your mind! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:39 (ten years ago)

The video is horrifying

― 龜, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 18:46 (ten years ago)

america is horrifying!

― ian, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 19:03 (ten years ago)

she was no angel.

― am0n, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 19:23 (ten years ago)

Congrats to those parents, though, for scarring the child with the experience of killing a man when she's this young.

my first thought when i heard the story this morning.

― Daphnis Celesta, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 19:25 (ten years ago)

so stupid

― I have a website, Glen is very active on Facebook. (cajunsunday), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 19:28 (ten years ago)

How on earth are you allowed to set up shop as a family attraction based around firing military grade automatic weaponry

― cardamon, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 20:07 (ten years ago)

there's a sign for a place in Green Bay called "Family Shooting Academy" that I always laugh at. cute logo:

http://img2.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/280/media/images/Family_Shooting_Academy__329725.png

― Maggie killed Quagmire (collest baby ever) (frogbs), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 20:10 (ten years ago)

Danas questioned why the instructor in Arizona was standing immediately to the left of the Uzi, which would have recoiled in that direction.

"It's an awful shame," he said. "He shouldn't have been to the left side of the gun... But that child should not have been shooting anything other than a single-shot firearm."

Danas, whose daughters are 11 and 13, said his girls learned to shoot when they were 4 years old, with a single-shot, .22-caliber pistol.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:18 (ten years ago)

at least use a pellet gun, sheesh

― example (crüt), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:21 (ten years ago)

I mean, right? Or one that fires blanks or something?

― how's life, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:31 (ten years ago)

or just do something else entirely

― post...aftermath (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:51 (ten years ago)

http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

http://i.imgur.com/KXNCu61.jpg

― 龜, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 22:02 (ten years ago)

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/08/26/bitter-irony/

― Welcome to my spooooooky carnival! Hope I don't... blow your mind! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 27 August 2014 23:42 (ten years ago)

Plus, in other gun culture news . . .

The star of the Discovery Channel’s reality show Sons of Guns was arrested Tuesday on charges of aggravated rape of his daughter.
According to FoxNews.com, the East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Sheriff’s Department confirmed that Hayden is accused of raping his 14-year-old daughter in a series of assaults that began with him taking her virginity at the age of 11.
TMZ reported that Hayden’s daughter is backing up the allegations, claiming that her father forced her to participate in oral and vaginal sex “almost daily” for the past three years.

― Welcome to my spooooooky carnival! Hope I don't... blow your mind! (Phil D.), Thursday, 28 August 2014 00:34 (ten years ago)

http://myparentsopencarry.com/images/tdtrlogo.jpg

― am0n, Thursday, 28 August 2014 15:30 (ten years ago)

The range owner said the instructor who died was a very close friend, like a brother to him. And then defended keeping the range open and continuing to hold CHILDREN'S BIRTHDAY PARTIES involving firearms.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Thursday, 28 August 2014 15:35 (ten years ago)

Basically if I were his actual brother I might be worried.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Thursday, 28 August 2014 15:36 (ten years ago)

By god men didn't fight and die so children could be stripped of the right to be made to shoot Uzis by their crappy parents

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Thursday, 28 August 2014 15:39 (ten years ago)

seriously. even if your kid genuinely wants to shoot a gun, she can probably be satisfied with playing baseball for awhile.

― post...aftermath (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 28 August 2014 16:14 (ten years ago)

The Amazon reviews of My Parents Open Carry are predictably entertaining:

http://www.amazon.com/Parents-carry-Brian-Nathan-Nephew/dp/098317511X

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 28 August 2014 16:27 (ten years ago)

I think what you need to ask yourself is, "Will I be a cooler parent/person after my 9-yo daughter has fired an Uzi?" and if the answer is yes, kill yourself.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Thursday, 28 August 2014 16:32 (ten years ago)

Or just let her fire that Uzi. Odds are ...

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 28 August 2014 16:33 (ten years ago)

oh americapaws

― FYI Macedonia (Tom D.), Thursday, 28 August 2014 16:41 (ten years ago)

Family of instructor killed at Arizona gun range does not blame girl

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/us-usa-arizona-shooting-idUSKBN0GT2AA20140829

― Dokken played here for a Ribfest and people were total assholes (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 29 August 2014 20:27 (ten years ago)

They... probably could've phrased the headline better.

― Nhex, Saturday, 30 August 2014 19:15 (ten years ago)

https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena_images/131922/original_be819b4a974201ffbab47f862ad1217d.jpg

― Karl Malone, Friday, 5 September 2014 18:53 (ten years ago)

That's what we get for hating their freedom.

― Aimless, Friday, 5 September 2014 18:55 (ten years ago)

Coming this Fall... to NBC

― the other song about butts in the top 5 (forksclovetofu), Friday, 5 September 2014 18:57 (ten years ago)

i wish that was the poster for 'death wish 6'

― am0n, Friday, 5 September 2014 18:57 (ten years ago)

surely that bump is about ready to shoot its first Uzi

― Daphnis Celesta, Friday, 5 September 2014 19:05 (ten years ago)

http://media.theonion.com/images/articles/article/378/Pre-Natal-Shooting_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg

― am0n, Friday, 5 September 2014 19:07 (ten years ago)

The girl's parents asked that their case not be used in the debate.

"Although certain people will seek to use this tragedy for their own partisan purposes and agenda, the family asks all compassionate Americans to pray for their children and the entire Vacca family," their statement said. "Please respect both families' privacy as they seek to deal with this tragic accident."

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, 5 September 2014 19:11 (ten years ago)

agree that real incidents have no place in debates on gun safety

― Daphnis Celesta, Friday, 5 September 2014 19:12 (ten years ago)

only imaginary evidence shd be taken into consideration

― Daphnis Celesta, Friday, 5 September 2014 19:12 (ten years ago)

If only there were a way such a tragedy could have been avoided.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 September 2014 19:13 (ten years ago)

I really love how any sane person suggesting "this was terrible parenting and now this girl is scarred for life" is just partisan politics. I see where they stand now though. Feel even worse for the girl now.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, 5 September 2014 19:32 (ten years ago)

I'd feel even worse for her if she lived in a place where they did not allow her to fire Uzis.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 September 2014 19:42 (ten years ago)

Presumably, the correct non-partisan attitude would be 'it was a horrible and tragic event, but these things happen, so what can you do? (shrug)'

― Aimless, Saturday, 6 September 2014 19:35 (ten years ago)

eh, not really non-partisan enough

― Nhex, Saturday, 6 September 2014 21:02 (ten years ago)

if guns were mandatory that child woulda already known how to shoot an uzi and instructor woulda still been alive. also crime would be 0% iirc

― Neanderthal, Saturday, 6 September 2014 21:29 (ten years ago)

Utah teacher shoots herself in the leg at elementary school

― cheese is never wrong (doo dah), Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:46 (ten years ago)

If someone with a gun was there they could have shot her before this happened.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:18 (ten years ago)

why does the Salt Lake Tribune have a "Polygamy" section

― stacked as fuck & imposing (DJP), Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:22 (ten years ago)

~~one~~two guesses

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:23 (ten years ago)

papers have to compete with craigslist somehow

― goole, Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:24 (ten years ago)

fb comments creepfest on that one this morning

― mattresslessness, Thursday, 11 September 2014 21:35 (ten years ago)

there should be some sort of honor code about accidentally discharging your weapon where you have to throw it into the ocean if it happens or something.

― Bitterer than Bitter (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 12 September 2014 00:08 (ten years ago)

maybe have The Rock say it in a movie next summer

― Bitterer than Bitter (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 12 September 2014 00:08 (ten years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/18/us/florida-deadly-shooting/index.html?c=homepage-t

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, 19 September 2014 03:03 (ten years ago)

if only those children had been armed

― mookieproof, Friday, 19 September 2014 03:17 (ten years ago)

one month passes...

http://media.giphy.com/media/oyr3pswQ8B2Sc/giphy.gif

― am0n, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:50 (ten years ago)

https://vine.co/v/MjlE0Qb3P5b

― 龜, Saturday, 25 October 2014 14:40 (ten years ago)

https://vine.co/v/MYDLAngiIwA

― 龜, Saturday, 25 October 2014 15:02 (ten years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/gun-control-gun-rights-pew-survey.html?smid=tw-nytimes

sigh. this is what happens when the SC creates from whole cloth the "right" to own guns

― k3vin k., Thursday, 11 December 2014 18:28 (ten years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/kootenai-county/2014/12/30/deadly-shooting-kills-hayden-walmart-shopper/21058855/

― 龜, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 21:59 (ten years ago)

three weeks pass...

http://thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/i-carry-a-gun-every-day-20150104

I’m “that guy.” I know that bad things happen. Every day. Everywhere. So I try to be aware. I try to study my surroundings. I expect to not see it coming every time. I expect that evil may show up while I’m shopping or walking through the mall or eating at a restaurant. It doesn’t make me crazy. It doesn’t make me paranoid. It simply makes me aware. Unlike a lot of people that walk by me every day. Looking at their phones, their notes, their purses, or any of the other distractions that plague us. I get it.

I also get that there are wolves. Hungry. Lean. Skilled at their trade. Studying you. Studying me. They like you. They don’t like me. I see them at the mall. I see them at the gas station. I see them right here in this town. Do they know I’m armed? No, they don’t. They know that I’m aware. I look at them. Kill them with kindness. It’s a like a mutual agreement. I see you; you see me. Let’s not kid each other.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:29 (ten years ago)

I guess it must be exciting to live that way. He makes every trip to the grocery store sound like Escape From New York.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:29 (ten years ago)

Basically that's how every trip to the grocery store feels to me, except I'm not packing. I'm constantly thinking about how to get myself/my kids out in case of some crazy gunman. Also, I don't make any sort of ridiculous assumption that the people around me are the "wolves".

― american tail/american pie (how's life), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:35 (ten years ago)

Maybe he's literally talking about wolves? We've had a couple of mornings where a coyote on the school grounds meant my little ones had to be ushered in early. I should start packing heat, because you never know when they might turn up at malls or the gas station.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:37 (ten years ago)

Yup, every day is Snake Plissken in The Grey

― Nhex, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:39 (ten years ago)

Just another day in Iowa.

http://digital-art-gallery.com/oid/86/1600x705_14953_Hl6_2d_fantasy_characters_warrior_wolf_little_girl_city_picture_image_digital_art.jpg

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:42 (ten years ago)

Oh man, I used to see coyotes occasionally in San Diego. Only once out here in MD though and that was about 30 years ago. Was thinking the other day about how cool it would be to see one strolling around the neighborhood, but I bet that at least one of my neighbors would freak out over it and shoot it or whatever.

― american tail/american pie (how's life), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:44 (ten years ago)

Coyotes are pretty much everywhere in the lower 48 now I think. I was in a traffic slowdown in a neighborhood here (East Tennessee) a year ago, and it turned out the cause was a coyote sort of casually loping down the road. A good number of missing cats have been attributed to them.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:47 (ten years ago)

My friend in LA told me the coyotes are so smart, they send their little pups out to play with dog pups. They lure them back where the grown coyote parent can swoop in and kill it.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:49 (ten years ago)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7ie6WIf-Azw/UMdXNJNN2QI/AAAAAAAAAJU/nXZWNkHy8Xc/s1600/Collateral.png

https://refractionsfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/vlcsnap-2013-02-16-13h29m09s192.png

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 14:55 (ten years ago)

wolf and sheep is standard gun-dude lingo, with "sheepdog" being the exalted state of armed goodguy

― goole, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:04 (ten years ago)

They don’t stay awake late at night watching videos from self-defense experts. They don’t read the articles. They don’t look at unedited news on the Internet. They don’t search out the videos of people fighting for their lives and losing.

― goole, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:07 (ten years ago)

All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:09 (ten years ago)

I know that bad things happen. Every day. Everywhere. So I try to be aware. I try to study my surroundings. I expect to not see it coming every time. I expect that evil may show up while I’m shopping or walking through the mall or eating at a restaurant. It doesn’t make me crazy. It doesn’t make me paranoid. It simply makes me aware.

Coincidentally, women do this a lot too. "Who do I know on this block? Can I run to that open deli in time? Does he really have a gun? What am I carrying that can be a weapon?"

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:10 (ten years ago)

file photo of Ernie Traugh, guest columnist
http://a4.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Video/v4/e5/c1/12/e5c11246-5dae-f190-d5ea-a79092286533/poster212x312.jpeg

― mh, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:10 (ten years ago)

Coincidentally, women do this a lot too.

Yeah, the same paper ran this column, maybe as a response: http://thegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?category=ARTICLE&date=20150110&lopenr=150119985.

I do not know this man, have no knowledge of his profession, personality or character. I am unaware of his mental state, of why he feels the need to carry a weapon into a bookstore. Frankly, I’m not that interested in his reasons right now. My mind is too busy filtering through the various scenarios that could be taking place. They flick before me like movie trailers, and I watch, casting some aside and mentally marking others for further consideration.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:12 (ten years ago)

tbh I am kind of worried about Ernie, with his sleepless nights seeking out violent videos on the internet

― mh, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:14 (ten years ago)

Okay sure. But we do it, like, ALL the time, not just when we see someone who's carrying a gun.

That guy thinks he's the only awake & aware person anywhere he goes? Try anyone who's experienced physical abuse, or rape, or the threat of them. Or people living in a police-occupied community where you get stopped & beaten and sometimes dead. Whatever, I know itt we're supposed to be subtly mocking these guys but I can't help it.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:18 (ten years ago)

They don’t look at unedited news on the Internet.

What the fuck does this even mean?

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:22 (ten years ago)

(Besides Fox, Breitbart, etc.)

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:22 (ten years ago)

i'm gonna take a wild guess and say checking out right wing racist websites

― goole, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:23 (ten years ago)

It doesn’t make me crazy. It doesn’t make me paranoid.

'zat a fact?

― Peas Be Upon Ham (Tom D.), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:25 (ten years ago)

My favorite part is all his imaginary standoffs with people who are clearly just about to do something bad until he silently stares them down. Protecting the sheep without them ever knowing.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:42 (ten years ago)

Show them how friendly is. Force them to buy something. He's not going to stand in front of them in line.

― american tail/american pie (how's life), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:43 (ten years ago)

That post reminds me of Wolf In White Van. Good to be alert in public, now more than ever, with so many states loosening up their concealed carry laws; lately, I've been about getting caught in the crossfire. Open carry laws have been extended too, though so far, there's also this thing where you can post a gun-free zone logo on the front door of your place of business or public institution, even in Alabama and Texas (dunno about Georgia; apparently, at least in theory, you can take a gun into courtrooms, for instance, incl. the one where a defendant stole a guard's weapon [the guard busy texting], shot his way out, killed a bunch of folks, took a woman hostage, but then she turned him on to The Purpose-Driven Life and he turned himself in, so hey).
And you really can take weapons onto the floor of the New Hampshire legislature; we know this because one representative dropped his, and it went off.

There's been indignation, several confrontations about universal-open-carry-but-not-really; may take a Federalist I mean Federal court solution.

― dow, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:45 (ten years ago)

"been *wondering* about getting caught in the crossfire, " that is.

― dow, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 15:45 (ten years ago)

Okay sure. But we do it, like, ALL the time, not just when we see someone who's carrying a gun.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:18 AM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we're supposed to subtly mock people who carry guns around and actively make this country worse. not what you describe

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 20 January 2015 16:12 (ten years ago)

That's what I meant by "these guys," I know it was a terrible sentence but give me SOME credit.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 16:18 (ten years ago)

apparently multiple times per day he sees situations where he thinks violence or crime could erupt in front of him

― mh, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 17:05 (ten years ago)

Good job he isn't paranoid then.

― A trumpet growing in a garden (Tom D.), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 17:10 (ten years ago)

What the column really needs is Frank Miller illustrations.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 17:38 (ten years ago)

throw in some drugs and buttsex and it's a WS Burroughs piece

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 17:40 (ten years ago)

This morning some guy walked into the hospital I work and shot dead one of the doctors in my division. We were on lockdown for almost an hour and had no idea what was going on. We had to hide in a office and saw about 30 cop cars and a swat team outside. Two of the nurses I work with had to bag and start compressions on the injured doctor who is still in the OR. Ban all fucking guns everywhere tbh.

― Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:10 (ten years ago)

Oh god

― american tail/american pie (how's life), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:13 (ten years ago)

That's awful

― Nhex, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:16 (ten years ago)

wait - sorry I'm a little out of it - he's not dead like I said in the first sentence - he's still in the OR

― Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:17 (ten years ago)

dear fucking god

― goole, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:18 (ten years ago)

Goddamn :(

― 龜, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:19 (ten years ago)

glad you're OK, hope the doctor is too

― some kind of terrible IDM with guitars (sleeve), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:24 (ten years ago)

Jesus

― Delbert Gravy (kingfish), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:30 (ten years ago)

I would not be surprised if you were a bit in shock rn, ENBB.

― Aimless, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:36 (ten years ago)

Yeah, me neither. It was really frightening. For about 40 mins we didn't know if there was just a gunman on the loose in the hospital or what. And we couldn't lock the doors to our little area so we were just sitting in my co-worker/friends office being texted things by people closer to where it happened and people watching the news/seeing things on twitter. It turned out to be a targeted thing but it was a while before we knew that. That whole time I was oddly calm but I feel really weird now. I just really hope that the surgeon is OK.

― Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:51 (ten years ago)

there was a hospital shooting at another NH hospital a few weeks ago --- woman in the ICU after a suicide attempt by overdose, but still alive and on life support. apparently she had had a pact with her partner such that if either one of them was going to be on a ventilator or w/e the other would perform a mercy killing and then suicide. so he walked into the ICU, shot her in her bed, and then shot himself. totally horrifying

― gbx, Tuesday, 20 January 2015 23:17 (ten years ago)

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 20 January 2015 23:20 (ten years ago)

Yes, I read about that when it happened. :(

― Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 23:40 (ten years ago)

The doctor didn't make it.

― Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 13:32 (ten years ago)

My sympathies. Will counseling for employees be available? I can't imagine going through that.

― dow, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 14:13 (ten years ago)

Yes they have tons of things set up already. The hospital has been amazing in their handling of the situation.

― Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 14:23 (ten years ago)

<3 take care of yourself

the problem with widespread gun ownership that people forget is that humans are not rational, and even the most responsible gun owner might crack and decide to take their gun somewhere with cloudy or bad intentions following personal loss or trauma. and the places where those things happen are often the places where loss and trauma are addressed all the time, like hospitals.

― mh, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 15:11 (ten years ago)

i'm sorry, ENBB. what a horrible thing.

― goole, Wednesday, 21 January 2015 21:23 (ten years ago)

twice today i visited a certain boston newspaper website to read about this and they are focussing more on that risible new england patriots story, are news agencies finally getting around to downplaying or at least not luridly highlighting spree killer stories or does this just reflect local priorities

― Hayat Boumkattienne (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 21:36 (ten years ago)

<3 E this is awful

― local eire man (darraghmac), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 21:38 (ten years ago)

technically not a spree killing in this instance but not dissimilar in effect

― Hayat Boumkattienne (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 21:38 (ten years ago)

national priorities

― languagelessness (mattresslessness), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 21:38 (ten years ago)

wolf and sheep is standard gun-dude lingo, with "sheepdog" being the exalted state of armed goodguy

― goole, Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:04 AM (6 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the baffler just posted something on this:

http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/american-sniper/

― goole, Monday, 26 January 2015 18:19 (ten years ago)

Good article. Terrible book, On Killing, btw--or, I guess not terrible but before the end I was definitely hate-reading it and making notes of my arguments in the margins. The military history aspects were super interesting tho.

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Monday, 26 January 2015 18:29 (ten years ago)

three weeks pass...

A+ trolling from gun advocates here. appropriate a left-correct issue toward their ends:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/in-bid-to-allow-guns-on-campus-weapons-are-linked-to-fighting-sexual-assault.html

i wonder if this will hasten the left's realization that the "campus rape epidemic" is nothing of the sort

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 19:45 (ten years ago)

campus rape is endemic, the social dynamic and other factors enable it or make boundaries unclear, the same issues (recognition of the humanity of others, personal boundaries, what's appropriate when intoxicated) would be even worse with guns

great now we have a bunch of poorly-socialized intoxicated kids shooting at each other, is what I'm saying

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 19:51 (ten years ago)

campus rape is about as "endemic" as rape is in american society in general, perhaps less so. or so the most well-designed and recent studies suggest. (btw rape along with other violent crime is in the middle of a historic decline in america). that's not to say that campus rape doesn't exist or isn't a big problem, just as rape is in general. but calling it an "epidemic" is misleading at best.

in any event i'm entirely in agreement w/ you that guns are not a good addition to this mix, however you characterize it.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 19:54 (ten years ago)

From Wikipedia article Epidemic:

"The declaration of an epidemic usually requires a good understanding of a baseline rate of incidence."

― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:00 (ten years ago)

also "epidemic" 1= "endemic"

― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:01 (ten years ago)

aimless, that's correct. to claim an epidemic we'd have to see either (or both) a marked increase in the incidence of campus rape over previous eras, or a rate of campus rape significantly greater than the incidence of rape off campus. there's not good evidence for either of these things, despite the frequent citing of some very flawed surveys done a number of years ago. there have been a ton of good articles on this in e.g. the chronicle of higher education.

"endemic" is something i'd agree with (the bar is certainly lower), but again, there's not convincing evidence that rape is any /more/ endemic on campus than off, at least among the 18-25 age group.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:04 (ten years ago)

I don't think we need to argue about how much rape is going on to agree that it happens and that putting guns in the hands of college students is dumb.

I guess if you think all rapes and murders are of the "criminal jumps out of the bushes, assaults person who happens to be walking by" variety, then in that situation having a gun might have a small bit of utility. But even then, probably not.

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:06 (ten years ago)

.. I don't think introducing terms into a discussion so that you can dismiss them as overreach is a sign of someone entering a conversation in good faith

― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:06 (ten years ago)

btw here's a survey of some of the issues around data about rapes on campus:

http://chronicle.com/article/Behind-the-Statistics-on/151089/

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:06 (ten years ago)

so basically it's an argument that relies on people who think there's "real rape" out there and it's of the stranger assault variety

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:07 (ten years ago)

.. I don't think introducing terms into a discussion so that you can dismiss them as overreach is a sign of someone entering a conversation in good faith
― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:06 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

to whom is this addressed?

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:07 (ten years ago)

To you.

― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:07 (ten years ago)

"the best rape prevention program is armed women" has been a gun-nut jpg slogan for my whole adult life; i'm surprised it took this long for something quasi-real to come out of it

― goole, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:08 (ten years ago)

i do think it matters whether we define it as an "epidemic" because that inevitably colors how we handle the problem through policy and otherwise. for example the dep't of education's "dear colleague" letter, which has caused many colleges to start adjudicating rapes in a way that many people (victims and those accused) have taken issue with, was in large part motivated by the perception of an "epidemic" or surge in campus rapes.

but in any case yeah guns won't help alleviate campus rape. that's why i referred to those advocating for guns on campus as essentially 'trolling' in their newfound concern for campus rape.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:09 (ten years ago)

No one in this conversation called it an epidemic so I don't see why you need to make an argument against a position no one here has taken.

― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:10 (ten years ago)

context for dep't of education thing: http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-Is-a-Poor-Court-for/134770/

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:10 (ten years ago)

No one in this conversation called it an epidemic so I don't see why you need to make an argument against a position no one here has taken.
― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:10 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you're right, sorry

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:11 (ten years ago)

i guess i was doing some trolling of my own. this is a conversation i've been having with folks not-on-ILX for a while, so i guess i kind of imported that context here in my mind.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:12 (ten years ago)

"women must be armed to prevent rapes" is once again putting the onus on women to fight off rapes rather than, ya know, punishing and preventing rapists from committing rape

― Nhex, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:16 (ten years ago)

Yeah, I would like to drop that conversational byway. It's mostly an artifact of people coming around to acknowledging non-stranger rape is real, and rather than admitting it's been happening all along, they have to make some amazing claim that it suddenly came into existence in order to invalidate their past inaction.

On the other hand, most people who shoot others do shoot people they know.

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:17 (ten years ago)

xpost

true, but i guess the advocates would argue that it's on a continuum with the sort of women's self-defense training that's pretty common on campus and doesn't obviate the need to reduce rapes through prevention/prosecution.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:18 (ten years ago)

multi-xps

I see that "epidemic" does not occur anywhere in the NYT article.

I will admit I have no especially well-developed ideas about rape on campus, but it doesn't take much thought to observe that campuses have high concentrations of 18-25 year old women, which is a fairly vulnerable cohort for rape, including both assault rape and acquaintance rape.

I expect that dealing with those two different categories would require two different strategies, but greatly multiplying the number of guns on campus seems like a policy that is particularly ill-suited to addressing acquaintance rapes, and a pretty damn poor way to reduce assault rapes, too.

― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:31 (ten years ago)

nb: not having any grip on the preferred jargon for what I am calling acquaintance and assault rape, I simply used the terms that fell to hand. feel free to flay me for this indiscretion.

― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:37 (ten years ago)

there's not a lot of agreement about what the "typical" campus rape looks like. there are some high-profile folks who advance the theory that most campus rapes come from serial offenders who are effectively sociopaths or worse, but many others have strongly challenged this idea. i think the alternative idea--that "good" men commit rape, because of their (likely alcohol-aided) disregard for boundaries--is particularly unsettling.

and yeah like you i really have no idea what the reality is. i think there's a big move afoot for better-funded and more carefully-designed research on this very subject, so maybe in a few years we'll have a better sense of what goes on and thus how it might best be prevented and dealt with.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:42 (ten years ago)

but yeah i doubt the answer will be "guns"

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:43 (ten years ago)

I find that the questions best answered by "guns" are along the lines of "what do I need if I want to shoot somebody"

― "Go pet your dog" is the name of my dog (DJP), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:46 (ten years ago)

"What is the most fun way of making a hole in something from 20 feet away"

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:47 (ten years ago)

you guys should write a jeopardy category

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 20:49 (ten years ago)

but it doesn't take much thought to observe that campuses have high concentrations of 18-25 year old ~~women, which is a fairly vulnerable cohort for rape, including both assault rape and acquaintance rape~~ white men in an environment where they can feel reasonable certainty that their actions will go unpunished, which are all indicators for a high occurrence of sexual assault.

Also having said that iirc the incidence of rape is actually higher among women who don't go to college though, so....

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:06 (ten years ago)

I like to keep my personal career talk to 77, but you are very near the mark xp

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:06 (ten years ago)

orbit I'm curious if there's some statistical reason you call out white men specifically there

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:15 (ten years ago)

or is that just a "white = more likely to get away with it" type of thing

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:16 (ten years ago)

Specifically because it was the very first point at my source: "Sex offenders are overwhelmingly white males. Nearly 99% of sex offenders in single-victim incidents were male and 6 in 10 were white (Greenfeld, 1997)."

http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:18 (ten years ago)

huh. weird.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:20 (ten years ago)

"Sex offenders are overwhelmingly white males. Nearly 99% of sex offenders in single-victim incidents were male and 6 in 10 were white (Greenfeld, 1997)."

http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:18 (10 minutes ago)

this statistic would suggest a large cohort of white american men would contain fewer sex offenders than cohorts american men other races?

― no love deb weep (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 21:36 (ten years ago)

7 in 10 men are white, I believe, so... inconclusive

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 22:22 (ten years ago)

also, at least 9 in 10 white men are men.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 22:22 (ten years ago)

eh shove off, I actually looked that up for north america

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 22:23 (ten years ago)

i wasn't making fun of you, just of statistics

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 18 February 2015 22:38 (ten years ago)

― mh, Wednesday, 18 February 2015 22:45 (ten years ago)

http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

― Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, February

considering 77% of americans are white, 60% is pretty good. tho as shakey points out part of that could be due to who actually gets charged for sexual assault

― k3vin k., Thursday, 19 February 2015 00:15 (ten years ago)

actually check that 62.6% of americans are non-hispanic white

― k3vin k., Thursday, 19 February 2015 00:16 (ten years ago)

"the best rape prevention program is armed women" has been a gun-nut jpg slogan for my whole adult life; i'm surprised it took this long for something quasi-real to come out of it

― goole, Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:08 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

man the town listserv was all about this a few days ago re: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/SB0116.html

― gbx, Thursday, 19 February 2015 00:18 (ten years ago)

nh loves their guns man

― k3vin k., Thursday, 19 February 2015 00:20 (ten years ago)

People in the Midwest don't understand the redneckery of rural northeast, generally. My recent coworker acquaintance is from rural Maine and I have a knowing eyebrow-raise in our interactions.

― mh, Thursday, 19 February 2015 03:59 (ten years ago)

one month passes...

Wow---Currington comes off like a wuss, but he's not nearly as successful as McGraw (who might still get Dixie Chicked, to some extent)(we'll see what the fading Duck Dynasty Daddy has to say; ditto Kid Rock, Hank Jr., Ted Nugent)
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tim-mcgraws-sandy-hook-show-sparks-controversy-billy-currington-bails-20150417

― dow, Friday, 17 April 2015 19:43 (ten years ago)

I have to think at some point that shouting about your right to automatic rifles at the expense of a pile of dead children would create an image problem for you.

― DJP, Friday, 17 April 2015 19:51 (ten years ago)

you would think so, and yet...

― casual male (will), Friday, 17 April 2015 20:42 (ten years ago)

(we just enjoyed a 78,000+ strong NRA convention here last weekend)

― casual male (will), Friday, 17 April 2015 20:45 (ten years ago)

"enjoyed"

― casual male (will), Friday, 17 April 2015 20:45 (ten years ago)

two months pass...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/charleston-and-the-next-time

― wisdom be leakin out my louche douche truths (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 24 June 2015 13:22 (nine years ago)

A generally forgotten '90s episode recalled at the end of this piece by ILE fave Dennis Perrin:

Nothing proved this awesome power of gun cult batshittery more than the controversy in the mid-90s, when ex-President George H. W. Bush resigned from the NRA and published a letter attacking the NRA. The language in Bush Sr.’s letter may seem mild to us today, but back then, this is about as close to raw outrage as a blue-blooded elder statesman gets:... (text follows)

https://pando.com/2015/06/26/brief-history-american-gun-nuts/5b63d36f4248427552398e4d08fe314a0851f942/

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 July 2015 19:05 (nine years ago)

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/S-F-killing-sparks-national-outrage-likely-6366684.php

# of times the word 'immigration' appears: 10
# of times the word 'gun' appears: 0

― a silly gif of awkward larping (Sparkle Motion), Sunday, 5 July 2015 03:52 (nine years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/us/a-culture-clash-over-guns-infiltrates-the-backcountry.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region®ion=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region

what a dumb fucking hobby

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, 18 August 2015 22:06 (nine years ago)

three weeks pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COpoYwQUkAAW_ZS.png

― mookieproof, Friday, 11 September 2015 20:58 (nine years ago)

three weeks pass...

I think this is interesting:

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on Oregon’s Umpqua Community College campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, veteran John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/

― sleeve, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:30 (nine years ago)

That exact scenario has gone through my head a lot of times when I hear the arguments for concealed carry -- how do the cops know who's the shooter and who's trying to stop him?

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:34 (nine years ago)

this is good too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-byrd/are-guns-americas-biggest_b_8062870.html

― sleeve, Saturday, 3 October 2015 01:40 (nine years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

― a llove spat over a llama-keeper (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 18 October 2015 05:11 (nine years ago)

people seem to be shooting toddlers on a weekly basis too cf that horrible story in albuquerque.

― nomar, Friday, 23 October 2015 02:09 (nine years ago)

three weeks pass...

Despite a spike in sales, Hawaii boasts persistently low rates of violence involving firearms, offering lessons for the rest of the United States.

― new noise, Sunday, 15 November 2015 17:02 (nine years ago)

three weeks pass...

https://www.facebook.com/janisianpage/photos/a.357587427661315.87486.357191544367570/913842435369142/?type=3

― Karl Malone, Friday, 11 December 2015 00:49 (nine years ago)

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/12074602_913842435369142_8702280429031007540_n.jpg?oh=88ea513ca6d9d8e0dc6fc0dc58affccc&oe=57178562

― Karl Malone, Friday, 11 December 2015 00:49 (nine years ago)

these days we just send a few big guns, ozzy.

― Sufjan Grafton, Friday, 11 December 2015 05:37 (nine years ago)

which only fortifies ozzy's case, really

― Sufjan Grafton, Friday, 11 December 2015 05:38 (nine years ago)

"Why do we send drones to perpetual war? Why not just send that guy from the movie Rocketeer?"

― Sufjan Grafton, Friday, 11 December 2015 05:40 (nine years ago)

that photo captures the exact moment when Ozzy said that

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Friday, 11 December 2015 05:55 (nine years ago)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/mich-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters-gets-18-months-probation-vows-to-never-help-anybody-again/

“I tried to help,” she told WJBK after her sentencing on Wednesday, before wryly adding: “And I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again.”

She has learned NOTHING.

― how's life, Friday, 11 December 2015 12:14 (nine years ago)

Gun experts slammed her, saying she was lucky not to have killed an innocent bystander.

blowing away shoplifters evidently the right impulse but it's just not worth the risk

― denies the existence of dark matter (difficult listening hour), Friday, 11 December 2015 16:29 (nine years ago)

this woman is a will forte character

― Sufjan Grafton, Friday, 11 December 2015 17:08 (nine years ago)

“I made a decision in a split second,” she told judge Julie Nicholson on Wednesday, according to WJBK. “Maybe it was not the right one, but I was trying to help.”

jeez, maybe people shouldn't have the opportunity to make potentially deadly split-second decisions

― k3vin k., Friday, 11 December 2015 18:04 (nine years ago)

ostensibly pro-gun control liberals who are suddenly concerned about banning ppl on no-flight lists from buying guns are insane.

― Mordy, Friday, 11 December 2015 18:11 (nine years ago)

i really don't think they're *that* concerned about it, i think it's a weak attempt to troll or turn a somewhat right wing idea back against them.

― nomar, Friday, 11 December 2015 18:14 (nine years ago)

it's total black comedy watching these two sides try to outmaneuver one another sometimes

― nomar, Friday, 11 December 2015 18:15 (nine years ago)

i agree actually. no one should be able to buy guns. the fact that no-fly lists are probably unconstitutionally vague and broad is a point in its favor here xxp

― k3vin k., Friday, 11 December 2015 18:16 (nine years ago)

I just had a guy throw a screaming fit when he saw that I was putting up a 30.07 sign (required sign in Texas forbidding people from open carrying) in one of my stores. Kind of hope they stage a protest so I can tow their cars.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 15 December 2015 21:27 (nine years ago)

gotta admit that I first thought "thirty ought....seven?" when I scanned yr post

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Tuesday, 15 December 2015 23:56 (nine years ago)

ditto

― μpright mammal (mh), Wednesday, 16 December 2015 00:28 (nine years ago)

That's how I read it in my head. The sign banning concealed carry is actually a '30.06 sign.' Not sure if it's random chance or one Texas legislator in 1994 thought he was funny.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 16 December 2015 00:30 (nine years ago)

Coincidence, it would appear

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 00:48 (nine years ago)

one month passes...

Editor's Note: Most of us probably grew up having fairy tales read to us as we drifted off to sleep. But how many times have you thought back and realized just how, well, grim some of them are? Did any of them ever make your rest a little bit uneasy? Have you ever wondered what those same fairy tales might sound like if the hapless Red Riding Hoods, Hansels and Gretels had been taught about gun safety and how to use firearms? The author of this piece, Amelia Hamilton has —- and NRA Family is proud to announce that we’ve partnered with the author to present her twist on those classic tales. We hope you and your children enjoy this first installment!

Little Red Riding Hood (Has a Gun)

― mookieproof, Saturday, 16 January 2016 04:36 (nine years ago)

What if the Native Americans had guns?

― rap is dad (it's a boy!), Saturday, 16 January 2016 05:02 (nine years ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident

― the 'major tom guy' (sleeve), Saturday, 16 January 2016 06:53 (nine years ago)

An armed society is a polite society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhBNSv2Rqn0

― astrophagy might not be immediately obvious (Sanpaku), Monday, 25 January 2016 08:57 (nine years ago)

The best thing is, dude already had a gun. He could have just been like "$25 service fee? Well I'll save up my allowance and come back next week. I've got at least one other gun to hold me over in the meantime."

― how's life, Monday, 25 January 2016 19:02 (nine years ago)

that NRA red riding hood thing is a ripoff of james thurber:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/12/thurber-tonight-fables-for-our-time-hen.html

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 25 January 2016 19:08 (nine years ago)

Facebook bans private gun sales posts - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/technology/facebook-gun-sales-ban.html

― if thou gaz long into the coombs, the coombs will also gaz into thee (WilliamC), Friday, 29 January 2016 23:31 (nine years ago)

Tampa.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reports in a news release that ATF agents, along with FBI bomb technicians and Tampa police, executed a search warrant Monday at the home of 24-year-old Michael Ramos. Tampa police had passed along a tip about the explosives to ATF. The news release says Ramos had previously expressed anti-government sentiment and acknowledged being in possession of explosives. Besides the bombs, agents reported finding an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle, a .45 caliber pistol and large amounts of ammunition.

After his arrest, Ramos admitted to making a number of pipe bombs and identified websites he used as reference in making them. He told detectives he bought fuses from Phantom Fireworks, PVC pipe from Home Depot, and other bomb-making materials from Amazon.com. He also admitted to having tear gas, which he bought from keepshooting.com, and smoke grenades at his house. Ramos continued, saying he recently sold a Mossberg, pump action shotgun with a shortened barrel, which he purchased at a Walmart in Lakeland. Ramos told detectives in a written statement he manufactured eight black-powder-based pipe bombs for "preparedness/protective" reasons. He also wrote he never had intentions of harming anyone with the bombs.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41746/anti-government-extremists-terrorism/

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 February 2016 21:26 (nine years ago)

one month passes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxgEeTScnTw

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 13:58 (nine years ago)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-silencers-idUSKCN0WA19E

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 13:59 (nine years ago)

just curious, what is the argument for silencers, from the perspective of people who love guns and claim they want them for self-protection? is it so that if there are multiple attackers in your home, you can go from room to room (after detecting the intruders with your advanced recon eq and donning your nightvision goggles, of course) taking them down one by one without the others hearing and fleeing, so you can achieve a 100% kill rate?

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:15 (nine years ago)

is it so that you can go hunting with your pistol a little bit closer to the area you live without angering the neighbors with the noise?

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:16 (nine years ago)

I've heard hunters claim it's good for not scaring away other animals, and the same argument from animal control people. But I think that's largely bullshit. I also heard (hilariously/darkly) someone anti-silencer say that in an active shooter scenario silencers would make it too difficult for anyone to take credit for taking out the bad guy.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:19 (nine years ago)

The arguments I've heard from gun loving relatives for having them boils down to "freedom" and "slippery slope."

― Je55e, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:24 (nine years ago)

First, they came for our silencers ...

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:26 (nine years ago)

It reminds me of the argument for privacy rights: it's not about why they're (silencers, assault rifles, etc) needed, it's about the government not meddling in individuals' lives, even in the face of safety or security concerns.

I have relatives who buy guns COMPLETELY as an expression of the freedom to do so. They never even look at them (but they do talk about them) but they occasionally buy more.

― Je55e, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:30 (nine years ago)

My brother recently bought another handgun (with a gift certificate I gave him....). I asked him why he would buy it and he said, with surprise and no irony, "Why wouldn't I buy it?" O_o

― Je55e, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:32 (nine years ago)

...but I did not speak out, because I was not silent*.

*(I am a gun-hugging windbag).

― how's life, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 14:34 (nine years ago)

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/gun-loving-florida-mom-shot-by-4-year-old-son-hours-after-bragging-he-gets-jacked-up-to-shoot

― mookieproof, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 16:14 (nine years ago)

If only she had a gun to defend herself from future attempted carjackings.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 16:17 (nine years ago)

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, March 9, 2016 8:15 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they don't really work all that well. the sound of a gun being fired is always pretty loud, even with the suppressor collecting all the gas that's vented. i think in a building interior there's still no mistaking a gun being fired. most of the benefit is protecting people's ears!

ironically in some countries guns are *required* to have suppressors, for sound-pollution reasons.

― goole, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 17:16 (nine years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw

― how's life, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 17:29 (nine years ago)

ironically in some countries guns are *required* to have suppressors, for sound-pollution reasons.

― goole, Wednesday, March 9, 2016 12:16 PM (47 minutes ago)

i get that it might be second-nature if you're from gun country but one thing i really wish is that lefties would't cede rhetorical ground by using industry-approved terms like "suppressor" or "long gun"

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:08 (nine years ago)

Dick enhancer

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:28 (nine years ago)

Muzzle muzzle

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:29 (nine years ago)

serious question - what would be a better term for "suppressor"? "silencer"? if so why would that be better?

― Mordy, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:42 (nine years ago)

because it's the more common lay term and evokes a sense of criminality whereas "suppressor" is the industry-approved euphemism. words can be powerful. conservatives made "partial-birth abortion" a common term and no doubt that terminology helped pass that law

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:46 (nine years ago)

interesting, i hadn't thought of silencer as implying more criminality - i thought the distinction was just bc silencers are not really silent (but they do suppress).

― Mordy, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:48 (nine years ago)

i mean typically when people think "silencer" they think like, james bond and hit men, no?

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:50 (nine years ago)

i guess - i think of video games immediately. but i don't know that james bond associations are necessarily a negative.

― Mordy, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 18:52 (nine years ago)

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

Good history of silencers here.

― how's life, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:08 (nine years ago)

kevin i think your objection -- and specifically the comparison to "partial birth abortion" -- are way off

one thing i wish is that lefties didn't sound totally ignorant when they talk about guns! like not knowing what caliber means or the various contextual meanings of "automatic" or using really meaningless categories like "military" or w/e

"suppressor" afaik isn't an industry-approved marketing euphemism, it's what the things are really called and always have been. and as far as the connotations go, it's letting you know that the gun will not be silent. "silencer" is a longtime marketing term, and a hollywood-ism.

"PBA" was completely made up by prolife activists of course.

― goole, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:25 (nine years ago)

i don't get the objection to 'long gun' either. "shotgun and/or rifle" is like x2 the letters

― goole, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:27 (nine years ago)

serious question - what would be a better term for "suppressor"? "silencer"? if so why would that be better?

― Mordy, Wednesday, March 9, 2016 12:42 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Murdershusher?

― Buckles On My Goulashes (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:31 (nine years ago)

xp. just seems to lump a huge variety of weapons, some of which are old rickety bolt action rifles, some of which are civilian versions of rifles used by the army to shoot people, under the vague term "long gun"

― Cornelius Pardew (jim in glasgow), Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:33 (nine years ago)

seems weird doh

― Cornelius Pardew (jim in glasgow), Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:33 (nine years ago)

the whole point is to lump things together, it's a broad category. as i understand it the meaning is "he had a gun (and it wasn't a pistol but we don't know what it was specifically)"

― goole, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:35 (nine years ago)

in a lot of video games you can hold one long gun and one short? gun at a time. apropos of nothing.

― Mordy, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:37 (nine years ago)

like they conflate shotguns with assault rifles with sniper rifles etc

― Mordy, Wednesday, 9 March 2016 19:38 (nine years ago)

My brother recently bought another handgun (with a gift certificate I gave him....)

Given the concept of just buying guns from a depsartment store blows my mind anyway, all I can imagine here is he's popped into IKEA and purchased a PJISTÄL.

― Interesting. No, wait, the other thing: tedious. (Trayce), Wednesday, 9 March 2016 23:59 (nine years ago)

20 years today since this happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

The Labour government that got in the next year banned handguns in the UK due to this outrage.

There has only been one mass-shooting in the United Kingdom since then.

― Cornelius Pardew (jim in glasgow), Thursday, 10 March 2016 00:05 (nine years ago)

Ditto here, and technically we've had none (since Port Arthur), tho there's been a couple of grey-area cases where 1-2 people were killed,and that siege in martin place.

― Interesting. No, wait, the other thing: tedious. (Trayce), Thursday, 10 March 2016 01:51 (nine years ago)

My father has many hunting rifles that he hasn't touched in decades. He just likes having them. He's never really been a gun nut though, just like having them around?

― Jeff, Thursday, 10 March 2016 12:01 (nine years ago)

i had heard of Port Arthur but never really knew what happened. jeez i don't recommend reading about it before bed, i think it gave me a nightmare. also one of the few incidents like that where i think "hmm yeah maybe it would have been good if someone else had been packing heat that day..."

― nomar, Thursday, 10 March 2016 16:24 (nine years ago)

one month passes...

http://i.imgur.com/mH7AUrg.jpg

― 龜, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 21:57 (nine years ago)

James City County, Va. - NewsChannel 3 spoke exclusively to the man who police say shot and killed a person inside of a Farm Fresh.

NewsChannel 3 sat down with the suspect, 55-year-old Brian Hicks, Monday morning inside the Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail to try and get insight into what unfolded inside the Farm Fresh Supermarket in James City County.

Police said Hicks shot and killed 34 year-old Gabriel Maness, but it's unclear why.

NewsChannel 3's MaKenzie Walter asked Hicks, “Do you feel badly about what happened yesterday?” He said, "Yes, I do."

She said, “Are you apologizing for what happened yesterday?” He said, "Yes. I feel so bad."

Hicks said God told him to commit the crime and called himself God. He also spoke in a British accent and referred to himself as John Lennon.

Police said Hicks and the victim did not know each other and there didn't seem to be an argument before the shooting.

The retired Air Force veteran was armed with a .45 caliber hand gun and had two other magazines in his pocket, according to law enforcement.

Police said he opened fire inside the supermarket on aisle six. They said there is no surveillance video of the shooting.

"I was in the spirit. I was in confusion. The spirit of confusion," Hick said, “Your God, my father, made me kill my best friend.”

At one point in the interview Hicks got on his knees to pray.

Police said they spent the day continuing to interview witnesses.

They said Hicks was two hours from his home, so they are trying to figure out what brought him to James City County.

Police said they arrested Hicks soon after the shooting. He put his gun down in the supermarket and surrendered.

― nomar, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 23:10 (nine years ago)

four months pass...

http://jezebel.com/several-children-reportedly-injured-at-elementary-schoo-1787194310

This is one of those cases - maybe the only case, ever - where I will say it: READ THE COMMENTS.

― Crazy Eddie & Jesus the Kid (Raymond Cummings), Wednesday, 28 September 2016 21:34 (eight years ago)

four months pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C44_PrpUoAA2iJt.jpg

― mookieproof, Friday, 17 February 2017 19:27 (eight years ago)

huh, didn't see this coming:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/21/appeals_court_holds_second_amendment_doesn_t_protect_assault_weapons.html

― a Radiohead album stamping on a human face, forever (sleeve), Wednesday, 22 February 2017 15:30 (eight years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/index.html

i mean i get the self-defense thing a bit here but....idk. hmm.

― nomar, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23:06 (eight years ago)

The homeowner's family is saddened that their son had to take three lives, Mahoney said.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23:11 (eight years ago)

jesus christ

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23:48 (eight years ago)

hard to think of circumstances under which in a reasonable world the shooter would not be charged with manslaughter or murder. maybe if the three were lunging at him simultaneously with their knife and brass knuckles

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23:55 (eight years ago)

btw it appears the getaway driver, who was not present in the house, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder. that is insanity

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23:58 (eight years ago)

yeah that law is fucked, I read about it last year. it's been used to pin murder on people in the most absurd of scenarios.

castle doctrine is so ingrained now that pretty much everybody accepts you can plug a dude that walks into your house. I had a friend who had an invader actually break his screen door and walk into his house with his full family there, he merely chased him off without a weapon.

I'm not saying there's not a valid reason to shoot an invader but I would wager a guess that after one individual was shot, the other two weren't trying to become Jackie Chan. would be interested to see if any of the victims were running when they were shot.

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:01 (eight years ago)

yawn

I know two dear friends who have had family members killed during home invasions in the last two years. I wish they had been armed. IDGAF about these dudes who got shot, they deserved it.

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:10 (eight years ago)

(and yes, I know that those guns are more likely to be used on a family member, just that this particular instance seems like a particularly useless test case for liberal outrage)

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:13 (eight years ago)

Why US liberals are now buying guns too

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:14 (eight years ago)

i think we have to hold our ground in these cases. these are the sorts of scenarios NRA types use to defend the right to possess firearms.

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:14 (eight years ago)

"we"?

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:15 (eight years ago)

and yeah those getaway driver charges are bullshit, agreed

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:16 (eight years ago)

xp we had a whole thread on this phenomenon right after the election. i get why people think is the correct personal decision (even though i strongly disagree) but i will never support an individual's right to own a gun

"we" meaning liberals, anti-gun advocates, whatever. ilx has swung way left over the past 5 years, not an unsafe assumption

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:17 (eight years ago)

yes I am aware that we will never agree on this issue.

I think u mean "way center" w/r/t ILX, but ymmv

FYI most hard leftists are OK with armed self-defense.

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:20 (eight years ago)

thing is this guy *was* armed and presumably had the upper hand when he killed his invaders.

I admit I would give benefit of the doubt in the case of a home invasion and it isn't as much "feeling sorry" for these guys (though they were just teens), as much as not being a fan of vigilante justice

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:20 (eight years ago)

yeah the Che Guevara types but that's cos they're always plotting to overthrow somebody

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:21 (eight years ago)

if the three invaders had guns themselves.....i'd probably let that one go

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:21 (eight years ago)

this was self defense during a home invasion, not vigilante justice meted out on some poor person in public. I hear ya on the "not a fan" thing, though, and I generally agree.

and there was probably no way for the homeowner to know whether or not these dues are armed, those are the risks one takes when planning a masked home invasion/robbery I guess.

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:22 (eight years ago)

-dudes-

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:23 (eight years ago)

personally I don't need no gun cos I already *spit hot fire*

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:24 (eight years ago)

saying ilx has swung hard left is maybe not precisely correct -- we essentially have no one (american) left who is by any reasonable, non-internet measure a moderate or conservative, but the shift has definitely been more pronounced on issues of identity (for lack of a better term, and i don't necessarily mean this in a negative way) than it has on pure policy. but yes, in general ilx has gotten more liberal over the last several years, and this includes gun-rights discussions, in my experience

xp it seems pretty unlikely that fatally shooting, with a shotgun, three unarmed people was strictly speaking necessary, but we will never know the actual facts of the case because the principals are dead. saying three teenagers "deserved it" is pretty sick regardless imo

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:31 (eight years ago)

this was self defense during a home invasion, not vigilante justice meted out on some poor person in public. I hear ya on the "not a fan" thing, though, and I generally agree.
and there was probably no way for the homeowner to know whether or not these dues are armed, those are the risks one takes when planning a masked home invasion/robbery I guess.

^^ yup

i have no plans to ever own a gun but if someone were to break into my house i wouldn't be above trying to take them out by any means necessary to ensure the safety of myself & my loved ones

― example (crüt), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 00:42 (eight years ago)

the story made me (*steeples fingers*) very interested in how this all came to pass but obviously home invasions are terrifying scenarios to put it mildly, the worst case scenarios are kinda horrific and my middle school librarian and her husband were murdered in a specifically targeted home invasion by their high school daughter's psycho ex bf. A bit different than the random In Cold Blood type scenario but still...

These guys might have been high on some shit and acting pretty deranged, who knows. I do find it all pretty interesting, just curious to see how it plays out in the end. I do think that charge against the girl is bullshit.

― nomar, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 02:22 (eight years ago)

IDGAF about these dudes who got shot, they deserved it.

I hate to get all Gandalf here but fuck this "deserved" bullshit. If the crime they were in the process of committing is not punishable by death then lethal force is not an appropriate response by anyone, homeowner or otherwise.

― Lauren Schumer Donor (Phil D.), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 14:03 (eight years ago)

And before anyone asks, yes, my house has been broken into when I and my wife were in it. Asleep.

― Lauren Schumer Donor (Phil D.), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 14:08 (eight years ago)

presumably the reason why ppl in gun-bearing countries are so afraid of home invasions compared to over here is that yr worried the invaders are armed

― ogmor, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 14:09 (eight years ago)

yup

meant it more in a "people who do really stupid shit deserve the potential consequences" Darwin Awards IDGAF way than an actively prejudiced "bad, unworthy people" way but I am just so so tired of discussing this issue with ILX and defer to Tombot and gbx who have made excellent points upthread that can be boiled down to "most of ILX really doesn't get this issue"

yr logic there applies to cops, sure, but not to someone resisting a masked home invasion IMO. I would certainly have assumed they were armed.

― sleeve, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 14:10 (eight years ago)

this thread is so long & US-centric I haven't waded through a lot of it, but there are two quite different discussions: whether it is better when private gun ownership is introduced in countries where it doesn't exist, and the US-style one taking place here about the practicalities of removing them once they're established.

would/have any ilxors made a case for the US situation being preferable to e.g. the UK?

― ogmor, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 14:44 (eight years ago)

i think most of ilx "gets" the issue just fine. you could use the same argument for any conservative belief that stems from a particular upbringing/way of life. doesn't make it right

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 29 March 2017 15:13 (eight years ago)

there's a lot about this story that just weirds me out, i guess. like i think it's pretty unlikely that three teenagers seeing a dude walking towards them with...

http://files.harrispublications.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2015/03/ar15-tw-m15-ruger-682x382.1426183524.png

...would do anything other than run away.

The trio allegedly forced their way into the residence through a back door and were killed after exchanging words with Peters, who fired multiple shots.

i don't know, of course. only five people know for sure and three of them are dead.

― nomar, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 15:26 (eight years ago)

I'd still rather be murdered in my own home than own a gun.

― softie (silby), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:00 (eight years ago)

...would do anything other than run away.

I wonder about the one whose body was in the driveway.

Does castle doctrine still apply if the intruders are running away?

― jmm, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:04 (eight years ago)

You generally have to believe you were in danger. There have been cases where people have been convicted of murder for killing people who were running away or already too injured to pose a threat.

― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:07 (eight years ago)

there are also cases where the opposite is true, or where castle doctrine has been extended even to cover a neighbor's property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy)

― art, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:29 (eight years ago)

seems like it depends on the state and ,as usual in the US justice system, the homeowners race vs the race of the "intruder" (in quotes because sometimes the intruder isn't an intruder at all)

― art, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:31 (eight years ago)

The two other variables tend to be whether the belief that you were in danger has to be reasonable and whether you can, as in the case of the Joe Horn shooting, leave somewhere safe and confront the intruders while still claiming self-defence - but yes, there is a huge racial element to the way the law operates that makes it particularly dangerous to unwaiveringly back the right to shoot with few questions asked.

― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:39 (eight years ago)

here's a murky example for you:

My cousin had a high school friend who had a neighbor who was harassing his mother through criminal vandalism. Slashing her tires, defacing property, etc. It was upsetting her greatly and I guess nothing ever happened to the kid because nobody could "prove" it was him to the police, and the dad was doing nothing about it.

In a particularly ill-advised move, the son dressed up in all black one night and entered the neighbor's yard. It's been about 12 years since he told me the story so I have forgotten what the friend was doing, but he was not armed. I believe he was trying to surreptitiously plant a camera overnight to catch him in the act.

Dude's father caught him in the yard, believing him a prowler, and shot him dead right then and there.

Now - do we think THAT was an acceptable reason for shooting? Obviously, the friend was trespassing, and being decked out in black doesn't exactly do much to convince a homeowner you're not a thief. But it was in his yard, not in his home. Since he's dead, nobody can say for sure what happened, if there was any confrontation on the lawn, etc. The friend was definitely not armed, though, just holding a camera/camcorder.

In that case, Stand Your Ground and not 'castle doctrine' is what granted the shooter immunity from prosecution. My cousin admits it was a terrible idea on behalf of his friend, who definitely broke the law himself and created a murky scenario, but stated his friend was doing it because authorities or the next door boy's parents had failed to act to protect his mother.

Obviously home invasions of the kind k3v posted above are different but really want to see this talked out.

that story is cited here though zero details are given, just a brief mention: http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20120711/in-arcadia-varied-opinions-on-law

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 18:05 (eight years ago)

I'd still rather be murdered in my own home than own a gun.

― softie (silby), Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:00 AM (four hours ago)

call me crazy, but i skew a little towards gun ownership if those are my only choices

― Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 20:30 (eight years ago)

the problem with castle doctrine is you can't just give someone permission to blow someone away simply because they enter their house illegally. The teens in the example were breaking in, yes, and did have weapons, yes, so I get they are also culpable for what happened to them, but by the same token, one of the bodies was found outside. and I would wager one or two of them were retreating and no longer a threat. Should someone REALLY still be allowed to kill them in that instance?

I'm not saying "prosecute people who legally defend their home", I'm saying is your motive really self-defense if you've parried the attack and one or more of the perpetrators are retreating? Castle doctrine and stand your ground laws were meant to give you leverage to protect yourselves lethally if you have a credible feeling your life is in danger. It's not about whether we feel "sorry" for the perpetrators, it's "they retreated, isn't this now a job for the police to handle"?

Again - lots of speculation in this particular case, and I'm sure if we knew exactly how it unfolded we might have different opinions. I just am not 100% down with "they broke in, homeowner can pretty much be judge, jury, and executioner regardless of what unfolds after".

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 22:23 (eight years ago)

there was one time I was housesitting for a friend and the key he gave me wasn't working so I had to go back onto his porch to look for another one (which I found) and all that time I kept sweating wondering if a nearby neighbor was going to think I was trying to break in.

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 22:26 (eight years ago)

that silby post = great moments in display name/post synergy

― an uptempo Pop/Hip Hop mentality (imago), Wednesday, 29 March 2017 22:29 (eight years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/index.html

A third person fled through the door and ran. "I didn't shoot him," the caller says, though later another suspect is found dead in the driveway.
The shooter says he is in a back bedroom with his gun. The door is locked.
The 911 operator tells him when a deputy gets to the house to put the gun away.
He tells her the gun will be on the bed

possible he shot at him and didn't think he was hit, but.....

― Neanderthal, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 22:38 (eight years ago)

https://68.media.tumblr.com/710665ceac502bdd4fbf5f3f43a262b3/tumblr_omvjjvokLi1vnq1cro1_400.gif

― 龜, Sunday, 9 April 2017 13:11 (eight years ago)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/manhunt-underway-gun-store-robbery-suspect-manifesto-trump/story?id=46662668

Wisconsin authorities and the FBI have expanded their urgent search for an "extremely dangerous" suspect who they say robbed a gun store, stealing at least 16 weapons, and who may be plotting an act of mass violence with his eye on President Trump.
"Basically, he's angry at all government officials,” Rock County Sheriff Robert Spoden said at a news conference today. “You know, whether it's the president or local officials or whether it's law enforcement. He basically has a dislike for anyone that has authority or governmental power.

he also made a bunch of religious threats in his 160 page manifesto. oh yeah, and the gun store he purchased weapons/ammunition at last week was called ARMAGEDDON SUPPLIES.

but really the suppliers of guns have nothing to do with the problem of gun violence, i mean are we gonna start suing fork makers?? you can kill people with a fork too, it's all about teaching responsibility.

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 9 April 2017 14:53 (eight years ago)

i know, i know, he stole them

just highlighting the name of the gun store...

ARMAGEDDON SUPPLIES

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 9 April 2017 14:55 (eight years ago)

i guess during and after armageddon there will be a need to hunt for food and all of that, but by and large i'm pretty sure the reason you stock up on guns and ammo is to shoot all the people who try to sneak into your compound.

"now, you wouldn't shoot any people with that gun, would you? ...thanks for coming to armageddon supplies!!"

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 9 April 2017 14:57 (eight years ago)

I always think of the apocalyptic Family Guy episode:

"Guys, we need to make some guns."
"Guns? Guns only lead to trouble."
"And when that trouble happens, we'll blow its freaking head off."

― Neanderthal, Sunday, 9 April 2017 15:01 (eight years ago)

Food is people too, my friend

― The Jams Manager (1992, Brickster) (El Tomboto), Sunday, 9 April 2017 15:27 (eight years ago)

I live 3 blocks from a gun store downtown called Revelation Armaments. Its next door neighbors are a bank and a church.

― scattered, smothered, covered, diced and chunked (WilliamC), Sunday, 9 April 2017 15:49 (eight years ago)

sounds like the neighborhood in the paranoid android video

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 9 April 2017 16:28 (eight years ago)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-updates-san-bernardino-elementary-school-shooting-180311263.html

― nomar, Monday, 10 April 2017 18:21 (eight years ago)

A Chicago man fatally shot his 22-year-old son after an argument over who would walk the dog erupted into a gunfight between them, say police.

― Punnet of the Grapes (Tom D.), Monday, 10 April 2017 18:23 (eight years ago)

I saw a picture of a guy posing with a matching purple guitar and Dodge Challenger in front of a "guns and guitars" store - it was one bald eagle short of being the most American thing I'd ever seen.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 10 April 2017 19:11 (eight years ago)

two months pass...

I tell you what, i for one am vv glad that the gun laws in this country are currently the way they are, because if this guy tries to pull a stunt like this again and manages to get to the point of firing his weapons, there's a slim chance a concerned citizen will be quick to pull his concealed carry piece and pop off a couple of shots before getting killed.

PASADENA >> What began as an investigation into public urination at a Pasadena Gold Line station on Wednesday led deputies to seize two guns, high-capacity magazines, suppressors and a machete from the suspect’s duffel bag, authorities said.
Deputies first approached a man about 9 a.m. after spotting a man relieving himself in a planter along the sidewalk outside the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station at Madre Street and Foothill Boulevard, Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials said.
The deputies confronted the man about the offense, and the suspect provided them with what turned out to be a false name, according to Deputy Katherine Zubo of the sheriff’s Transit Policing Division, who took part in the arrest. The man was carrying a duffel bag with him.
A search of the suspect’s bag turned up a loaded AR-15-style rifle, fitted wit with two 30-round magazines and a suppressor, as well as a .40-caliber pistol with a high-capacity magazine and a suppressor and a large machete-style knife, Sheriff Jim McDonnell said. The bag also contained a notebook full of writings and a Bible. He was booked for weapons violations.
“Marking on the handgun specified its use for restricted law enforcement or government only,” sheriff’s officials said in a written statement.
Investigators said they had not determined what the suspect, identified as 28-year-old Christopher Harrison Goodine of Union City, Georgia, may have ultimately intended to do with the weaponry.
“There is no intelligence to indicate there is a nexus to terrorism,” the sheriff’s said.
But he noted that any time a person is walking around with this type of armament in a duffel bag, “The outcome would not have been good no matter what he was going to do,” McDonnell said.
Goodine was believed to have boarded a train in Chinatown before exiting at the Sierra Madre Villa Station in Pasadena and encountering deputies, Zubo said.
Other than the public urination, Zubo said Goodine was not doing anything that would have attracted attention.
The deputy said she was glad she and her colleagues found the weapons before they became involved in a tragedy.
“Upon finding the bags, honestly, the first thing I felt was relief, because we got to this stuff first,” Zubo said.
McDonnell praised the actions of the involved deputies.
“Their proactive actions are commendable,” he said.
According to news reports and records, a man of the same name and birth month has faced similar allegations on the East Coast.
A Christopher Harrison Goodine, then-26 and a resident of New Rochelle, New York, was arrested in November of 2015 after trying to sneak into the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City while wearing body armor and carrying an empty gun holster and a ski mask, according to the New York Daily News. He told police at the time he wanted to take a shower. Information regarding the ultimate outcome of the case was not available Wednesday.
Records show the same man jailed in connection with the New York incident has multiple convictions around the country, including carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia in 2012, obstructing justice by force or threat in in Virginia in 2012 and obstructing police in Georgia in 2013. Records also show arrested in Florida and Washington, D.C.
Deputy Juanita Navarro-Suarez of the sheriff’s Information Bureau said officials could not confirm whether the suspect arrested in Los Angeles County was the same man previously arrested on the East Coast.
According to county booking records, Goodine was being held in lieu of $10,000 bail pending his initial court appearance, scheduled Friday in the Pasadena branch of Los Angeles County Superior Court.

― nomar, Thursday, 22 June 2017 06:50 (seven years ago)

one month passes...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/why-i-bring-my-gun-to-school.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=

when we cede rhetorical ground on this issue -- when we, with a sigh, cite the second amendment and refer to gun ownership as a "right" -- this is the kind of incoherent bullshit we invite.

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 July 2017 20:06 (seven years ago)

GIS reveals another gun fetishist, not someone who just wants a small handgun to protect herself

― nomar, Monday, 24 July 2017 20:24 (seven years ago)

not merely, i should say

― nomar, Monday, 24 July 2017 20:25 (seven years ago)

distinction without a difference

― k3vin k., Monday, 24 July 2017 23:57 (seven years ago)

we have a "right" to a well-regulated militia - that would be the armed forces, national guard and the reserves, who turn their weapons in whenever they go off duty, i.e. at the end of every duty assignment, and every shift.

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 00:05 (seven years ago)

sign up for a subsistence wage so you can point your gun into a bucket of sand every night and pull the trigger to prove that the chamber is empty, and have every round counted, and get questioned in case the number is less than what you left with. that's a well regulated militia.

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 00:10 (seven years ago)

thank you

conceding that there is a legitimate reason for owning a person-killer (for "protection", because so many other people have person-killers), is also known as "giving up"

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 25 July 2017 00:21 (seven years ago)

I agree. But the frontier legacy firearms being a necessary tool of daily life has taken on a life that seemingly cannot be killed without well-directed, massive, crushing political force.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 25 July 2017 01:43 (seven years ago)

two months pass...

bump

maybe I'll c&p from the other thread if I have time

― sleeve, Thursday, 5 October 2017 14:51 (seven years ago)

Nationalize the gun industry.

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:09 (seven years ago)

there are only a couple conservative relatives that i haven't defriended on facebook. one of them - actually she's more of an aspirational centrist who thought that we should give trump a chance for the first few months - posted the tearful jimmy kimmel monologue the other day, which was striking because she never ventures into any territory that could be even slightly controversial.

the immediate response was like american gun violence bingo. blaming it all on the mentally ill? check. multiple references to Chicago, "the gun control capital" (actually not, as proof that gun control doesn't work? check. impossibility of stopping violence when knives, machetes, baseball bats, etc, will still be around? yep, that was there. fears that a ban on guns would only lead to all the weapons being concentrated in the hands of "criminals and the government"? of course, someone's gotta mention that. blaming BLM, who "don't give a crap"? uh, yeah that was there too, i guess.

for better or worse (for worse) the "national conversation" that we have following events like this typically take place on facebook, for the most part, and this is the kind of mindnumbing bullshit that someone's stupid uncle barges in with so that everyone spends their time trying to prove the dumbass wrong instead of trying to figure out how to pressure political representatives to do something to fix the problem. maybe that's the ultimate problem - vast majorities of americans favor all sorts of gun control legislation, and yet our representatives do nothing. it's not hyperbole to say our democracy is just fucking WRECKED.

― you = too slow (Karl Malone), Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:25 (seven years ago)

so instead we just yell at our stupid relatives and they yell back with thinly veiled breitbart talking points

― you = too slow (Karl Malone), Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:26 (seven years ago)

People will debate endlessly about this or that particular gun-related tragedy and speculate on how to prevent it from happening again when these things are ultimately just a symptom of a bigger problem. Like, it's not that hard for me to believe that someone who's teetering on the edge would offhandedly decide to massacre dozens of people in the same country where thousands of people offhandedly decided to elect Donald Trump president. Both acts are informed by the same undercurrent of selfish nihilism, of disengagement from anything resembling social consciousness or responsibility to others, of seeing oneself as a righteous island surrounded by the inconvenient Other.

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:45 (seven years ago)

Which is to say that gun control is super important but I don't think gun control legislation alone (particularly in whatever weak tea variety has any chance of passing nowadays) is going to solve the larger issues underlying these instances of insanity.

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:48 (seven years ago)

the internet makes people think they need to have an opinion about everything and an answer for everything [/tr3nch3nt]

― brimstead, Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:52 (seven years ago)

or rather, makes them think that they have the answer for everything

i guess thats just how people are though

― brimstead, Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:53 (seven years ago)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

Necon Bret Stephens says "Repeal the 2nd Amendment." (Nice bon mot here: "The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.")

― Monster fatberg (Phil D.), Thursday, 5 October 2017 15:53 (seven years ago)

xpost I don't think that's how people always were. I do think the extent to which the internet allows people to broadcast their opinions to the ENTIRE WORLD has some weird psychological effect, makes people feel that their uninformed two cents are worth a whole lot more.

Signed,
A Genius Who Is Never Wrong

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Thursday, 5 October 2017 16:01 (seven years ago)

I will say that gun control is not a top priority issue for me, just because, in a cold, utilitarian sense, it seems like something that takes the most effort for the least effect. Like we expend enormous amounts of political capital to, IDK, ban assault rifles or something, and even if you get it done most gun deaths come from handguns. Mass shootings like Vegas are horrifying and also not that significant or likely a cause of death overall. At the same time, I feel a little torn about it because I don't want to cede more ground to the insanity of gun culture and the gun lobby in this country.

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 16:03 (seven years ago)

Whereas single payer healthcare, while politically very hard, would radically transform the quality of tens or hundreds of millions' of Americans' lives and prevent far more deaths.

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 16:04 (seven years ago)

uh yeah I don't want to live in a cold, utilitarian world, sorry

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 5 October 2017 16:07 (seven years ago)

In terms of 'preventative care', I might argue for making some sort of community service compulsory. We're at a point where an uncomfortably-large number of people seem to have no real perspective on what actually binds a society together, and the longer that goes on the more likely those bonds are to eventually dissolve altogether.

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Thursday, 5 October 2017 16:15 (seven years ago)

In a rare moment of clarity, Tom Friedman said "save your breath" on this issue til after the '18 elections.

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 October 2017 16:18 (seven years ago)

uh yeah I don't want to live in a cold, utilitarian world, sorry

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, October 5, 2017 11:07 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sure, me neither. It's just that we have gotten into this holding pattern of *mass shooting happens* "Oh my god, this is horrific, how can we allow this to happen," --> second amendment gets in the way --> we try to come up with nibble-around-the-edges policy ideas that would not have actually prevented this shooting or most others. Sure we should still ban bump stocks, maybe look at magazine capacity, maybe assault rifles altogether, incremental things you can do to decrease the severity of each of these incidents. If there are minimally intrusive things we can do that would save even a couple dozen lives per year we should do them. But only a massive sea change type policy is going to really address our larger gun death and gun crime problem, and it's made pretty much impossible by our constitution and current supreme court precedent.

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 17:19 (seven years ago)

bump stocks reported to be flying off the shelves

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 October 2017 17:23 (seven years ago)

We're at a point where an uncomfortably-large number of people seem to have no real perspective on what actually binds a society together, and the longer that goes on the more likely those bonds are to eventually dissolve altogether.

Yeah this has been my overarching big worry for awhile now. Esp in a country such as US. Seems to be getting worse and worse.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:03 (seven years ago)

Unfortunately, the extremely wealthy people who have hijacked our democracy understand that the best way to control the masses is to keep them divided, distracted, and disorganized. They see the entire course of the 20th century from FDR through Carter as a series of mistakes which must be rolled back. They are doing a bang-up job of it, too.

― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:16 (seven years ago)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:31 (seven years ago)

did not see that one coming

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:31 (seven years ago)

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children

holy shit

― ATTACK MY RUSTY TOOLBOX (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 5 October 2017 20:16 (seven years ago)

I'm gonna c&p from the "spree shooting" thread cuz these posts should be here

So long as any legalese makes it difficult for anyone, no matter how rich or motivated, to purchase a weapon capable of killing dozens before law enforcement can intervene, or weapons modifications that accomplish the same, I'd be content. I agree with the gun experts that the old assault weapons ban focused on cosmetic aspects, and just caused the manufacturers to cosmetically modify their designs. Focus on measurable quantities like "muzzle energy x rounds per minute when fired by a competent firer". Fix the threshold value so that typical hunting weapons like 1+4 round shotguns or bolt action rifles, or smaller ammunition capacity self-defense handguns, are permitted, but semi auto rifles or submachine guns with higher ammunition capacity, can't. The legislation is a soluable problem.

Would that still permit most gun homicides and suicides? Yes, and that's tragic. But it would prevent murder sprees on the scale of Sandy Hook or Mandalay Bay.

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:09 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ should read: "semi-auto versions of military assault rifles and submachine guns with..."

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:11 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ay be worth starting a “Las Vegas shooting and it’s aftermath” thread as things get bonkers. Not prone to conspiracies, but ready to believe that...well, let’s see...

― Eazy, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:01 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What does that mean?

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

i don't know, but you know they'll be cranking out conspiracies for this one. someone upthread mentioned the absolute horror of sandy hook and how it might have prompted more conspiracies than normal. on one hand you have the people making shit up to try to counter what they believe will be an event that could turn people against their precious 2nd amendment, and on the other you have people subconsciously searching for any sort of explanation other than the real one, that their fellow co-humans are capable of unleashing madness and mayhem on children while everyone around them does literally nothing in response. the same applies to las vegas. the bogeymen of "islamic terrorism" or mythic evil immigrant violence is absent and you have people like jimmy kimmel tearfully addressing the situation and speaking out about it honestly, so those who stand for the 2nd amendment will find another story to tell themselves and they'll find an eager audience that wants to hear any other story other than the one that actually happened.

― you = too slow (Karl Malone), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:21 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when i catch a glimpse of alex jones i begin to morph into a guy with bandaged knuckles who says "...i got mad and punched a wall", so i can't bear to check, but i'm assuming today he talked about everything in las vegas except for what actually happened

― you = too slow (Karl Malone), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:23 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Whats transpired btw with ISIS trying to claim this one? I mean people claim all sorts of rubbish but is it confirmed theirs was rubbish?

― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:31 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Alfred very OTM here. Gun advocates take full advantage of the lack of information of (many) on the other side to simply paint them as ignorant and alarmist. As a dude who grew up with guns and was a high level competitive shooter as a teen that now has not a single firearm in the home and only technically owns them because of a collection of antique handguns that is stored in a locked location at my mothers house with no available ammunition, I'm happy to clarify things for anybody that wants information. AMA I guess?

― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:48 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Some starter hints - learn the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and be careful about using the terms. I've seen hundreds of posts/tweets about how automatic weapons should be illegal, followed by immediate "they are u dumb lib" shutdowns. We can't open the conversation that way anymore.

(Oh and to flappy bird, magazines=clips. It's the removable/replaceable piece of a semi-automatic (or automatic) that allows for how many rounds can be fired before you need to reload the gun. Higher capacity=more shots that can be fired before replacing the magazine. Pedantically yes, bolt action rifles can also use magazines. Revolvers (which is your usual old school film noir/"six-shooter"/cowboy handgun, still heavily used today) can't. "Tactical" shotguns can, pump-action or double barrel/single shot shotguns can't. Yes, there are semi-automatic shotguns, because hey, what a wonderful world we live in. No automatic ones though.)

― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:59 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, there's a lot of technical information a person can learn about firearms, including not just highly specific details regarding every part of the weapons and their ammunition, but also the forces generated by firing and how or if they can be damped, how to sight in a scope, gun cleaning and maintenance, plus all the accessories - holsters, gun safes, trigger locks. It is a whole world of details heaped upon details and hobbyists and enthusiasts eat that stuff up and never tire of it.

But very little of that massive heap of facts has any real bearing on whether one can understand the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:05 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

while i get how being gun-conversant can be helpful for establishing credibility with the pro-gun advocates, i do think that sane gun policy really shouldn't require knowing the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic, or, like, a .338 Lapua or .308 winchester. this i think serves the interests of the gun lobby by making gun safety about the lethal capabilities of guns in the hands of a "trained" shooter and not, say, an angry domestic abuser or suicidal person. in those situations, the rounds per minute or stopping power or w/e are largely irrelevant. gun violence in the US is largely banal, and gun legislation should reflect that.

― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:09 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

whoa people still use revolvers? cool

― flappy bird, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:09 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if the focus is on how to limit the lethality of johnny trenchcoat by making large volume magazines and suppressors illegal (both of which: make them illegal!) and not on making garden variety handguns difficult to obtain (they're not!), we're missing the trick imo

― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:12 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm all for the demystification of guns as 'violent objects' if it serves an end result that is: fewer guns, fewer people enamored with them. i worry, a little bit, that an emphasis on the correct understanding of the mechanical details subserves the idea that "guns don't kill people, people do". i realize that i didn't always post that way on here, times change, do not @ me

― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:23 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm just astonished at people who think silencers make gunshots completely silent

― Erotic Wolf (crüt), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:31 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

goldeneye has a lot to answer for

― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:35 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm right there with you in general gbx (esp in the way that I've been an endless broken record about the mistaken idea that lethality is linked to gun type on here before) but but if we want to reach rational gun owners, the ones that are largely in favor of workable restrictions and can be turned against the NRA we need to look reasonably educated and informed about the issue. Also we need to avoid the terrible pitfalls of cosmetic assault rifle legislation which I am now convinced set us more steps back than forward and I'm still pissed at weak willed NRA petrified dems for selling that half-measure bullshit instead of actual functional things that might have not only stood up to scrutiny but actually, you know, worked. That political capital could have been spent on closing the goddamn gun show loophole, but yet here we are.

― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:51 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am curious how many people (not going to speak for gbx but I count myself in this number) have crossed that line of growing up with guns, not being afraid of guns as object or w/e, but ending up mortified and terrified by the way guns function culturally in the modern day. Also, it's terrifying how many of the new culturally identifying pro-gun people are wildly ignorant about the realities of guns - AR15 worship is fucking stupid on a purely logical level. AR15 mod worship is ten times as stupid, and the dudes that fetishize flash suppressors and folding stocks ought to be looked at by hunters the same way car nerds look at those rolling coal assholes. No one with a basic understanding of how this shit works should or does believe in the good guy with a gun myth. I'd like to think there's a whole quiet chunk of people with my background that are ready to get flipped, but maybe that's optimistic/delusional.

― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 10:12 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OT and XP jjustin: Some gun nuts will be pedantic about magazines ≠ clips. The magazine is the box from which rounds are fed, and most magazines on modern firearms are detachable. However, in some older rifles (Russian Mosin–Nagant, British Lee–Enfield, German Mauser K98k, US Springfield M1903, Soviet SKS) the magazine is fixed, and rounds are fed into it on a clip.

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:28 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's true.

― jjjusten, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:22 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not mortified or terrified by guns but the gun culture itself has gone 0-60 nutso since ~2010-11 (there was always a present right-wing element, definitely post-2008 but it kicked into overdrive with the tea party/mainstreaming of survivalist culture) where I have basically no interest in being around other shooters at gun ranges or competitions and have sold all but the last couple of guns (which I'm just too lazy to drive to Cabela's to sell).

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:55 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Also since a black guy was let run some things

― passé aggresif (darraghmac), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 1:19 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But very little of that massive heap of facts has any real bearing on whether one can understand the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, October 4, 2017

If a person doesn't know what the hell he wants banned or regulated, then he's not understanding "the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws."

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:52 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Do potatoes make guns totally silent???

I grew up around a lot of guns, mostly for hunting, but also large "collections" of various firearms that seemed to serve no purpose other than being decorations in our trailer gun cabinets. Now pretty much mortified. Ban them and go into people's houses and take them away. I don't care how unfeasible that is.

― Jeff, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:00 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Or just get Luke Cage to go in and bend all the barrels.

― Jeff, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:03 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Less 'unfeasible' and more 'high body count'.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:03 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But the right ppl, perhaps

― passé aggresif (darraghmac), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:05 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This guy had a whopping 47 guns ("to protect himself from the gummint" obv), right? Is there even a max limit on how much you're allowed to own?

Heard a replay of this on the radio this morning. From April this year:

(CNSNews.com) – President Donald Trump pledged to never infringe on the 2nd Amendment during a speech at the National Rifle Association’s meeting in Atlanta, Ga., on Friday.
“We all took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, and that means defending the 2nd Amendment. So let me make a simple to every one of the freedom-loving Americans in the audience today: as your president, I will never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms – never, ever,” Trump said. "Freedom is not a gift from government. Freedom is a gift from God,” he added.

― Le Bateau Ivre, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 5:37 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cos God wants you to have guns

― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:04 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

[....]

He might have set aside some for killing a lot of people, hard to know.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:09 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if god didn't want us to have guns then why did he give us trigger fingers, think about that

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:11 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Come on, God has always wanted you to kill people, He loves dead people, the more the merrier.

― Tom's Tits Experiment (Tom D.), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:19 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the defeatism and apathy in this thread and on the left in general on this issue depresses me

― k3vin k., Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:29 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

A lot of defeatism perhaps but apathy no

― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:34 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's depressing, I agree. When the massacre of young children isn't enough to effect a change, I honestly don't know what it would take. We'll probably have to wait until the majority of Americans have been personally affected by something like this, because mass shootings are still a thing that only happens to Other People.

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:36 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is pretty much me - my grandfather was a crazy paranoid gun nut who always, ALWAYS, had a loaded gun nearby. When he lived with us for a while he kept a Mossberg police shotgun (shortest legal barrel, highest capacity) in the closet, kept an unlicensed handgun in his desk at work, and probably always had a loaded pistol under his car seat. He went to gun shows, never hunted, hated the IRS, and I'm sort of glad he never lived til the Fox News era because it would have really soured my memories of him.

That shit was super fun when I was 13 (and, admittedly, probably still would be) - shooting targets and beer cans and clay pigeons with pistols and semi-autos with large magazines and shotguns can be viscerally thrilling, and I see why people get way into it. But being able to enjoy that activity vs. repeated mass murder of innocents isn't even a fucking contest - I'm happy to deprive everyone of their ability to do this forever because it's a dumb, pointless hobby and you can find something better to do with your time.

I think it's true that there is an opportunity to separate the gun nuts from sane, reasonable hunters - people who see guns as toys or some sort of "fuck you you can't tell me what to do" political/paranoid expression vs. people who use guns as a means to an end. I know my inlaws are horrified by gun violence and asshole gun fetishists and the NRA but they love to walk in the woods and hunt birds and deer and eat what they shoot, store their guns unloaded and locked up, and they would have no problem paying insurance to own a gun or to have limited capacity firearms. You don't need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer.

― joygoat, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:58 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah and it's depressing that this point seems to be such a nonstarter. I posted a tirade about this on FB and the response I kept getting was "guns can't kill if people don't pull the trigger, the problem is not guns". to which it's like...well you ain't necessarily wrong there but personally I prefer MY murderous lunatics to be wielding a knife or a six-shooter instead of something which can fire a hundred bullets in under a minute.

― frogbs, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:22 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

especially since this is the same crowd who loves the idea of the border wall. you point out "what's this gonna reduce illegal immigration by, 5%?" and their response is, "that's good enough for me. it's something". hmmm. ya don't say.

― frogbs, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:24 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think it’s past time to stop calling gun collecting a hobby. Table top games and woodworking and reading and playing instruments = hobbies.

If I bought cadavers and butchered them in my garage I doubt my neighbors would think of that as a hobby. And it would still be a universe removed, in terms of harmfulness to life, from gun collecting.

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:59 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but is owning Clue or Monopoly a right recgonized by the Supreme Court?

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:00 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Fuck the Supreme Court.

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:03 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Anyone who thinks guns are not the problem should be shot with one.

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:04 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Just in the hand, though.

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:05 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Brand the NRA as a terrorist org, imo. An intermediate step but an important one.

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:06 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lotta good posts here today that I kinda wish were on the gun control thread, thanks y'all

― sleeve, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:08 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― sleeve, Thursday, 5 October 2017 20:36 (seven years ago)

fuck it, this too:

was curious whether my above suggestion of some sort of more objective measure (sustained aimed fire total muzzle energy) would distinguish hunting and self-defense firearms from assault weapons. As opposed to earlier assault weapons bans based on cosmetic features. After searching around for sustained/effective ROF, I think it would:

semi-auto 9mm/.45 pistol: 40 rds/min x 400 ft-lbs = 16000 ft-lbs/min
.357 Magnum revolver: 30 rds/min x 600 ft-lbs = 18000 ft-lbs/min
bolt-action .308 hunting rifle: 15 rds/min x 2800 ft-lbs = 42000 ft-lbs/min
12 ga 5 rd pump shotgun: 15 rds/min x 3000 ft-lbs = 45000 ft-lbs/min

semi-auto magazine-fed 5.56 rifle: 90 rds/min x 1300 ft-lbs = 117000 ft-lbs/min
automatic 7.62 rifle: 120 rds/min x 1500 ft-lbs = 180000 ft-lbs/min

There's a threshold issue with SMGs (automatic weapons firing pistol rounds), eg an Uzi would come in at 120x383 = 46000 ft-lbs/min, but strengthening current restrictions on automatic weapons would resolve this. How would one obtain sustained aimed rates of fire? Why not have a contest among ATF agents with the candidate weapon, with the winner or top 3 setting the value. Does a weapons modification (larger magazine, bump stock, crank) push values higher? Put it to the test.

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:55 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

“I don’t think we ought to punish 80, 90 million gun owners who have a right to own a weapon under the Constitution because of the act of one idiot,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “Just like I don’t think we ought to condemn all Muslims because of the act of one jihadist.”

why just condemn when you can ban them from the country outright

― frogbs, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:57 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

punish 80, 90 million gun owners

totally psyched to help these fine americans out w/ increased risk of meaningless death, glad i could contribute to the american idea somehow

― j., Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:06 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gun-violence

― Chocolate-covered gummy bears? Not ruling those lil' guys out. (ulysses), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:26 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xxp -

The number of people on Earth who can reload and fire a .357 five times in one minute is probably in the dozens. Even with Moon Clips/reloaders and practice, that's an incredibly high threshold.

Three magazine changes for a 9mm semi-auto is pretty much anyone who spends a full day practicing.

What any 'objective measure' along the lines of what you're trying to do is going to end up with centerfire semi-autos being the weapons that need to be banned. Just start from that point and skip the million things that could be nitpicked (different ammo and barrel lengths drastically alter force, etc.).

I'd also say that what you're looking is a question relevant to spree shootings and ignores the way guns are used every single day in American violence. A low-powered .22lr or slow revolver is every bit as useful to/dangerous in the hands of gangs or a domestic abuser.

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:42 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Which is to say that trying to make objective measurements that determine the potential lawfulness of a gun would be wasted energy, IMO. Making violence more abstract isn't convincing a soul.

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:45 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The pretense that any gun is designed for anything besides killing other humans is a fucking joke anyway. Usefulness for hunting game remains a side benefit of the basic design

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:33 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Force gun owners to trade their boomsticks in for bows and spears, imo. And then they have to teach themselves flint flaking if they actually want an edged weapon. Let's just return to the Paleolithic and see if we can get it right with a do-over, is what I'm saying here.

― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:44 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

narrator: they didn't.

― nomar, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:46 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So my congressman Carlos Curbelo is writing a bill to ban bump stock.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:48 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

milo z: That's the point. I took the most extreme rates possible rates of fire for typical hunting and self-defense weapons, and the total kinetic energy involved is still less than half of what can be achieved with assault rifles, whether semi-auto or fully auto.

What I'm looking for is a way to ban AK and M4/16 type weapons, that isn't mainly cosmetic (and hence comical/circumventable), that could could create fissures amongst gun owning voters. Personally, I'd like to see a day when only (some) law enforcement, and biologists/geologists in the wilderness, carry, but that would require a marked cultural shift, and every journey starts with a step.

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:55 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tombot otm

― k3vin k., Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:01 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The problem with that is that there are dozens of rifles just as 'capable' as the AK/AR platforms. The Ruger Mini-14 would just make a comeback - it was a favorite of the survivalist types back in the day because it had all the capabilities of an AR without the stigma (or legal restrictions). There is nothing special about AKs/ARs aside from current ubiquity - any magazine-fed centerfire semi-automatic is as capable or more capable. Differentiating beyond that is pointless.

Naming certain types of rifle is a fool's errand - anyone you can convince to get down with a 'ban' on ARs would be fine with banning semi-auto centerfires in general.

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:05 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not sure you're reading Sanpaku's post, there.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:17 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Heaven forfend such an abomination should come to pass.

― bumbling my way toward the light or wahtever (hardcore dilettante), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:18 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xp yeah, Sanpaku only named certain rifles as examples while suggesting a metric that should ban a more general set.

― you are juror number 144 and we will excuse you (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:21 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And I'm giving the general set and it doesn't require speed-shooting competitions or assumptive math about joules of energy delivered (which is also a terrible measure - we adopted a 5.56 round despite generating less power because it tumbles when it hits flesh and causes more damage) : centerfire externally magazine-fed semi-automatic weapons. That's the entirety of the meaningful differentiation and what that math will lead to.

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:32 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

― you are juror number 144 and we will excuse you (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:47 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If our political goal is to (if possible) find fissures among gun owners between those who have hunting rifles/shotguns and self-defense handguns, and the much smaller number who are hoarding military guns for a revolution, then I'm not sure "external magazine + centerfire + semiauto" would work, as it would include too many handguns. There are centerfire pistol cartridges, some used in external magazine handguns. Politically, we're not going to find final solutions tomorrow, but we can chip away at the margins.

Why are assault style weapons favored by some spree killers? Magazine fed semi-auto volume of fire + rifle cartridge kinetic energy. These aren't cosmetic distinctions. A Mini-14 is little different from the AR-15s found at Mandalay Bay, here (and yes, there are bump stocks for Mini-14s).

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:59 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Why are assault style weapons favored by some spree killers?

This is pretty simple: because AR-15s and AK-47s are the most ubiquitous semi-automatic rifles in the world. Not only are variations available at every gun dealer in the country, they've been front and center in movies, video games and television for 50 years (and the standard weapon for our military and the militaries we've fought). .223 and 5.56 are as common as dirt because they're our primary military caliber. It's not more complicated than that. It's not because of any special capability (beyond semi-automatic/magazine-fed).

Almost* every semi-auto centerfire rifle (chambered for a rifle round) made could been used to commit the Las Vegas shooting - a pistol-caliber rifle probably could not in the same way, but it could have in Sandy Hook or Pulse.

(exceptions being things like very large caliber sniper rifles or weapons made so poorly they wouldn't shoot)

fissures among gun owners between those who have hunting rifles/shotguns and self-defense handguns, and the much smaller number who are hoarding military guns for a revolution

This is a pretty useless distinction today - beyond being a single circle in many respects, if you assume that ARs and AKs belong only to a lunatic fringe of the far right you're simply wrong. You're not going to exploit any fissures by lumping in the guy who bought a Colt because he saw an AR on Call of Duty with anti-government extremists or spree killers - you're just going to make him defensive. Whether or not you believe bans/etc. are the morally right thing to do, thinking that's going to create consensus is incredibly dubious.

The place to exploit fissures would be with the gunshow loophole. It wouldn't do much, if anything, in the short term as far as spree shootings or day to day violence (but no less than an 'assault weapons ban') and could easily be ignored but legally requiring that sales take place at a dealer who can perform the paperwork and background check (and benefits because he gets to charge $30 for the process) normalizes further gun control. That's been the most successful process - background checks at all were anathema thirty years ago but no one bats an eye now, until 1968 we didn't have even the licensed dealer/paperwork setup we have now but no one in the country could imagine returning to completely unfettered new gun sales.

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 5:24 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This guy bought six of his weapons at a Cabela's, and his (12, according to some reports) bump fire stocks online, it seems. He had enough firepower in that hotel room for not just an infantry squad, but a full section (the ol' half-platoon). Closing gun show loopholes would have had no effect on *this* spree shooting.

Personally, I have to take (too abbreviated) driver's licence testing every decade, have brake tags checked every 2 years, and carry insurance in case my driving harms others or their property. The idea that anyone can obtain more lethal mechanical devices, with no training, no licencing, and no insurance, should appall us.

This actually suggests another, "market friendly", approach. Mandate that home insurance cover medical/civil lawsuit costs of guns in the home. If the insurance lobby can save us from drunk drivers, not wearing seatbelts, and building in flood plains, perhaps they could save us from the American gun pandemic. This hasn't stopped drunk driving, vehicular mortality, or hurricanes, but it has incentivised better behavior.

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:06 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Would I be out of line in suggesting this conversation move to a gun control thread or Repeal the Second Amendment? Y'all are having a good discussion based in real knowledge, but there are times of day one doesn't want to mentally reenact a recent tragedy running hypotheticals of what would have been possible with this or that weapon. It's all 100 percent relevant but idk I feel like this thread despite its horrible title is more an emotional support/processing space (on top of news clearinghouse) and looking-through-the-eyes-of-the-killer type mental exercises are anxiety-inducing in a similar way as watching video of these events and mentally inserting oneself in the crowd. But if it's just me I'll shut up.

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:08 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― sleeve, Thursday, 5 October 2017 20:40 (seven years ago)

uhhh Bret Stephens otm?

My congressman Carlos Curbelo on Chuck Todd's show now discussing his bump stock legislation.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:06 (seven years ago)

I was disturbed by how much I agreed with Bret Stephens on this.

― cosmic brain dildo (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:09 (seven years ago)

He was shockingly cogent and convincing, and I've already been coming around to that position. It was really refreshing to hear someone just say "Wait, why do we have this at all? It's stupid."

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:11 (seven years ago)

Stephens on MSNBC now

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:12 (seven years ago)

I'm all for it

― cosmic brain dildo (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:14 (seven years ago)

I kept second-guessing it, like "wait, is there some hidden angle here? Is he just trying to convince us not to enact more practical reforms?" But then it occurred to me the kind of wrath he is bringing down on himself for writing that column, and I doubt he's not sincere.

― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:16 (seven years ago)

agreed, I had a similar reaction. it ended up being very plainly stated.

― cosmic brain dildo (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:22 (seven years ago)

I thought he was attempting his own "A Modest Proposal" at first.

Chuck Todd intervewed him too through Skype. I don't know. He was at once clear and muddy. In the column, he urges us not to look at Australia as an example yet now he says this country "with a conservative government" hasn't suffered from having guns confiscated. He says repeal the Second Amendment but Heller was correctly decided. I think he meant to say that Heller was correct if you look at the amendment's original intent, which is why we need to repeal the amendment, but this wasn't clear.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 October 2017 21:25 (seven years ago)

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/06/the-argument-gun-rights-supporters-cant-respond-to

this is good

― gbx, Thursday, 5 October 2017 22:58 (seven years ago)

It doesn't seem so great to me. the 'death app' idea is similar enough to guns that people will become more comfortable with it as they substitute it into more and more of the usual arguments, e.g. I do want a 'death app' if the government and criminals have a death app. I suppose it's a good exercise for separating the consumerist/hobbyist joys of the object, which don't exist for a death app as described in the article, from the horrible environment created by its existence.

― you are juror number 144 and we will excuse you (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 5 October 2017 23:16 (seven years ago)

it's an extremely good exercise because gun culture is 100% about fetishization and imagery and the physical act of gunplay as depicted in movies, tv, video games, youtube vids, war footage, and to some even footage of mass shootings.

― nomar, Thursday, 5 October 2017 23:19 (seven years ago)

yeah, so I agree with that. but I am annoyed by the title.

― you are juror number 144 and we will excuse you (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 5 October 2017 23:22 (seven years ago)

so if it's about fetishization then what?

― Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Friday, 6 October 2017 02:04 (seven years ago)

then they masturbate with their guns

― fuck you, your hat is horrible (Neanderthal), Friday, 6 October 2017 04:36 (seven years ago)

gun culture is 100% about fetishization and imagery and the physical act of gunplay as depicted in movies, tv, video games, youtube vids, war footage, and to some even footage of mass shootings.

some gun owners are military vets who have been in firefights in war zones. it's a rather large subgroup, because the US government gives so many hundreds of thousands of young men the opportunity to join it. I doubt their attitude toward guns can be accurately described as fetishization based on movies and tv. all gun owners are not a monolith of identical attitudes and experience.

― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 6 October 2017 05:10 (seven years ago)

David Frum Is Making Sense

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-real-common-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

― cosmic brain dildo (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 6 October 2017 19:58 (seven years ago)

should I even click

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 October 2017 20:03 (seven years ago)

it's really very good. It summarizes some of the most maddening aspects of the typical contours of the gun control 'debate'. The core of the article is this:

Rule 1. The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it’s out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it’s out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, “Why do so many Americans die from gunfire?” but “What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?”
Rule 2. The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.
Rule 3. The debate must always honor the “responsible gun owners” who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners. It’s out of bounds to ask for some proof of this claimed responsibility, some form of training for example. It’s far out of bounds to propose measures that might impinge on owners: the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers.
Rule 4. Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety. No matter how blatantly gun advocates appeal to fears and fantasies—Sean Hannity musing aloud on national TV about how he with a gun in his hands could have saved the day in Las Vegas if only he had been there—nobody other than a lefty blogger may notice that this debate is about race and sex, not personal security. It’s out of bounds to observe that “Chicago” is shorthand for “we only have gun crime because of black people” or how often “I want to protect my family” is code for “I need to prove to my girlfriend who’s really boss.”

― cosmic brain dildo (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 6 October 2017 20:31 (seven years ago)

one month passes...

Gun freaks claim they're armed against tyranny, but most fetishize the military & cops. They'll never rise up against the US police state.
— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) November 6, 2017

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 16:29 (seven years ago)

end the private sale loophole institute UNIVERSAL background checks it's amazing that in 2017 this is somehow a controversial idea

― Mordy, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 16:35 (seven years ago)

but that wouldn't stop 100% of gun deaths so yeah let's not bother

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 17:53 (seven years ago)

I'm coming around to the idea of legalizing duels. Letting the aggrieved micropenised d-bags take each other out one/two at a time will be a slow process, granted, but also an effective one.

― Your welcome. (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:04 (seven years ago)

It wouldn’t take that long, half the country’s guns belong to 3% of the population.

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:43 (seven years ago)

Less than a quarter of Americans even own a gun at all

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:43 (seven years ago)

background checks that depend on the Air Force uploading dishonorable discharges ain't working, tho

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 19:10 (seven years ago)

Writing a bill w/ @MartinHeinrich to prevent anyone convicted of domestic violence – be it in criminal or military court – from buying a gun
— Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) November 7, 2017

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 19:43 (seven years ago)

one of my college friends cowrote a similar bill in the WA state house of representatives:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1501&Year=2017

― the Hannah Montana of the Korean War (DJP), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 19:51 (seven years ago)

The gunman who killed 26 people in a rural Texas church on Sunday escaped from a psychiatric hospital while he was in the Air Force, after making death threats against his superiors and trying to smuggle weapons onto the base where he was stationed, a 2012 police report shows.
Police took the man, Devin P. Kelley, into custody at a bus station in downtown El Paso, where he apparently planned to flee on a bus after escaping from Peak Behavioral Health Services, a hospital a few miles away in Santa Teresa, N.M. He was sent there after being charged in a military court with assaulting his wife and baby stepson, charges he later pleaded guilty to.
The report filed by the El Paso officers says that the person who reported Mr. Kelley missing from the hospital advised them that he “suffered from mental disorders,” and that he “was attempting to carry out death threats” against “his military chain of command.” The man “was a danger to himself and others as he had already been caught sneaking firearms onto Holloman Air Force Base,” it added. The police report was published on Tuesday by KPRC, a Houston television station.
Later that year, Mr. Kelley pleaded guilty in a military court to repeated assaults on his wife and her son, a toddler, including one that left the boy with a fractured skull. He was sentenced to a year in a Navy prison.

― omar little, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 19:54 (seven years ago)

welp thank god for the travel ban #maga

― omar little, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 19:54 (seven years ago)

"Peak Behavioral Health Services" is not a name that meshes well with my ability to take things seriously on the internet

― the Hannah Montana of the Korean War (DJP), Tuesday, 7 November 2017 19:59 (seven years ago)

i like the juxtaposition i'm seeing of people saying "yeah not surprised he'd do something like this" next to "but we never heard anything unusual beyond the late night gunfire."

― omar little, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 20:04 (seven years ago)

well yeah he murdered 26 people and broke a toddler's skull but he's not a "rabid animal" like that NYC terrorist was

― frogbs, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 20:17 (seven years ago)

aren't ppl convicted of domestic violence already not allowed to buy guns?

In cases involving an application of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court has rather broadly interpreted the term “domestic violence.” In a 2009 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun Control Act applies to anyone convicted of any crime involving “physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon” against any person with whom the accused had a domestic relation, even if the crime would be prosecuted as simple “assault and battery” in the absence of a deadly weapon.

what we need to do is close the private sale loophole

― Mordy, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 21:19 (seven years ago)

something like this only happens because someone has LOTS of guns. they know they are never going to have any use for them except to blow shit up in their back yard. they want to be as destructive as the people on the walking dead or their fave video game and they are angry and want to die and why not see how many people they can kill before they die? it's like a competition now between suicidal idiots. it isn't going to end anytime soon.

― scott seward, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 21:27 (seven years ago)

And as long as gun toters remain in denial and think of it as a "people problem" and not a "people with guns problem," let alone believe it's just a matter of prayer and putting faith in the inherent goodness of men, it will never stop. In a WaPo piece on that Texan town, someone sad something like "so many people have guns, if guns were the problem this would be happening all the time." Well, how often does it have to happen, dummy?

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 7 November 2017 21:37 (seven years ago)

Wisconsin Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker pass law to allow even toddlers to hunt with guns if they're accompanied by an adult; used to have to be 10 years old: https://t.co/hqbpvOC5Yk
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 14, 2017

― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 13:48 (seven years ago)

Makes sense to me.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 14:19 (seven years ago)

Small children would have a hard time lifting a rifle and keeping it steady enough to aim it at anything smaller than a barn door. Not to mention the recoil knocking them on their asses.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 November 2017 19:37 (seven years ago)

three months pass...

bear with me on this: let's say in a magical shake up of reality, tomorrow morning president trump comes out on tv locking arms with every member of congress and says "everyone, we are heartbroken, we are emotionally drained just like all of you after all of these tragedies for so many years and affecting so many lives, we all have kids and grandkids and can't bear for them to grow up in a world like this, and we have heard you loud and clear and we all agree it is time to take finally action, enough is enough. private gun ownership is now illegal in the us."

what happens after that?

― sleepingbag, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:06 (seven years ago)

let's find out?

― wmlynch, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:08 (seven years ago)

we'll finally know that we're living in a computer simulation

― gbx, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:08 (seven years ago)

what happens after that?

― sleepingbag, Thursday, February 15, 201

who the fuck are you

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 16 February 2018 02:13 (seven years ago)

what happens after that?

The same magical force that moved Trump and the Congress to unanimity on this issue magically makes all private guns disappear, fixes climate change, gives everyone perfect teeth, and brings back Jesus.

― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 16 February 2018 02:15 (seven years ago)

yeah but does Jesus come back like he was at 33 and healthy or is it like Monkey’s Paw fucked up corpse Jesus

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:17 (seven years ago)

xp Alfred ??? been on this board ten + years we've interacted several times ???

or is it more like 'how dare you'?

the reason i ask is bc i was thinking about this all day. nevermind i guess.

― sleepingbag, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:17 (seven years ago)

is it more like 'how dare you'?

um, no. just that the question is so far from reality that it is a total waste of time to respond to it

― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 16 February 2018 02:19 (seven years ago)

like I keep reading ppl from other countries saying 'well after we had our one shooting 18 years ago we just banned guns and now it doesn't happen'

and i keep wondering how that would work here and why it would or wouldn't. i think the 2nd amendment is a catch 22

― sleepingbag, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:20 (seven years ago)

No wait it’s a golem Jesus made from all the guns

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 February 2018 02:20 (seven years ago)

We're well past the point of no return re: gun ownership. Someone needs to invent a technology which remotely prevents guns from firing. Maybe we could make some headway. Until then, those of us who haven't yet been directly affected by gun violence just get to sit back and wait our turn.

― I Wanna Be A Door (Old Lunch), Friday, 16 February 2018 04:22 (seven years ago)

like I keep reading ppl from other countries saying 'well after we had our one shooting 18 years ago we just banned guns and now it doesn't happen

That would be us Australians, it was 21 years ago now, we banned automatic and many semiautomatic weapons, made them illegal, had a nationwide amnesty on banned weapons being turned in, and had a gun buy-back for one year, one million guns were brought in to be destroyed and it cost $500 million raised by a one-off tax levy. Nobody much minded paying. No massacres since, gun deaths fell dramatically, gun suicides fell dramatically. These conclusions are contested by people doing research for oh wait firearm users' groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

― startled macropod (MatthewK), Friday, 16 February 2018 04:49 (seven years ago)

like I keep reading ppl from other countries saying 'well after we had our one shooting 18 years ago we just banned guns and now it doesn't happen'

Mate, you are such a fuckknuckle. Do you know we had a pretty big issue with multiple mass shootings, organised crime gangs and shitlike that as much as you guys before we banned ours? It wasnt just the Port Arthur event - that was a straw/camel situation. There was also Hoddle St Masscre. Strathfield massacre. There were something like 15 mass/spree shootings in aus in the 80s. We had and have a pretty pro gun culture here too. But it STILL WORKED.

Sure we still have crime gangs, that shoot *each other*, and suicide is still an issue, but the endless mass shootings? The sort of thing that needs ASSAULT WEAPONS to happen? All stopped.

― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Friday, 16 February 2018 04:54 (seven years ago)

don't call me that, 'mate', who even says that, lol. and it may shock you that my public schooling here in the us didn't really get too in depth re: the history of modern australian gun violence and its rectification. the thing that prompted me to say that was a tweet similar to this one, re: the uk

The UK's deadliest mass shooting happened in Scotland, at a school. 16 children (aged 5-6), 1 teacher, and the adult shooter died.

Guns were banned within two years. It was 22 years ago, in March 1996. Since then, there's been one other mass (>2) shooting, in England in 2010.
— Matt Gemmell (@mattgemmell) February 15, 2018

i do think it's pretty amazing how this chain of events took place:

21 years ago now, we banned automatic and many semiautomatic weapons, made them illegal, had a nationwide amnesty on banned weapons being turned in, and had a gun buy-back for one year, one million guns were brought in to be destroyed and it cost $500 million raised by a one-off tax levy. Nobody much minded paying. No massacres since, gun deaths fell dramatically, gun suicides fell dramatically

which is beautiful and the whole reason i bumped this thread was to ask if anything like this could ever happen in america IF political opposition was somehow a non-issue, IF somehow the constitutional right to gun ownership is completely overcome by the will of the public or if the NRA or whatever else that is in the way somehow falls aside. tall order i know, but we... legalized weed? imagining the actual logistics of removing guns from people who have them specifically in the case of government overreach... i have no idea what it was like before the ban in au or if there's anywhere else in the world where guns are even close to so completely foundational as they are here.

i'm not a gun fan, never did anything with one and don't ever want to btw. i just agonize like everyone else thinking about if and how this country i live in can actually stop this epidemic. even if they stop selling new guns tomorrow that still leaves us with more guns than people, so at some point something has to happen where we lessen that number, right? the kinds of people who are stockpliling ar-15s, are they just going to drive up to somewhere and drop them off? what is the actual interaction that takes place?

fuck

― sleepingbag, Friday, 16 February 2018 08:36 (seven years ago)

Apologies if this has already been linked to - thought this was a good piece on the likelihood of America doing the same as Australia (ie not very), and how effective or otherwise gun controls have been in Aus:

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution

― Ward Fowler, Friday, 16 February 2018 08:55 (seven years ago)

god, this whole subtext of "why can't we just think rationally about this???" i mean, gee, it's almost as if repeated exposure to mass violence erodes our capacity for rational thought or something

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Friday, 16 February 2018 10:55 (seven years ago)

the NRA wing are way less rational also

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Friday, 16 February 2018 11:37 (seven years ago)

don't call me that, 'mate', who even says that, lol.

and it may shock you that my public schooling here in the us didn't really get too in depth re: ...australia

― Haribo Hancock (sic), Friday, 16 February 2018 16:27 (seven years ago)

yeah that kinda jumped out at me too

― albondigas con gas (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 16 February 2018 16:29 (seven years ago)

ANYONE who thinks tons of guns isn't an issue or that it is but we shouldn't try to do anything about it isn't thinking rationally

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 16 February 2018 17:40 (seven years ago)

my friend's school (she's a teacher) went on lockdown due to a threat today (fortunately turned out to be false alarm)

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Friday, 16 February 2018 17:44 (seven years ago)

Naive question, but is it possible that the general US public is uneasy about gun control measures, is because they worry about the consequences of angering the folks who have lots of guns?

― startled macropod (MatthewK), Friday, 16 February 2018 22:52 (seven years ago)

i thought the general US public is for gun control?

― brimstead, Friday, 16 February 2018 22:58 (seven years ago)

i think i'm more alarmed by that scenario than most people i know, so i wouldn't describe it as any sort of consensus concern. but i do think a significant number of people with guns would go absolutely ballistic (god i hate how guns permeate everything, including language, sorry) if there really was a government-sponsored campaign to take away their guns. you now have multiple generations of NRA supporters who have spent their entire lives predicting that one day the government would come to take their guns away. if and when that happens, some of them are going to act in apocalyptic ways. it's frightening.

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Friday, 16 February 2018 22:58 (seven years ago)

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), vendredi 16 février 2018 17:58 (thirty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

For that situation perhaps you can check how some countries coped with the disarmament of terrorist factions/on the fence civilians ie. Ireland, ex-Yugoslav and Basque Country. However that requires for some US officials to use other countries as models which haha why would they ever they are the United States #1 USA USA.

― Van Horn Street, Friday, 16 February 2018 23:43 (seven years ago)

Yes, there are indoctrinated idiots who would destroy our country over their quite modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And we should expect some more more outspoken opponents of this interpretation to become martyrs.

Gun violence is a problem that grown over generational time scales. We shouldn't expect it to resolve itself in shorter timespans. Its going to take a concerted effort from both government and media producers and consumers.

Government can close all loopholes in background checks, and institute the same fees and checks presently required for machine guns for any magazine fed rifle power semiautomatic firearm. This has no effect on hunters, or pistol owners, but does shut down the unregulated trade in assault weapons.

Media consumers can boycott tales where guns are used to resolve conflict, and the lasting, painful consequences of gun violence aren't portrayed. If you want your hero to shoot up a shopping mall, then the show has to visit the victims of his stray fire, or their families. Police procedurals must become more realistic.

Ultimately, gun collectors need to be subjected to the same sort of social derision we've applied to balding middle-agers in red sports cars. What are they compensating for? Are they really cowards? Surely 20% of the population won't share this view, but being subject to ridicule by the other 80% will take its toll.

Most spree shooters are 50 years old and younger. Maybe these alienated white males age out the spree shooter demographic, or eventually off themselves. But with decades of an effective end to the assault weapons market, with no social reinforcement of the view that guns solve problems, with a consensus that gun obsessions are as shameworthy as obsessions with child pornography (etc), we eventually shift the culture. And avoid the civil war.

― Acanthonus armatus (Sanpaku), Friday, 16 February 2018 23:57 (seven years ago)

xp Alfred ??? been on this board ten + years we've interacted several times ???

or is it more like 'how dare you'?

the reason i ask is bc i was thinking about this all day. nevermind i guess.

― sleepingbag, Thursday, February 15, 2018 9:17 PM

I live in Florida. I've been living this for hours. I'm sorry.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 17 February 2018 02:03 (seven years ago)

Naive question, but is it possible that the general US public is uneasy about gun control measures, is because they worry about the consequences of angering the folks who have lots of guns?

― startled macropod (MatthewK), Friday, February 16, 2018 5:52 PM (five hours ago)

don't think so. the public broadly supports common sense gun control measures; it is the politicians who fear angering the gun nuts

― k3vin k., Saturday, 17 February 2018 04:01 (seven years ago)

I hate the term common sense gun control.

― Jeff, Saturday, 17 February 2018 15:28 (seven years ago)

my friend's school (she's a teacher) went on lockdown due to a threat today (fortunately turned out to be false alarm)

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal)

i wonder if it's the same school as where i live or if there were just a lot of lockdowns yesterday

tensions get really high whenever there's a mass murder for some reason

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Saturday, 17 February 2018 15:51 (seven years ago)

We outnumber the super gun nuts by more than 95 to 1.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-of-adults-own-half-of-americas-guns/

― El Tomboto, Saturday, 17 February 2018 16:33 (seven years ago)

it is the politicians who fear angering the gun nuts

well they're always going around standing in front of cameras and microphones in public

― j., Saturday, 17 February 2018 16:53 (seven years ago)

I have a modest proposal to combat gun violence and the NRA. And it, erm, involves Muslims. :-)
My new @theintercept column:https://t.co/NwsO2OKS8M pic.twitter.com/kCDVxMcICj
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) February 17, 2018

these sorts of ideas ceased being provocative (or, apparently, effectual) not long after huey newton made these same points 50 years ago, and furthermore it's fucking reckless and stupid. so many people die from guns in this country because...there are so many guns in this country. mass shootings of the sort that make the news are a tiny fraction of overall gun deaths. encouraging more people to own guns is unlikely to cause any conservatives to change their minds on whether gun ownership should be legal, but it is certain to lead to more people dying. stop

― k3vin k., Sunday, 18 February 2018 23:35 (seven years ago)

tbf I don't think saying 'stop' has much of a track record either

― ogmor, Sunday, 18 February 2018 23:58 (seven years ago)

actually has a pretty great track record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-JGbSrCd2o

though to be fair i'm not sure blackway and helena ever got legislation of any sort passed

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Monday, 19 February 2018 00:07 (seven years ago)

use of the phrase "a modest proposal" in any other context than the actual Jonathan Swift essay is always a guarantee that something will be terrible, there are no exceptions

― soref, Monday, 19 February 2018 00:16 (seven years ago)

can someone reboot America pls

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Monday, 19 February 2018 00:53 (seven years ago)

teens got these gun nuts shook

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 16:58 (seven years ago)

I'm willing to grant that "common sense" gun laws might not have any real effect on murder/gun violence rate (not saying I actually believe they won't), but can we just give some a try?? That's the part that maddens me. The upside is less people meeting violent deaths and all the associated mental trauma; the downside is it's slightly more difficult to obtain killing machines. How can a rational person conclude that the upside isn't worth the downside?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 21:43 (seven years ago)

according to the research common sense laws do have an effect, the states w the strictest laws tend to have the least gun violence, but also we need to think bigger

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 22:16 (seven years ago)

we need to think about how less gun violence will put police out of jobs

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 22:53 (seven years ago)

thoughts like that

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:03 (seven years ago)

fire police, train them to be gun melters who turn them into cool metalworks

― NBA YoungBoy named Rocky Raccoon (m bison), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:08 (seven years ago)

all police are sculptors now

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:24 (seven years ago)

What truly distinguishes the NRA is simple: it has a lot of people who are deeply involved and vote accordingly. Lobbying is just one of the NRA’s faces; it’s also a community organization that attracts people through service provision. Every year, 1 million people receive NRA firearms training. And the organization continues to expand its services. Last year it introduced a program that provides not only concealed carry training, but concealed carry insurance (covering up to a million dollars in legal costs associated with “self-defense shootings”), a hotline for incident reporting, complementary coverage for the policyholder’s spouse, and a subscription to NRA Carry Guard Magazine. What’s more, as political scientist Hahrie Han and others have noted, many of these services give members an opportunity to deepen their involvement and become leaders. Did you enjoy the firearms training you received? Well, the NRA can certify you to join the 125,000 training instructors in its network.
The result of all this is that the NRA boasts 5 million dues-paying members — who fund roughly half of the organization’s $337 million annual budget — and close to 15 million Americans who identify as NRA members even if they don’t pay dues. The organization’s services and leadership opportunities coalesce into something more: a group identity that mobilizes both actual members and the millions of others who think of themselves as the kind of person who belongs to the NRA.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/02/national-rifle-association-members-florida-school-shooting

― Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:25 (seven years ago)

fire police, train them to be gun melters who turn them into cool metalworks

― NBA YoungBoy named Rocky Raccoon (m bison), Tuesday, February 20, 2018 6:08 PM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://i.imgur.com/E3sCnd8.png

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:27 (seven years ago)

The organization’s services and leadership opportunities coalesce into something more: a group identity that mobilizes both actual members and the millions of others who think of themselves as the kind of person who belongs to the NRA.

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 20, 2018 6:25 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

members and those who have an nra sticker on their vehicle

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:28 (seven years ago)

was unaware they had that many dues-paying members, jesus fuck

― Simon H., Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:32 (seven years ago)

~thread

Here are a few thoughts on the role that liberal fatalism on gun politics plays in our country's failure to stop the killing.
— Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) February 17, 2018

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:49 (seven years ago)

I'll keep hitting this point over and over and over: one of the short-term lines of attack needs to be about trying to convince gun owners that the NRA is an extremist organization. Sure, the majority could probably care less and are maybe even thrilled, but it's all about chipping away, just like the people who are currently turning their back on the GOP in disgust.

― Animal Bag's Greatest Hits Vol. 5 (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:51 (seven years ago)

I hope the gun nuts love their children too

― persona non gratin (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:52 (seven years ago)

narrator: they don't

― NBA YoungBoy named Rocky Raccoon (m bison), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 23:54 (seven years ago)

good thread lag∞n.

― Simon H., Wednesday, 21 February 2018 00:01 (seven years ago)

one of the short-term lines of attack needs to be about trying to convince gun owners that the NRA is an extremist organization.

I think this is already mostly the case - gun ownership declines every year (down to like 35% of the population), it's rapidly reaching a point where the only people who own support the far right OR only own guns because they support the far right.

― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 01:10 (seven years ago)

It’s never been the NRA’s dole that has set it apart among lobbying groups. It’s the NRA’s raw organizational power to topple incumbents it doesn’t like in Republican primaries. A successful movement will need to break that power or break the Republican party entirely. https://t.co/wl93UQ5ah9
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) February 21, 2018

basically what that Jacobin piece says

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:13 (seven years ago)

Either goal is laudable

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 19:15 (seven years ago)

i think the actions of the Florida GOP are legitimately a negative for the party. The way right-wingers are scrambling to actively question the motives of children who were actually targeted by a mass murderer shows how desperate they are, tbh. it's pretty disgusting and i don't think it's working. the left has to maintain the full court press, even though the vote yesterday seemed to be an effort to shut it down.

― omar little, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 21:18 (seven years ago)

The #1 Trending Video on YouTube Right Now Suggests That a Student From the Parkland Shooting Is a Crisis Actor*

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb5p4y/youtube-david-hogg-parkland-shooting-conspiracy-theory

*the video's been taken down since.

― piscesx, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:15 (seven years ago)

oh good taken down guess that ends that

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:24 (seven years ago)

why does YouTube censor free speech like that

― frogbs, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:28 (seven years ago)

correct me if I'm wrong but the very concept of a "crisis actor" is a fiction is it not?

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 22 February 2018 00:47 (seven years ago)

in that I don't think there's ever been a such thing identified, correct.

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Thursday, 22 February 2018 01:16 (seven years ago)

that phrase makes me want to both kill and die, appropriately enough

― Simon H., Thursday, 22 February 2018 01:18 (seven years ago)

It's hard not to conclude that YouTube has no real problem with this kind of stuff as I believe they could afford to hire a couple people whose sole job is to watch the trending videos

― rob, Thursday, 22 February 2018 01:20 (seven years ago)

Heck of a moment. pic.twitter.com/H89wXsvdeM
— Alex Fitzpatrick (@AlexJamesFitz) February 22, 2018

― lag∞n, Thursday, 22 February 2018 03:18 (seven years ago)

they're degenerating in their conspiracy theories. voter fraud, rarely happens. crisis actors, never happens. next theory will the violate the arrow of time or some shit. oh wait that already happened with birtherism huh.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 22 February 2018 05:22 (seven years ago)

if Trump dies they'll ask "where's the death certificate??!!"

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Thursday, 22 February 2018 05:49 (seven years ago)

Friend has a warehouse job with a firearms distributor, they had a panic run on high capacity magazines today - even with a GOP Congress, President and Trump taking the weakest possible stance on bump stocks, the industry can still prime the paranoia pump.

― louise ck (milo z), Thursday, 22 February 2018 22:32 (seven years ago)

fwiw i went out to my hometown in rural GA yesterday to visit my brother (he lives in Auburn, i went to school in Dacula). i was pretty sad to notice a gun store literally right across the street from the high school, with a led sign advertising ".22 ammo unlimited". thankfully my school experience was incident free although we did have a kid suspended for bringing in a toy Star Trek phaser and flashing it off in class. don't be shocked but there is a giant yellow billboard down the road that says "JESUS: COMING SOON" and has been up for at least 25 years.

― Hazy Maze Cave (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 22 February 2018 22:39 (seven years ago)

also i went to elementary school down the road (on "High Hope Road" to be exact) and my school was right across the street from a prison. several times we had lockdowns due to escapes. this was late 80s though...

― Hazy Maze Cave (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 22 February 2018 22:41 (seven years ago)

https://i.imgur.com/sHTTE04.jpg

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Friday, 23 February 2018 22:45 (seven years ago)

something i read earlier today (in a review of andreas malm's book on global warming/capitalism) seems appropriate here:

...He takes his title from Walter Benjamin's essay "On the Concept of History" - the angel of history watches catastrophe pile wreckage upon wreckage, longing to "make whole what has been smashed" but powerless before the storm we call "progress." In the section before this, Benjamin writes:
"The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that accords with this insight. Then we will clearly see that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against fascism."
Benjamin's disdain for a conception of history that allows its adherents to be astonished that barbarism is "still" possible in our clearly enlightened present suffuses Malm's book, as does Adorno's recognition that real progress, in such a world, means "simply the prevention and avoidance of total catastrophe." This progress will not be secured without a struggle.

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Friday, 23 February 2018 22:52 (seven years ago)

America is like a bizarro world (everything that's absurd is made to seem reasonable) collapsing into the real world. One would expect emigration numbers to soar, but I don't know if that's true?

― Le Bateau Ivre, Friday, 23 February 2018 22:53 (seven years ago)

Walter Benjamin always otm

― Le Bateau Ivre, Friday, 23 February 2018 22:55 (seven years ago)

Huh. TIL that that Laurie Anderson lyric came from Walter Benjamin.

She said: What is history?
And he said: History is an angel being blown backwards into the future
He said: History is a pile of debris
And the angel wants to go back and fix things
To repair the things that have been broken
But there is a storm blowing from Paradise
And the storm keeps blowing the angel backwards into the future
And this storm, this storm is called Progress

― this machine slightly inconveniences fascists (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 23 February 2018 23:54 (seven years ago)

it's in a Mekons song as well, a vivid and timely image

― sleeve, Saturday, 24 February 2018 01:29 (seven years ago)

https://img0.etsystatic.com/215/0/5307484/il_570xN.1382626868_ke9l.jpg

benjamin was inspired by this paul klee painting fwiw

― Clay, Saturday, 24 February 2018 01:47 (seven years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U11SE9eqfSU

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 24 February 2018 01:54 (seven years ago)

the abyss is close to home...

― sleeve, Saturday, 24 February 2018 01:57 (seven years ago)

my only tattoo

― difficult listening hour, Saturday, 24 February 2018 04:11 (seven years ago)

(the klee drawing)

― difficult listening hour, Saturday, 24 February 2018 04:12 (seven years ago)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies

interesting profile of marion hammer, an unquestionable shit stain of a human being but the driving force (and de facto author) behind so many of florida's controversial gun laws

― k3vin k., Sunday, 25 February 2018 19:34 (seven years ago)

speaking of shit stain

“If you take out New York and California, 8 percent of Americans have concealed carry permits"
- Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), on Meet the Press earlier today

wtf is this logic

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Sunday, 25 February 2018 19:39 (seven years ago)

yet, if republicans/NRA get their way, the concealed carry permits that are obtained in states that grant them will allow people to conceal carry in states that don't (like the minor states that don't really count, New York and California)

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Sunday, 25 February 2018 19:40 (seven years ago)

xp amazing how they always want to remove the two states where nearly 1/5 of Americans live.

― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Sunday, 25 February 2018 19:42 (seven years ago)

Not remove them, take them out.

― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 25 February 2018 19:47 (seven years ago)

i imagine hes including the populations of states where youre allowed to put a gun in yr pocket if you want in those numbers too

― lag∞n, Sunday, 25 February 2018 20:27 (seven years ago)

Let’s take a look at the national tax revenue without those two states while we’re at it

― El Tomboto, Sunday, 25 February 2018 21:40 (seven years ago)

Top trending article on the NRA’s site currently:
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/7/1/10-reasons-to-own-an-ar-15/

― Darin, Monday, 26 February 2018 07:02 (seven years ago)

just folks

― lag∞n, Monday, 26 February 2018 14:45 (seven years ago)

just finishing cv wedgwood's excellent little biography of cardinal richelieu, in whose life as a statesman she argues the first really famous exercise of monarchic power against recalcitrant nobles was his decision to finally take duelling seriously

it was apparently a scourge of the time, with literally thousands of young men (and occasionally women) (of usually noble familes) dying in them. often it wasn't what you imagine, i.e. two fops facing off with sabres or epees, but weird little small-scale gang battles, where the two duellists would bring along two or three "seconds" and each side would go at it. until one side was dead. various edicts had been tried in the past, each was met with contempt and flagrantly ignored, but richelieu was like "this time it's serious" and when a powerful count (who was also duke of luxembourg) flouted flouted it, richelieu had him put to death. the king, louis xiii, didn't want to kill him iirc but richelieu convinced him that if they let this go, nobody would take the king's word seriously in the future.

probably exactly the sort of thing nra members imagine in their fever dreams, left-wing message board posters summoning the memory of a french monarchist to support the idea of taking guns away, but i couldn't help being struck by the parallels, and how swift, authoritative, uncompromising leadership from the top was effective (though it would take decades to finally end duelling altogether)

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 26 February 2018 14:59 (seven years ago)

continuing the parallels: duels were totemic of noble freedoms against top-down control from the king

here's the sacrifical lamb btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Montmorency-Bouteville

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 26 February 2018 15:02 (seven years ago)

real talk, i do think the high school students are better with messaging than people who responded to past massacres. for real a couple years back the top anti-gun group around was called "Moms Demand Action" which i don't know i feel like their messaging is a bit questionable, i'm starting to feel that there may be some potential upsides to democratizing discourse control

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Monday, 26 February 2018 15:02 (seven years ago)

gun control is wildly popular and liberals are all *extremely nerd voice* um excuse me im not going to take your gun i just want to implement some common sense solutions like allowing 17 instead of 18 bullets in a clip oh no thats not gonna work ok sorry ill go now

― lag∞n, Monday, 26 February 2018 15:15 (seven years ago)

Meanwhile the NRA is like “we should reinstate duels; mandatory gun duels”

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Monday, 26 February 2018 15:17 (seven years ago)

At the insistence of Louis XIII, a dinner of reconciliation was arranged in Brussels, but failed

i want to see this episode of the tv show btw

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 26 February 2018 15:28 (seven years ago)

I need to read more Wedgwood.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 26 February 2018 15:29 (seven years ago)

This should go well.

The Lt. Governor of Georgia is threatening to use the state to punish private actors for political expression he finds distasteful pic.twitter.com/kxNwMV7Fgf
— T'Challah 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) February 26, 2018

― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Monday, 26 February 2018 19:57 (seven years ago)

man, he must really want to use his NRA card to get group discounts on Delta

such a blow to all the NRA card holders, their group discounts are disappearing left and right, it's a hard time for them

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Monday, 26 February 2018 20:00 (seven years ago)

Cagle is the leading candidate to succeed the current governor. I'd love to see this stunt blow back on him. It will play well in the rural counties but maybe not as well as he imagines.

― Brad C., Monday, 26 February 2018 20:07 (seven years ago)

Based on the number and type of corporate ties being severed, the NRA had turned itself into AARP for gun owners, but with added anti-government paranoia.

― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 26 February 2018 20:16 (seven years ago)

LOL

https://waynelapierre.com/

― reggie (qualmsley), Monday, 26 February 2018 22:01 (seven years ago)

I remember when I was a kid, my dad registered his name as a domain - he never intended to use it, but he said to me "you might as well, you don't want anyone else to get it"...I thought that was really stupid, but it turns out he was right and I was wrong

― frogbs, Monday, 26 February 2018 22:05 (seven years ago)

lol - however if someone else purchases a domain with your intellectual property or name somewhere in the URL and it is purchased purely for the purposes of turning a profit by selling it back to you at a greatly marked-up price, that's actually illegal in many cases.

(doesn't apply here, just warning anybody who is thinking of picking up www.tayordayne.com when it expires).

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Monday, 26 February 2018 23:19 (seven years ago)

I owned www.fuckmichelebachmann.com for a year tho. oh what I'd give for the days when those were our enemies.

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Monday, 26 February 2018 23:19 (seven years ago)

was thinking today that so much of the toxicity in american gun culture seems linked to the cult of the soldier-warrior, and wondered if something like compulsory military service would, in time, actually serve to undermine that mythos

like, if everyone had had a stint in the army or w/e, then they'd realize that The Troops aren't all heroic superpatriots who have mastered the way of the gun, but normal schmoes like anyone else.

not proposing this as a solution, btw, it just seems like america's infatuation with war and militarization is supported by the fact that very few people actually have any first-hand experience with it

― gbx, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 18:38 (seven years ago)

gbx, I do think that the draftee armies of the past - by being a more representative cross-section - fostered a greater sense of commonality between the people fighting and the people at home. I don't know if compulsory service is the answer, but I agree that it isn't especially healthy for the armed forces and the general public to regard each other as fundamentally different kinds of people.

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 18:50 (seven years ago)

I've heard Max Brooks bring that up in a few interviews. Concerns about the creation of a warrior caste.

― how's life, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 18:58 (seven years ago)

posted in the other thread, but I'm increasingly infuriated by the left's capacity for defeatism just as a powerful grassroots campaign gets rolling.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

― omar little, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:01 (seven years ago)

― gbx, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:38 PM (thirty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i dont think its really abt the military, theyd just find another shiny object to project their gun lust upon, as evidenced by their opinion of the fbi dropping from esteemed law enforcement heroes to incompetent conspiracy schemers as soon as one thing upset them

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:13 (seven years ago)

lag∞n is right; this is tribal culture war shit again/still.

If there were no guns it would be the National Spear Association or whatever; just gotta underscore that there is an "us" and a "them" somehow to get the tasty libtears flowing.

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:18 (seven years ago)

not saying it's the ~only~ reason we're so crazy about guns/warriors, just that it's a lot easier to sell the image (in media, CoD, etc) when most ppl don't really understand that much of being in the military is profound boredom and doesn't involve gun kata and stuff. harder for that small segment of vets (and those that venerate them) to pull off that ludicrous oath keeper nonsense if literally everyone else, male and female, has had some exposure to what "being a soldier" entails

like i'm sure those guys exist in norway or israel or wherever else, but it's probably more acceptable to clown them in public because there isn't the shibboleth that We Must Respect The Troops

could also be totally wrong, never been to norway tbh

― gbx, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:23 (seven years ago)

"Warfighter" makes my skin crawl.

The tribalism is what worries me about the idea of attacking the NRA and gun culture from a cultural respectability point - it becomes something like overt racism where your neo-Nazis and Klansmen were (until recently) forced to the very margins of society... but now you're talking about doing that with 300+ million guns.

― louise ck (milo z), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:26 (seven years ago)

it's worldwide but there's also that thing w/fetishizing things that are dirty and destructive, skulls and beer and smoke and all that. part of me thinks green energy and clean air and non-violence are nonstarters *not* because of "realists" talking about the economy or the need for defense, but because there's an intrinsic appeal to the former and a charisma that comes from engaging w/those things that doesn't exist in the latter. like things that are clean can be boring, non-violence isn't exciting. i know that sounds stupid but i actually think subconsciously (not even a bit consciously) that plays a not-small role.

― omar little, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:29 (seven years ago)

^^ that makes me think of:

http://www.viridiandesign.org/manifesto.html

― sleeve, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:31 (seven years ago)

300M guns that are not evenly distributed across the segment of the population that does own guns. attacking "gun culture" from a respectability angle would probably work, since most "gun nut" types actually are more marginal than a media in love with the venerable warrior would suggest

― gbx, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:31 (seven years ago)

copying and pasting from school shooting thread:

Thought experiment: If Trump came out full-throatedly in support of an assault weapons ban, how quickly would his base abandon him?

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:07 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:26 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i really hate giving any ground to the "if you don't know the difference between gun x and gun y then you can't tell me what I should do with my guns" crowd tbh. I don't give a fuck about the different kinds of guns, and assault sounds scary as hell. I'm fine to demonize them by whatever means will stick.

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:32 AM (fifty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xp - so, the term assaults your sensibility?

it is not so much meaningless as it is an emotional distinction that could not be transferred into legal language. a person who plans to assault a large group of people will not only select a semi-automatic weapon, but also one with a large capacity magazine, an appropriately large caliber, muzzle velocity, etc. A semi-automatic pistol with a limited magazine is just as semi-automatic as any other weapon, but would hardly be the first choice of a mass shooter.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:34 AM (fifty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And yet, a semi-automatic pistol with a limited magazine is what most would be heroes, be they police or armed teachers, would carry.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:36 AM (fifty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's almost as if calling guns like the AR an assault weapon highlights the difference between it and other semi-automatics. It exists only to kill in large numbers, quickly.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:37 AM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xp true, but I'm cool with just banning "smaller" semi-autos as well, so I think we're better off sticking with "ban all semi-automatic weapons"

also, you're kind of wrong - the VA Tech shooting had very high casualties and was done w/handguns.

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:38 AM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(see the clip of Rubio accidentally getting a ton of applause for suggesting that very thing)

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:38 AM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:38 AM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's an important legal distinction, but plz continue to be willfully ignorant so you can make rhetorical points

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:40 AM (fifty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:40 AM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thank you

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:41 AM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:41 AM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:41 AM (forty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't personally give a shit about this; that said, "assault weapons ban" is the popular term for a piece of U.S. legislation in place 1994-2004.

I've seen "assault-style weapon" a bunch lately. Which is adequate, if not perfect, because choosing the AR for your school-massacre needs is partly a style choice.

If looking badass is part of the appeal, maybe we should require them to be pink and sparkly and covered with faux-fur accents.

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:44 AM (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tend to fall on the "semi-auto" side, too, for the reasons tipsy outlined --- it actually encompasses more guns, and provides an easier delimiter. iirc wasn't leaning on cosmetic differences (eg pistol grips) how a lot of these loopholes were created in the first place? "ban all semi-automatic guns" is a stronger, bolder political statement than "age limits on assault rifles" imo

― gbx, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:45 AM (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^ yes

my issue here is that "assault weapon" (or even "assault-style") is a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese, and clear legal language will be needed going forward

and like omar says, really what we want here is a total semi-automatic ban (which is even more comprehensive)

I'd think all of you would be on board with this, honestly

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:49 AM (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"assault weapon" is a wonderfully succinct, evocative phrase that appeals to emotion and will connect with non-gun-owners (aka about 57 percent of the population). if you want to make that synonymous with "semi-automatic weapons" I don't see a problem. acts and laws get imprecise/"umbrella" names all the time, no?

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:51 AM (forty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the whole reason these cracks in the NRA facade are finally showing up is because of emotion. exploit it ruthlessly any way you can imo

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:53 AM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese

the problem here is that legalese doesn't translate well into political action, which is the first hurdle to cross. putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:53 AM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this defeatist fucking bullshit pisses me off:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

The headline is throwing in the towel just as the new anti-gun movement begins. Cillizza is an idiot.

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:55 AM (thirty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:40 PM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thank you

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM

All these points are correct, which reminds me that every shooting is different. The NRA is good at explaining the limits of action based on the most recent episode of violence. That's why I'm cool with repealing the Second Amendment.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:59 AM (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Cillizza is an idiot.

evergreen sentiment

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:01 AM (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Heard a new descriptor on NPR the other day -- "multi-casualty firearms."

― WilliamC, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:03 AM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so.....firearms

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:04 AM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

me, a goddamned genius expert: actually, "assault weapon" is a fake term invented by liberal media
you, a poster who can Google: pic.twitter.com/0sIjBCFcTB
— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

me, doubling down on being a fucking epic galaxy brain: I meant "assault rifle," it's an invention of the gun grabbers
you: pic.twitter.com/IoWzDZ15Gl
— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:05 AM (twenty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

this is more or less what I'm trying to get at. go with the terms that resonate with people, adapt as required later

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:06 AM (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Obamacare isn't technically called that but people are plenty energized for and against

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:20 AM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I regret this derail, should have taken it to the Gun Control thread, going there now

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:30 AM

― sleeve, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:33 (seven years ago)

xp - That's my point, though - it's taking an already ridiculous concentration (half the guns owned by like 3% of the population) and making it worse, putting all the guns in the hands of extremists who aren't going to respond to pressure from the broader culture any more than unacceptability made neo-Nazis disappear.

― louise ck (milo z), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:36 (seven years ago)

well you know you can do laws to prevent one guy from having 300m guns if you want

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:41 (seven years ago)

Yes, that's what should be done rather than hope that making it uncool to have guns will fix anything.

― louise ck (milo z), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:47 (seven years ago)

yeah that's the thing, if owning a semi auto is illegal, and that small percent decides to hold onto them, they're at least a little less likely to enjoy public support

― gbx, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:48 (seven years ago)

social and legal solutions arent really an either/or proposition and to some extent you need the former in order to achieve the latter

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:50 (seven years ago)

ppl are gonna be more okay with a handful of folks getting classified as criminals overnight if the social support is there for framing them as such

if only we had some recent precedent for that

― gbx, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 19:57 (seven years ago)

The 'social solutions' that I've seen talked about (or the thing about getting a bunch of POC to join the NRA to rustle their jimmies) aren't being proposed in concert with a ban on semi-auto firearms or anything similar - the legal solution has to be the lead, the social reaction will follow. It's already basically unacceptable enough to be a gun nut in half the country and that will continue increasing with more urbanization and younger people further distanced from growing up around guns or shooting tin cans in the country.

― louise ck (milo z), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:01 (seven years ago)

kinda interesting how even gun opponents have bought into the mythology of guns as these unique objects and have all these ridiculous fetishistic proposals based on that, like limiting the number of bullets a magazine can hold

man just bring guns into the realm of the mundane like everything else, make ppl register and insure them, make licensing an actual hurdle, make ppl liable when they use them, make gun manufactures liable, make gun shops liable, and ffs dont let ppl carry them around for no reason

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:02 (seven years ago)

generally the fixation with assault weapons is idiotic, most gun violence happens with normal old hand guns, we need comprehensive approaches that relate to the actual reality of our situation

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:04 (seven years ago)

liability is key

maybe part of the maniacal stance of the nra is that they're terrified of being becoming big tobacco

― i remember the corned beef of my childhood (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:06 (seven years ago)

xxp agree w/ all of that (and your next post as well)

also, tax ammo to fund buyback programs, offer full amnesty to any illegally-modified weapons that are turned in

― sleeve, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:06 (seven years ago)

and let the goddamn CDC study gun violence, wt actual f at that one

― sleeve, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:06 (seven years ago)

i hear all that but at the same time politicians have been telling us we need to wait for "culture to change" before they do anything as an excuse for inaction on everything from birth control to the death penalty to same-sex marriage. the cigarette ban's one example where it really worked the other way; the other example that springs to mind is new york's "curb your dog" fines introduced in the early 90s (or was it late 80s?) where suddenly "$100 fine" signs sprung up on every street corner and practically overnight people who didn't clean up after their dogs were booed off the sidewalks. compare to a place like paris, or london, without penalties like that. half the goddamn population "forgot their plastic bag". culture can change and it can change quickly. i don't buy "the us has a distinct weird history with guns blah blah blah". everywhere has a distinct history of something or other but if the political will is there to break its back that back gonna done get broke. whole languages have been wiped out in a decade. guns aren't impossible to deal with. they totally should be like big tobacco. put a 500% gun tax on all of them.

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:08 (seven years ago)

generally the gun lobby is laughing its ass off that were arguing over fringe shit like bumpstocks thatll be outlawed then re legalized over and over in an absurd meaningless tug o war

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:09 (seven years ago)

wasn't the cdc ban literally "we can't let the cdc study gun violence because if they do they'll find out they're really bad and dangerous"

― gbx, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:17 (seven years ago)

i like this idea a lot:

My non-gun savy friends. You want "A ban on all center-fire, semi-automatic rifles with a magazine capacity of over 6. No pistol with a magazine over 10. Exchange program for high cap mags for a year." This will bypass the "but what is an assault weapon, really?" argument.
— Christopher Moore (@TheAuthorGuy) February 26, 2018

― goole, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:00 (seven years ago)

dont tell me what i want bitgh

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:01 (seven years ago)

no gun with a magazine over 1

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:03 (seven years ago)

speaking as one of the elite people who has thrown a grenade my word is law

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:04 (seven years ago)

im basically a troop

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:04 (seven years ago)

extreme and far reaching but still a compromise: gunmakers get a bonanza on making cut-down mags

we have an enormous amount of guns in circ already (and held by relatively few people) so idk if taxing gun sales a bunch will do much, but, sure, let's do it.

100% tax on ammo probably more effective. can already see an equality challenge by the right: pricing the poor out of a constitutional right. i mean, we're already in the realm of deep fantasy with these ideas to begin with

― goole, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:04 (seven years ago)

you say you're a grenade expert, i say grin-aid expert, you cheer me up fella

― omar little, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:05 (seven years ago)

not even banning guns altogether is a deep fantasy

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:05 (seven years ago)

it'll take time but maybe not as much time as one thinks.

― omar little, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:07 (seven years ago)

if your a massive student of history like me youll find its often darkest before the dawn

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:09 (seven years ago)

only allow types of guns that were actually in production when the constitution was written

― It's not delivery, it's Adorno! (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:09 (seven years ago)

otm

― Haribo Hancock (sic), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:11 (seven years ago)

all guns shd be at the least single shot wld make hunting more sporting too

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:11 (seven years ago)

and the single "shot" is a flag with BOOM! written on it

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:12 (seven years ago)

honestly that can be pretty startling

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:13 (seven years ago)

first you have to feed the deer on your property unhealthy snack for years then you can startle them into having a heart attack

― It's not delivery, it's Adorno! (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:21 (seven years ago)

what do gun people think about grenades and bazookas? They cool with them?

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:24 (seven years ago)

*extremely gun voice* umm bazookas are antiquated surely you mean rpgs, plz at least learn what youre talking about before you go proposing laws

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:26 (seven years ago)

Every time in the last week I've heard a conversation about gun control, I've tried to replace the word 'gun' with 'viper.' It makes a fair amount of sense in a reducto absurdum kind of way, sort of preserves the sides in the argument, and it's way less emotionally draining. Just sayin.' Vipers don't kill people, people kill people. People on farms often need vipers to control vermin on their property. It's okay if YOU want to keep a viper in your bedroom drawer to scare of robbers, but what if your children find it? There's very little logic for rapid-reloading vipers. The mentally ill should not be given vipers.

― rb (soda), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:27 (seven years ago)

i'm sick of all these politicians in the pocket of Big Viper!

― omar little, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:29 (seven years ago)

Vipers don't kill people, people with vipers kill people. Also, yeah, vipers kill people.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:31 (seven years ago)

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a viper is a good guy with a viper.

― it's my leopard. (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:31 (seven years ago)

Happiness is a Warm Viper

― it's my leopard. (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:32 (seven years ago)

They will have to pry this viper from my cold dead hands. Possibly because I was killed by a viper, but that is neither here nor there.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 22:39 (seven years ago)

That proposal strikes me as something that's not going to be any easier or more likely than actual firearm restrictions, which seems kind of pointless.

― louise ck (milo z), Tuesday, 27 February 2018 23:41 (seven years ago)

kind of places an undue burden on the populace if we all have to buy and maintain guns and carry them around all the time if that's the safest solution, as some idiots keep claiming

― mh, Tuesday, 27 February 2018 23:45 (seven years ago)

This seems like big news

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dicks-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

― Moodles, Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:24 (seven years ago)

EXCUSE me NY Times please correct your headline to something more technically accurate

― Simon H., Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:26 (seven years ago)

Congratulations to Dicks on consigning all other gun dealers to the lowercase version of their name.

― Here Comes The Brain Event (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:29 (seven years ago)

assault-style lol

― lag∞n, Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:29 (seven years ago)

"We will no longer sell assault-style rifles, also referred to as modern sporting rifles."

― jmm, Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:33 (seven years ago)

― rb (soda)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKFH_zh4gY0

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:36 (seven years ago)

It makes me think of Dan Aykroyd as toy magnate Irwin Mainway, hawking Bag O'Nails, Bag O'Glass, Bag O'Vipers.... "We're just packaging what the kids want!"

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 28 February 2018 14:42 (seven years ago)

Walmart raising gun purchase age to 21 and taking guns that look like assault style weapons off their website, whatever that means.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:01 (seven years ago)

conspiracy theory: dicks and walmart are raising the required age for a gun purchase in order to prompt an age discrimination lawsuit that they'll lose and will further entrench “gun rights”

― gbx, Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:15 (seven years ago)

There’s no statutory recognition of age discrimination against the young, from what I understand.

― direct to consumer online mattress brand (silby), Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:18 (seven years ago)

and you can't rent a car until you're 25 but I'm just saying what if man what if

― gbx, Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:20 (seven years ago)

a baby shd buy a gun

― lag∞n, Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:26 (seven years ago)

guys i just want to say

i think we're gonna be alright

because wal-mart and dick's are on the case

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:35 (seven years ago)

like, i know it's stressful

but i think the nation can breathe just a little easier now that wal-mart and dick's are showing us the way forward, to a more humane society

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 1 March 2018 00:36 (seven years ago)

possibly relevant to our interests

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/28/intercepted-podcast-white-supremacy-and-the-church-of-the-second-amendment/

― Simon H., Thursday, 1 March 2018 01:12 (seven years ago)

L.L. Bean?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ll-bean-gun-purchases-21_us_5a9912a2e4b0479c02513486

― how's life, Friday, 2 March 2018 12:37 (seven years ago)

I had no idea LL Bean sold guns. Did they come in flannel?

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 2 March 2018 14:25 (seven years ago)

read the article, man

anyway apparently Delta is calling Georgia's bluff. Good for them.

― El Tomboto, Saturday, 3 March 2018 03:39 (seven years ago)

Huh: re LL Bean.

Just saw that REI no longer stocking stuff made by the hunting/gun company that makes CamelBak and ski goggles and stuff.

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 March 2018 03:59 (seven years ago)

As an REI member since 1970, with a number just a tad over 170,000, I approve.

― A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 3 March 2018 04:33 (seven years ago)

great idears

Tennessee state Rep. Andy Holt, a Republican, introduced a bill to let people carry guns in airports, with a special provision that bars local governments from passing their own gun regulations. It is next scheduled for consideration on Tuesday, March 6.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/despite-parkland-states-plow-ahead-with-new-pro-gun-bills

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Monday, 5 March 2018 17:54 (seven years ago)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/uk/5/5c/Just_Shoot_Me.jpg

― am0n, Wednesday, 7 March 2018 17:20 (seven years ago)

love that show

― It's not delivery, it's Adorno! (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 7 March 2018 17:22 (seven years ago)

dangerous thing to admit in these anti-gun times

― am0n, Wednesday, 7 March 2018 17:25 (seven years ago)

I encountered my first "woke" pro gun argument when I made a comment in support of the school walkout in an instagram post. I quickly got a couple of guys saying "leftists are pro gun" and when I said that didn't include me I got accused of being a pro-cop, pro-state fascist. "Why are you trying to keep guns out of the hands of marginalized communities who need them to protect themselves?" "I guess your white privilege allows you to feel like it's ok to let oppressed people get wiped out" and so on, followed by a very condescending lesson on the Black Panthers and AIM. "Just because you may be personally against guns, please don't stop others from seeking out solutions in the desparate fight against white supremacy."

What I ultimately came to realize after a bit of back and forth is that the mentality was exactly the same as the "we need guns to fight the government" crowd, just from a different political bent. It did give me pause, if only to consider something I honestly had not thought of previously. Despite it all, I remain highly skeptical, to say the least, of the wisdom of private citizens maintaining their own arsenals, regardless of their politics.

Honestly I don't know what to make of it.

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 15 March 2018 18:11 (seven years ago)

I'm for progressives adopting pro-gun political stances in order to irredeemably taint it for conservatives.

― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 15 March 2018 18:21 (seven years ago)

xp what do these ppl make of the fact that p much every leftist outside of north america is against them?

― ogmor, Thursday, 15 March 2018 18:31 (seven years ago)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/morgan-roof-dylann-roof.html

A sister of Dylann Roof, the man who massacred nine black churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015, was arrested on Wednesday for bringing a knife, pepper spray and marijuana to her high school, the authorities said.
Morgan Roof, 18, was arrested on drugs and weapons charges at her high school, A.C. Flora, in Columbia, S.C., and taken to a detention center, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said in a statement.
Sheriff Lott said that a school resource officer was informed by an administrator that Ms. Roof had the weapons and drugs. “Roof had also made a social media post on Snapchat which caused alarm to the student body,” Sheriff Lott said. No students were harmed, he said.
Ms. Roof’s Snapchat post criticized students who planned to walk out of class to protest gun violence. “I hope it’s a trap and y’all get shot,” it said. “We know it’s fixing to be nothing but black people walkin out anyway.”

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 15 March 2018 18:51 (seven years ago)

Whoa, can this really be true? Grocery stores?!

In the U.S., gun shops outnumber Starbucks, McDonald's, and all grocery stores combined.

From this: https://www.gq.com/story/dragonman-mel-bernstein-sells-people-hunting-guns

― change display name (Jordan), Thursday, 15 March 2018 18:59 (seven years ago)

xpost to ogmor they were going on about leftists in Turkey as a model. I didn't catch the name of the group. IDK honestly, at the end of it all they just sounded like more militia psychos, albeit intersectional ones. That's progress...?

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:03 (seven years ago)

xpost

that's crazy, but it could be true. a lot of wal-marts are gun shops, for example

― Karl Malone, Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:07 (seven years ago)

yeah I think that's one of the drivers. LOTS of sporting goods stores sell guns

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:11 (seven years ago)

Honestly I don't know what to make of it.

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:11 PM (fifty-eight minutes ago

you made all that needs to be made of it -- it's a patently ridiculous position. your comparison to fantasy militia types is apt

― k3vin k., Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:12 (seven years ago)

38,441 supermarkets (2016)
14,146 McDonald's (2016)
13,930 Starbucks (2017)

― jmm, Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:13 (seven years ago)

have this queued up: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/04/05/guns-bang-for-the-buck/

― k3vin k., Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:14 (seven years ago)

Dragonman's oft-stated argument boils down to this: He doesn't control what people do with the weapons once they leave Dragonland any more than the soda company controls how much soda you drink, or the cigarette company controls the cigarettes you smoke.

"Well, if you get cancer, it's not their fault," he says.

Yes, all that matters is whether it's his fault or not. Never mind the consequences to other people.

― jmm, Thursday, 15 March 2018 19:17 (seven years ago)

https://www.trashtalktv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1-Bag-o-glass.jpg

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 15 March 2018 21:36 (seven years ago)

what do gun people think about grenades and bazookas? They cool with them?

honestly I bring up this argument a lot and people seem to blow right past it. the amusing part is that these are the same people who keep saying "actually, automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned" (even though I never say an AR-15 is an automatic weapon), because then I get to ask "Why?? Why are they banned? Because they're too deadly? Then why didn't the Vegas shooter get one? Or the guy in Orlando? Or Parkland?"

― frogbs, Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:21 (seven years ago)

because, you know, they're criminals, and criminals will always break the law no matter what

― frogbs, Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:22 (seven years ago)

the woke gun nut guy referred me to the Pink Pistols, a gun group who "Strive to be anti racist, feminist, intersectional & free of that masculine BS in contemporary US gun culture".

So I had a look and I gotta tell ya I feel like I've heard this one before.

“No matter what kinds of weapons Mr. Paddock had. No matter how many he had. No matter the sizes of the magazines, the caliber of the bullets, the color of the guns, or the style or design, the guns had no choice, for guns are not living creatures. A gun cannot choose to refuse to fire if the action is illegal. They’re just machines. I hate having to defend inanimate objects yet again, but I know that once again they will be low-hanging fruit for those who project their anger and fear onto them.”

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:30 (seven years ago)

I guess it really is a mental health issue! Glad to clear it up!

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:31 (seven years ago)

most pithy response I've heard to that is: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Which is why we should try to keep guns out of people's hands.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:32 (seven years ago)

it's not hard to follow, that's for sure

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:34 (seven years ago)

"Why?? Why are they banned? Because they're too deadly?

Comes down to there being a certain level of carnage that these people are ok with allowing citizens to have the ability to unleash, presumably largely as a result of how our society has normalized it. "Nukes don't kill people. People kill people" just sounds absolutely absurd.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 15 March 2018 22:41 (seven years ago)

Just curious, what is our collective success rate in arguing people away from pro-NRA/pro-gun stances with the elegance of our logic and rhetoric?

― I leprecan't even. (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 15 March 2018 23:02 (seven years ago)

so far, 3.5% of arguments resulted in the gun-owner surrendering their weapons and apologizing, but 1.2% ended with the gun-owner getting angry and firing the weapon, so it's a wash

― Karl Malone, Thursday, 15 March 2018 23:04 (seven years ago)

leftists with guns

https://paulcarrmusings.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/mm2.jpg?w=640

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Thursday, 15 March 2018 23:22 (seven years ago)

... and fighter planes.

― Buff Jeckley (Tom D.), Thursday, 15 March 2018 23:29 (seven years ago)

they probably got them from noted leftists the red krayola

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Thursday, 15 March 2018 23:33 (seven years ago)

ABERDEEN, Miss. — A Mississippi girl has died after her brother allegedly shot her in the head because she wouldn't hand over the controller of a video game.
WCBI-TV reported Sunday that Monroe County Sheriff Cecil Cantrell says the girl is dead.
Cantrell told local news outlets that the 9-year-old boy shot his 13-year-old sister in the back of the head. She was rushed to Le Bonheur's Children's Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, but didn't survive.
Authorities say they don't yet know how the boy got the gun. The circumstances are still being investigated.

― Karl Malone, Monday, 19 March 2018 16:04 (seven years ago)

here's a hint - it was in the goddamn house and not in a safe

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Monday, 19 March 2018 16:05 (seven years ago)

Sometimes I think Gun Control is a bad issue for the left just because it tends to seize so much emotion and attention with so little effect. Many more lives could be saved through healthcare reform than through gun control, even if we could pass gun control, which we can't seem to.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 19 March 2018 16:46 (seven years ago)

That Aberdeen shooting was about 15 minutes away from me. Def not surprising.

― WilliamC, Monday, 19 March 2018 18:23 (seven years ago)

well we can't exactly pass healthcare reform either
xpost

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Monday, 19 March 2018 19:04 (seven years ago)

i would submit that if the democrats can't pass laws to address problems that cause an ongoing sickness and revulsion in the pit of the stomach of the majority of americans, the difficulty isn't that they're grabbing hold of a "bad issue".

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Tuesday, 20 March 2018 00:04 (seven years ago)

and yes, it's true, the majority of americans all share one stomach. obesity epidemic explained.

― ziggy the ginhead (rushomancy), Tuesday, 20 March 2018 00:05 (seven years ago)

huh, did not expect this

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/youtube-bans-firearm-sales-and-how-to-videos-prompting-backlash

― sleeve, Wednesday, 21 March 2018 22:24 (seven years ago)

Give it one week before they rollout Guntube

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 21 March 2018 22:29 (seven years ago)

lol those idiots do not understand pornhub

― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 21 March 2018 22:32 (seven years ago)

YouTube, a popular media site for firearms enthusiasts

ban youtube

― sleepingbag, Wednesday, 21 March 2018 22:33 (seven years ago)

Id be pretty pissed going to pornhub expecting to see cock and instead getting glock

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 21 March 2018 22:35 (seven years ago)

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have agreed on legislation that would open the doors to the federal government studying the effects gun violence, softening decades of legal language that encouraged the Centers for Disease Control to leave the issue alone.
A $1.3 trillion kitchen sink spending bill that must pass by Friday to avoid another government shutdown will not change gun control laws, but does contain two key measures to research gun violence and beef up background checks.
The momentum to significantly alter gun control laws in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting last month have faded in Congress in recent weeks, but the two provisions made it into the final, bipartisan bill released Wednesday night.
The spending bill contains a modest measure to improve reporting to the national background check registry. That was expected in recent days, but on top of it the committee report contains language that will allow the Centers for Disease Control the authority to research gun violence.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 22 March 2018 12:56 (seven years ago)

Wow. That's kinda huge?

― Frederik B, Thursday, 22 March 2018 15:53 (seven years ago)

momentum "have" faded?

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 22 March 2018 16:03 (seven years ago)

tell that to jeremy corbyn's critics

― playing in his high school band “The Velvet Pickle” (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 22 March 2018 16:04 (seven years ago)

maybe? the notion that the CDC is restricted from researching gun violence isn't completely true -- "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

so technically they're allowed to, they just don't typically get the funding for it iirc

― gbx, Thursday, 22 March 2018 16:04 (seven years ago)

so they can investigate the effects of gun violence they just can't recommend that maybe thousands of lives would be saved each year if guns were harder to acquire? v reasonable imo

― playing in his high school band “The Velvet Pickle” (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 22 March 2018 16:06 (seven years ago)

not saying it's reasonable!

― gbx, Thursday, 22 March 2018 16:07 (seven years ago)

didn't mean to suggest you were, just eternally amazed at the efforts america will go to in order to avoid gun control

― playing in his high school band “The Velvet Pickle” (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 22 March 2018 16:09 (seven years ago)

american exceptionalism at its finest

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 22 March 2018 17:17 (seven years ago)

"Pistol in the Bathroom" by the English Beat

The most common way gun owners carry concealed handguns is to attach the weapon to their belt or waistband, Dr. David Yamane, a Wake Forest University sociology professor who studies gun culture, told Splinter. But that becomes an issue when you to sit on a toilet and you’re carrying a gun that weighs a few pounds around your waist. So people sometimes take their guns off and find a space in the stall to stash them.

“It truly is a practical problem that many people have when they carry concealed weapons,” Dr. Yamane said. “With the liberalization of gun carry laws you are going to see a small number of people doing things like carrying a concealed gun into a bathroom, taking the gun off, and forgetting to put the gun back on.”

Yamane said that the rate of forgotten guns is relatively low compared to the number of people who carry concealed weapons on a daily basis. But it’s a common enough problem that the National Rifle Association has tips for its members on how not to forget their guns in the bathroom. “We hear many stories of people leaving guns in the stall or on the sink, even law enforcement personnel,” notes a 2017 article in the NRA’s publication Shooting Illustrated.

https://splinternews.com/an-alarming-number-of-guns-are-waiting-to-be-found-in-c-1823997714

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 23 March 2018 19:55 (seven years ago)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/25/politics/rick-santorum-guns-cnntv/index.html

"How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that," Santorum said on CNN's "State of the Union."

― omar little, Sunday, 25 March 2018 15:51 (seven years ago)

Fucking antichrist

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Sunday, 25 March 2018 16:11 (seven years ago)

Eat shit and die Santorum

― nashwan, Sunday, 25 March 2018 16:22 (seven years ago)

Van Jones put him in his place

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Sunday, 25 March 2018 16:33 (seven years ago)

Santorum demonstrating once again that he's the living embodiment of his name's alternate meaning. What utter human garbage.

― Toilet Paper Tube Bracelets -- Super Hero Themed? (Old Lunch), Sunday, 25 March 2018 17:24 (seven years ago)

"But I think everyone should be responsible and deal with the problems that we have to confront in our lives."

Fucking insane.

― jmm, Sunday, 25 March 2018 17:28 (seven years ago)

Hmm. Maybe these kids who are mostly under the voting age, instead of organizing enormous rallies to effect change, should employ these guns you champion so mindlessly and deal with some problems. How about that, you massive fucking fecal spray?

― to eat a little "snack", to have an snack (Old Lunch), Sunday, 25 March 2018 17:36 (seven years ago)

They took action to ask someone to pass a law," Santorum said.

this is literally democracy you dipshit

― The Desus & Mero Chain (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Sunday, 25 March 2018 17:39 (seven years ago)

Former GOP representative in failing to understand how representative government works shocker.

― to eat a little "snack", to have an snack (Old Lunch), Sunday, 25 March 2018 17:56 (seven years ago)

CPR rilly rilly helpful for gunshot wounds I guess

― bone thugs & prosody (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 25 March 2018 21:26 (seven years ago)

https://d2ffutrenqvap3.cloudfront.net/items/0n0B1F1k0u2J2n380Q26/my%20gun%20smells%20like%20cat%20food.jpg

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 26 March 2018 09:56 (seven years ago)

There are worse people to have opening your Overton window:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17167700/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment

would love to hear more and more of this

― motorpsycho nightmare winningham (Hadrian VIII), Tuesday, 27 March 2018 17:16 (seven years ago)

As the debate over arming teachers in schools reverberates across the country, Kansas is doubling down on the idea.
A new bill would not only authorize the arming of Kansas school staff, it would hold schools responsible if a shooting were to occur and the teachers and staff present were not allowed to be armed.
Here's the exact wording from House Bill 2789:
"In any action against a unified school district arising out of acts or omissions regarding the possession or use of firearms on the premises of such school district, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of such school district when it is shown by evidence that such school district did not authorize any employee of such school district, other than school security officers, to carry concealed handguns..."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/kansas-house-bill-arming-teachers-school-shooting-trnd/index.html

― omar little, Wednesday, 28 March 2018 21:51 (seven years ago)

I'm pretty sure the verbiage quoted there would net you a psych eval if you said it aloud.

I mean just what the raging fuck.

― Arthur Pizzarelli AKA The Peetz (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 28 March 2018 22:05 (seven years ago)

Fucking christ

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 28 March 2018 22:05 (seven years ago)

a good way to help schools that just suffered a gun attack would be to punish them somehow, sure

― k3vin k., Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:51 (seven years ago)

The Vermont House has passed a bill to make background checks mandatory for all gun sales, ban high-capacity magazines, ban bump stocks, and raise the purchase age for rifles to 21; GOP Gov. Phil Scott, a gun owner, says he'll sign it: https://t.co/F8t4Px5V28
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) March 29, 2018

― Karl Malone, Friday, 30 March 2018 16:16 (seven years ago)

Nice!

― how's life, Friday, 30 March 2018 16:18 (seven years ago)

The NRA will likely challenge it in federal court as unconstitutional, at least in part, but that's to be expected these days.

― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 30 March 2018 16:28 (seven years ago)

way to put a bullseye on yourself for tyrants, Vermont!

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Friday, 30 March 2018 17:10 (seven years ago)

I swear if I see a single more "Actually, Bank of America is good now #welcometotheresistance" post/tweet/whatever I am going to burn down a building or something.

― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Thursday, 12 April 2018 19:13 (seven years ago)

Very excited to share this project: "The Gun Studies Syllabus," which I created with the wonderful Caroline Light.

Gun Studies Syllabus https://t.co/pFRYghk0e8 via @publicbooks
— Lindsay Livingston (@lindsayli) April 12, 2018

― map, Friday, 13 April 2018 03:18 (seven years ago)

it's been 2 months since the Parkland mass shooting, 6 months since the Las Vegas mass shooting at the country festival, and the 2 year anniversary of the Pulse mass shooting is coming up this June.

the national conversation has been had several times, everyone agrees that something needs to be done, and a few states and localities are starting to make changes. virtually nothing on the national level. is the strategy to just wait for the mid-terms and make it an litmus test issue then?

― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 18 April 2018 18:06 (seven years ago)

My guess is that so many national politicians have been burned by the NRA over hte years that getting any of them to make a forthright stand on gun violence is going to require a massive demonstration of strength by gun control advocates, plus some staying power across multiple elections, before incumbents get on board in large numbers.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 18 April 2018 19:19 (seven years ago)

three months pass...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nra-financial-trouble-706371/

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Friday, 3 August 2018 16:18 (six years ago)

Aw, maybe they shouldn't have spent all that money on that presidential campaign.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 3 August 2018 16:30 (six years ago)

three weeks pass...

4chan nerds are photoshopping David Hogg to look female, calling him Daisy, and then having sexual fantasies about their Daisy Hogg memes. I feel like this is some... new, uncharted form of self-own pic.twitter.com/UkbYERuhan
— Michael Edison Hayden (@MichaelEHayden) August 28, 2018

― Eliza D., Tuesday, 28 August 2018 15:51 (six years ago)

nuke earth

― omar little, Tuesday, 28 August 2018 15:56 (six years ago)

https://jezebel.com/the-story-of-a-gun-1828629575

― sleeve, Thursday, 30 August 2018 14:02 (six years ago)

^ from that article I learned, among other things, that the CEO or Ruger is named Chris Killjoy, which may be taken in several apt senses. Astounding!

― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 30 August 2018 20:42 (six years ago)

of Ruger

― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 30 August 2018 20:45 (six years ago)

two weeks pass...

how much worse could this guy be? This much worse: https://www.sfgate.com/news/local/crime/article/Controversial-Austin-man-behind-3-D-printed-gun-13241265.php

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 17:20 (six years ago)

Worse than whoever runs "sugardaddymeet.com?"

― DJI, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 17:21 (six years ago)

hey let's not quibble about who deserves to fall where on the Dante-levels-of-Hell scale

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 17:23 (six years ago)

$500? damn

― Nhex, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 17:46 (six years ago)

he escaped to asia, because of course

https://www.statesman.com/news/breaking-news/breaking-austin-man-center-printed-gun-debate-faces-sex-assault-charge/AnteUx5fI7LpNg6yg0Z1JN/

― maura, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 22:18 (six years ago)

what a scumbag

― maura, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 22:19 (six years ago)

not that it matters all that much in the scheme of things but why was he charged with sexual assault instead of solicitation or statutory rape?

― Nhex, Wednesday, 19 September 2018 22:54 (six years ago)

two weeks pass...

https://i.imgur.com/JPOEj0z.png
https://i.imgur.com/faHvgSF.png
https://i.imgur.com/dMIS3rj.png
https://i.imgur.com/t23jKEZ.png

― Karl Malone, Friday, 5 October 2018 21:00 (six years ago)

dammn that's cold work MAD

― Nhex, Friday, 5 October 2018 21:41 (six years ago)

good for them.

― El Tomboto, Friday, 5 October 2018 22:17 (six years ago)

also nice inclusion of the fucking useless metal detector

― El Tomboto, Friday, 5 October 2018 22:18 (six years ago)

three weeks pass...

A kid was shot and killed at school this morning and they’re continuing on with classes like nothing happened. We’re completely desensitized to violence. This is the new normal in America. https://t.co/2pDfxiOwna
— Dylan (@dyllyp) October 29, 2018

― Karl Malone, Monday, 29 October 2018 19:17 (six years ago)

fucking awful.

― she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Monday, 29 October 2018 20:20 (six years ago)

This NYMag piece was tears this morning. I don't know how fix America. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/school-shooting-survivors.html

― Yerac, Monday, 29 October 2018 20:43 (six years ago)

one month passes...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/bump-stocks-ban/index.html

― Infidels, Like Dylan In The Eighties (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 18 December 2018 18:48 (six years ago)

congrats on doing the bare minimum

― frogbs, Tuesday, 18 December 2018 18:49 (six years ago)

two months pass...

NRA’s presences is remarkably low-key to absent at #CPAC2019

No Wayne LaPierre — a CPAC mainstay — or Dana Loesch, fixture in recent years. Ollie North spoke earlier, but he has different public image, not so associated w/NRA.

Panel right now on guns, no one from NRA.
— Michelangelo Signorile (@MSignorile) February 28, 2019

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 28 February 2019 19:56 (six years ago)

Laying low, waiting for all the Russian collusion stuff to blow over and be forgotten.

― A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 28 February 2019 20:06 (six years ago)

three weeks pass...

An active-shooter training exercise at an Indiana elementary school in January left teachers with welts, bruises and abrasions after they were shot with plastic pellets by the local sheriff’s office conducting the session.
The incident, acknowledged in testimony this week before state lawmakers, was confirmed by two elementary school teachers in Monticello, who described an exercise in which teachers were asked by local law enforcement to kneel down against a classroom wall before being sprayed across their backs with plastic pellets without warning.
“They told us, ‘This is what happens if you just cower and do nothing,’” said one of the two teachers, both of whom asked IndyStar not to be identified out of concern for their jobs. “They shot all of us across our backs. I was hit four times.
“It hurt so bad.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/21/active-shooter-training-for-schools-teachers-shot-with-plastic-pellets/3231103002/

― but i'm there are fuckups (Karl Malone), Thursday, 21 March 2019 19:25 (six years ago)

Ban pellet guns.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 21 March 2019 19:38 (six years ago)

Ban small town Hoosier law enforcement imo and ime.

― Soupy Slacks (Old Lunch), Thursday, 21 March 2019 19:39 (six years ago)

A sad tribute to Jeremy Richman, who lost his daughter at Sandy Hook:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/31/sandy-hook-shooting-suicide-parents-fake-news-conspiracy

― pomenitul, Sunday, 31 March 2019 15:28 (six years ago)

the statement from his wife... I can't imagine

“My champion and the love of my life is the person who had every tool in the toolbox at his disposal … he succumbed to the grief that he could not escape. To parent our children without my champion shatters my heart and I will love my best friend forever.”

― ogmor, Sunday, 31 March 2019 17:01 (six years ago)

what hurt was reading how much he and his wife suffered every time there was another shooting, and how many people must be in their same shoes. there just isn't any escape with the frequency that shootings occur.

― pippin drives a lambo through the gates of isengard (Sparkle Motion), Sunday, 31 March 2019 17:13 (six years ago)

some pig fucking troll was walking around the national mall this weekend wearing a t-shirt that said "MY 30-ROUND MAG IDENTIFIES AS A 10 - I'M OKAY RIGHT?" and I have to live the rest of my days with the knowledge that I didn't spot him soon enough to grab his belt and chuck him into the tidal basin

― El Tomboto, Sunday, 31 March 2019 22:06 (six years ago)

you all know without my saying that he was bald, white, late 40s, and the shirt was black with white IMPACT lettering

― El Tomboto, Sunday, 31 March 2019 22:14 (six years ago)

wtf "bald" is this a murderous characteristic

― d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII), Sunday, 31 March 2019 22:17 (six years ago)

yes obviously it goes right along with everything else I said everyone becomes a twat when they turn 46, lose their melanin and start wearing black t-shirts

― El Tomboto, Sunday, 31 March 2019 22:21 (six years ago)

there but for the grace of god

― d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII), Sunday, 31 March 2019 22:28 (six years ago)

seven months pass...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/supreme-court-allows-families-of-sandy-hook-shooting-victims-to-sue-gunmaker-remington/2019/11/12/7f6a3afe-055a-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down an appeal from the gun industry intended to block a lawsuit from families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims.
The decision lets stand a groundbreaking ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court that said the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle can be sued and potentially held liable for the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 12 November 2019 16:00 (five years ago)

that's very good news. now if we can just luck out so the next few mass shootings are clustered around the same day or two, and at least one of them can involve an especially tragic group of victims, we might start to get some movement on this in congress as well

― at home in the alternate future, (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 12 November 2019 16:03 (five years ago)

let's see, maybe an orphanage and a convent would do the trick, but only if the shooters were aiming for the world record.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 12 November 2019 17:01 (five years ago)

one month passes...

this is slightly orwellian but slightly.... awesome?

https://www.shotspotter.com/technology/

Apparently this came into play at that party in Chicago.

― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 22 December 2019 20:48 (five years ago)

What an innovative way to deal with the problem of too many guns! Granted, it does nothing to reduce the number of guns or shootings or victims or deaths or wounding, but it sure does solve that other major problem of figuring out where all that gunfire is coming from!

― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 22 December 2019 21:38 (five years ago)

Yes too little too late probably.

― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 22 December 2019 21:41 (five years ago)

one month passes...

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/feds-publish-info-on-arizona-lead-contamination-from-shooting-11438893

what a shitty fucking hobby. (there's also the noise pollution. I was out on an otherwise lovely hike by Prescott Saturday, marred only by the near constant sound of gunfire from an unofficial range on public land 5 miles away.)

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 12 February 2020 16:46 (five years ago)

hmm, interesting. the trump admin should issue a revised rule to exempt Table Mesa from lead contamination regulations. that would make the problem go away

― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 12 February 2020 22:46 (five years ago)

one year passes...

I’m sure this can only turn out well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/texas-unlicensed-handgun-carry-bill

― Legalize Suburban Benches (Raymond Cummings), Tuesday, 25 May 2021 10:02 (four years ago)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/05/california-assault-weapons-ban-overturned/

California’s longtime assault weapon ban overturned

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said the ban was unconstitutional and warmly praised such firearms: “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.”

― Karl Malone, Saturday, 5 June 2021 17:44 (four years ago)

get me out of heeeeeeeeeere

― Karl Malone, Saturday, 5 June 2021 17:44 (four years ago)

the swiss army knife is a perfect combo of "home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment"?? what?! even before the AR-15 is mentioned, what? i have a swiss army knife - it is a perfect combo of NEITHER of those things.

god this country is creepy

― Karl Malone, Saturday, 5 June 2021 17:46 (four years ago)

perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment

They say the best defense is a good offense. Therefore, the ability to kill or maim a dozen or so people in less than a minute is a very good defense. But of course no one would ever do something like that unless they were defending the homela... uh, nvm.

― What's It All About, Althea? (Aimless), Saturday, 5 June 2021 18:15 (four years ago)

the easy parallel between the home (property, the family) and the homeland (nation) is telling somehow. more or less explicitly saying who it’s for & who it’s against. the guns are literally the border(s) in this scenario

― Left, Saturday, 5 June 2021 18:24 (four years ago)

homeland defense, fucking insurrections dogwhistle

― brimstead, Sunday, 6 June 2021 17:00 (four years ago)

i do however think it would be great for this country if everyone concerned about "homeland defense" were to trade in their AR-15s for that equally perfect killing machine, the Swiss Army Knife.

― Bobo Honk, real name, no gimmicks (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 6 June 2021 19:01 (four years ago)

The judge is clearly out of touch, presumably he meant “tactical leatherman” rather than Swiss Army Knife. You ever tried to get that little blade out in a moment of stress?

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Sunday, 6 June 2021 19:05 (four years ago)

no, but that's because i drink tactical coffee to boost my perception so that i eliminate the stress threat before it approaches

― Karl Malone, Sunday, 6 June 2021 19:08 (four years ago)

five months pass...

Woke up this morning to the news that there was a car chase and shootout more or less right on my street at midnight last night. I totally slept through it, but when I mentioned it to my daughter her eyes lit up and she said "I saw it!" I was all, wait, what? And she said she was woken up around midnight by what she thought were fireworks - pop! pop pop! - and opened her blinds a little to see what was going on just in time to witness two cars zooming down the street, shooting at each other, muzzles flashing.

Most frightening of all, she seems totally unfazed. Though it is, of course, very disturbing, and the sort of random violence that often leads to random shootings. This is all related to and spillover from what appears to be a wave of car chases and shootouts on the highway, which is itself pretty insane.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 7 November 2021 18:27 (three years ago)

Don’t you live in a relatively peaceful suburb too?

― A Pile of Ants (Boring, Maryland), Sunday, 7 November 2021 18:48 (three years ago)

Yeah, but it's barely a suburb. It's literally right next to the west side of Chicago, so there is always nearby stuff. But this is happening all over the city, as I understand it. It's not a war zone or anything, but it's become pretty regular.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 7 November 2021 19:07 (three years ago)

I never used to hear gunfire when I was hiking. Now I hear shooters popping off on just about every other hike.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 7 November 2021 19:12 (three years ago)

eight months pass...

I hope this happens more often:

Georgia gun laws are to blame for the cancellation of the 2022 Music Midtown festival in Atlanta, Georgia.
On Monday, Live Nation announced that the festival was canceled, stating only, “due to circumstances beyond our control, Music Midtown will no longer be taking place this year. We are looking forward to reuniting in September and hope we can get back to enjoying the festival together again soon.” The festival was set to take place in September with Jack White, Future, My Chemical Romance, and Fall Out Boy headlining. An estimated 50,000 people attended Music Midtown in 2021.
Though Live Nation did not officially give a reason for the cancellation, sources who worked with the festival confirmed to Rolling Stone that Georgia’s gun laws were to blame. Since 2011, Music Midtown has taken place at Piedmont Park in Atlanta, and parks are among the various public spaces in Georgia where guns are allowed to be carried. The festival, as a temporary user of the park, does not have the standing to supersede that law and enforce its own ban. (The festival’s website stated that “Weapons or explosives of any kind” are prohibited.)

I think a particular challenge is that a lot of artists have a "no weapons allowed" policy in their contract, which ... makes sense!

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2022 18:03 (two years ago)

Yeah... looks at that ridiculous stuff that happened to Kid Cudi recently. Add guns.

― Nhex, Monday, 1 August 2022 19:37 (two years ago)

Or, y'know Selena, Dimebag, that YouTuber that got shot in Orlando...

― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, 1 August 2022 20:02 (two years ago)

Not to mention some lunatic taking a gun to a crowded fest and just start shooting, period.

People were posting this in advance of Lollapalooza, can't vouch for its authenticity:

https://preview.redd.it/19nnbzlj3ie91.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a368b925ad77072a16ca9371cf3001747139ae04

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2022 20:25 (two years ago)

eight months pass...

Do we need a new thread specifically for people shot for knocking at the wrong door or pulling into a random driveway?

This damn country

― The Triumphant Return of Bernard & Stubbs (Raymond Cummings), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 01:42 (two years ago)

So many people are worked up and armed to the teeth over potential home invasion scenarios. Is there any reason to believe this happens frequently enough to worry whatsoever?

Not to mention that having a gun is not going to make a situation like that any better.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 02:43 (two years ago)

home invasions typically don't happen with the perpetrator knocking first

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 04:16 (two years ago)

“Even though he is doing well physically, he has a long road ahead mentally and emotionally,” she wrote in a GoFundMe appeal to raise money for medical bills and other expenses. By Monday afternoon the appeal had reached nearly $2m.

Increasingly my thoughts are to rush and donate to the victims and survivors and their families (tho this will only create new problems for some - and maybe the shooter gets rich out of it in some cases too). 2 million already tho, wow.

― nashwan, Tuesday, 18 April 2023 11:04 (two years ago)

one would think the family is going to have a solid case in court to have those bills paid by the shooter…?

― k3vin k., Tuesday, 18 April 2023 11:43 (two years ago)

That fucking old white dude was allowed to go home without charges.

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 13:59 (two years ago)

Authorities issued an arrest warrant for Andrew D. Lester, who was charged with felony assault and armed criminal action, one of which carries up to a life sentence if convicted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/17/ralph-yarl-shooting-kansas-city/

― The Terroir of Tiny Town (WmC), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 14:04 (two years ago)

Yeah I know he was charged afterward. The prosecutor at least admitted the suspect's motives were racial.

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 14:04 (two years ago)

"Stand Your Ground" laws are so so dangerous, they really do encourage people to just fucking shoot anyone who looks at them wrong. (And yes of course we all know who is likely to be given deference under these laws and who isn't.)

I had a really frustrating few minutes last night, our local county commission was debating a resolution calling for essentially a red flag law in Tennessee — which our useless governor tepidly endorsed last week but has not actually lifted a finger to make happen. I was there as a reporter but I got viscerally angry at some of the idiot misinformation from some of our commissioners. One tried to argue that "Well actually" guns aren't the leading cause of death for Americans under 18. Another trotted out the "states with tougher gun laws have more violence" line, which is provably, demonstrably, empirically untrue. I wrote an item today calling both of them out, for whatever good that does, but it's just offensive to me for elected officials to be so blithely unaware of the realities of the issue. So irresponsible. If you want to argue for more access to guns, you need to at least be honest that that almost inevitably means more gun deaths.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 14:20 (two years ago)

I think they probably are aware of these things, but are willfully misleading people because this is the outcome they wanted. The goal is to keep people living in fear, shut down public institutions, and to rule over everyone by outgunning them.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 14:31 (two years ago)

I mean ffs he shot the child when he was lying injured on the GROUND. there is no ground-standing there.

just the belief that one can do this under cover of law is enough to inspire such acts, even if the law doesn't eventually protect them.

we see how it played out in FL, it will continue to play out this way in all SYG states.

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 14:34 (two years ago)

I think they probably are aware of these things, but are willfully misleading people because this is the outcome they wanted.

Sadly I don't think so. The lack of curiosity about things like "facts" and "data" is very much a hallmark. They don't need them, because they know in their bones that Guns Are Good and only good things come from guns (unless of course they fall into the hands of Bad People, especially ones who aren't white).

I had a sort of similar argument with a local lefty earlier this week, he was adamant that Tennessee Republicans know they're racist and their offense at being called racist is all a put-on. But that's not true. I talk to these people. They 100 percent truly and sincerely believe that they are definitely NOT racist. That's because their idea of what racism is is so cramped and narrow, granted, but they fervently believe it. They believe they are Good People, and obviously good people aren't racist, so therefore they're not racist. Same with guns — guns are good, therefore bad things that happen are not because of guns. There is no crack here for the light to get in, it's a closed belief system.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:13 (two years ago)

There is a crack in everything
that's how the right gets in

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:17 (two years ago)

lol

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:17 (two years ago)

btw here's what that Kansas City mayor said about Stand Your Ground:

“If Stand Your Ground really lets somebody just shoot somebody that rings a doorbell,” he said, “that put the life of every postal worker, every campaigner, every Amazon delivery person at risk in this country.”

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:21 (two years ago)

in missouri i expect them to make it mandatory for postal workers, campaigners, and amazon delivery people to carry guns on the job to address this imbalance in power

― it's a new day in the international landscape (z_tbd), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:24 (two years ago)

I can buy that many people are simply stuck in a closed off ecosystem where they do not have the access or wherewithal to get factual information that would contradict their views, and maybe some of these low level politicians fall into that category as well, but the ecosystem itself did not come together by pure dumb luck, it's taken decades of directed effort to build this and the goals are very obvious: intimidation, domination, and the destruction of public institutions. There is no question in my mind that the push to funnel tax dollars to religious schools and homeschoolers while defunding public schools goes hand-in-hand with school shootings.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:28 (two years ago)

btw here's what that Kansas City mayor said about Stand Your Ground:

again, this is exactly the point, especially if those people happen to belong to any of the groups they do not like

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:30 (two years ago)

I guarantee you there are plenty of Republican U.S. senators who are also legitimately ignorant about the negative consequences of guns. Knowing that "more guns = more deaths" and still just mindlessly promoting guns anyway is the kind of thing self-aware villains would do — villains who know they're being villains — and the vast majority of these people do not actually think they're villains. They think they're the good guys.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:34 (two years ago)

They think they are good guys because they are shaping the country in a Christian white nationalist image, and their policies have been extremely successful and effective in reaching that goal. They are well aware of the consequences, they simply do not see them as negative.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:38 (two years ago)

I think it's more a willful ignorance, same mentality people use to justify living insanely unhealthy lifestyles because they eat a salad now and then. any Republican U.S. senator who says anything bad about guns will not be a U.S. senator for long

― frogbs, Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:39 (two years ago)

...and again

A man in upstate New York was charged with murder on Monday in the killing of a woman who was in a car that mistakenly drove into his driveway, officials said.

The woman and the three friends she was with never got out of the car on Saturday night, Jeffrey J. Murphy, the Washington County sheriff, said at a news conference. They were turning around after realizing their error when the man, Kevin Monahan, 65, stepped out of his house, in Hebron, N.Y., and fired at least two shots at the car, the sheriff said.

― j.o.h.n. in evanston (john. a resident of chicago.), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 16:48 (two years ago)

Beyond the fact that many gun owners wildly overestimate the likelihood that they will be the victims of a home invasion, the more basic assumption that does not get nearly enough examination is that if someone breaks into your home, they deserve to die. This is pretty much accepted as straight truth.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:00 (two years ago)

It's wild how so many crimes elevate to the standard of a death penalty case when the decision is left to the armed populace.

― omar little, Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:02 (two years ago)

my cousin once lost an old friend (in Florida, and after Stand Your Ground was passed). the neighbor's kid was terrorizing his mother, slashing her tires, defacing her house, ringing her doorbell at like 3 am, etc constantly for months. the friend came over and told his mother he'd handle it. admittedly, did not make the best decisions - dressing in all black, carrying a camcorder, and entering the neighbor's yard to try and film the kid in the act. the father came outside with a shotgun and without warning, just blew him away. friend was unarmed. neighbor was never charged.

yeah ok strange people shouldn't be dressed in all back in your yard but doesn't there have to be some duty of danger? or does everybody think it's the wild wild west where literally everybody is armed and can draw a gun in 0.1 seconds and that if you don't act immediately they are going to cap you?

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:24 (two years ago)

it's very much the latter

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:26 (two years ago)

the caveat being that it is always worthwhile to ask which people get a pass for randomly shooting someone and which people are acceptable victims

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:27 (two years ago)

Another terrible thing about SYG laws is that since the cases so often hinge on conflicting accounts of who did what first, they incentivize making sure you not only shoot but kill the other party. Leave no witnesses. Whoever survives gets to say it was self-defense.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:42 (two years ago)

many gun owners wildly overestimate the likelihood that they will be the victims of a home invasion, the more basic assumption that does not get nearly enough examination is that if someone breaks into your home, they deserve to die

In Cold Blood sold millions of copies. When Richard Speck murdered eight student nurses Time magazine's cover story came complete with diagrams of the apartment, a minute-by-minute timeline, and pages full of lurid prose. The more frightening and irrational a home invasion is, the more the media burns it into the nation's brains, simply because it inspires irrational panic-fear.

Something similar happens with stories of animal attacks. People who spend little time in the wilderness vastly overestimate the likelihood they'll be attacked by a bear or a cougar, or bitten by a rattlesnake.

Gun manufacturers have learned that constantly stimulating those fears is like owning a gold mine that never gets exhausted.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Tuesday, 18 April 2023 17:57 (two years ago)

and on and on we go

https://abc13.com/woodlands-elite-cheerleaders-shot-shooting-at-heb-in-elgin-texas-payton-washington-pedro-tello-rodriguez-jr-arrested/13150502/

― The Triumphant Return of Bernard & Stubbs (Raymond Cummings), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 09:47 (two years ago)

many gun owners wildly overestimate the likelihood that they will be the victims of a home invasion

I think this is a huge part of the problem, this fundamental misinformation, stoked by the usual suspects. I saw a survey once (or at least think I did, lol) that revealed conservatives (maybe everyone?) wildly overestimated the number of gay people in America at something like 25%, and did the same for other minorities (Blacks, Jews, etc.) to a crazy overinflated degree. If you're already paranoid and think "they" are out to get you, or "they" are out of control, and you think "they" are exponentially more in number than "they" actually are, then not only are you probably prone to be even more paranoid and afraid, you might be even more primed to protect/defend yourself from the promised/threatened/foretold inevitable. And what better way to do that than arming yourself for the inevitable day they come knocking at your door?

It's a perverse self-fulfilling prophecy potentiated by those that would stand to profit (both financially and politically). I saw something yesterday in one of the Jan. 6 cases where one of the defendants claimed he came armed to a protest because there were supposedly 1000 antifa en route by bus, which is fundamentally ridiculous ... unless you believe it.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 12:51 (two years ago)

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population

― rob, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 12:59 (two years ago)

That's the one, thanks!

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 13:07 (two years ago)

Man I looked at this thread and thought "who the fuck on ILX would think we'd have to DEBATE this shit, even in 2007?".

Not surprised at the answer.

― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 13:16 (two years ago)

lol Manalishi/adultery really was one of the worst

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 13:25 (two years ago)

many gun owners wildly overestimate the likelihood that they will be the victims of a home invasion

just to add to josh's xp response, which is otm: even in the case of actual home invasion, carjacking, etc. -- take your pick of *potentially* violent crimes -- it is not remotely self-evident that the perpetrator is looking to cause bodily injury or kill another person. that's one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about this debate, the moving of the goal posts. like those of us who advocate for gun control shouldn't actually have to convince people that there is no threat of being the victim of crime. obv those threats are exaggerated and made a bogeyman to an absurd degree by the rhetoric on the other side, but even if they weren't it still wouldn't justify gun violence in the vast majority of circumstances. the rare case of actual home burglars or whatever are just looking to get your (presumably insured) stuff, not kill you.

― Lavator Shemmelpennick, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 13:37 (two years ago)

That's exactly correct, for the most part they probably are trying to avoid the occupants altogether, and are probably not doing anything worthy of being murdered.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 13:47 (two years ago)

kind of incredible what an aggressive action door-knocking is now interpreted as.

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:19 (two years ago)

so more about the 84 year old piece of shit who shot Ralph Yarl

Lester has told police he and the teen did not exchange words before he fired at him through a locked glass door.

Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN.
Lester thought Ralph was trying to break in to the home and was “scared to death” due to the boy’s size, according to the document.

and you let this guy go home a mere few hours into a 24 hour hold without charging him.

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:26 (two years ago)

"boy's size" a p obvious dog whistle

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:26 (two years ago)

Over coffee, Eisenhower took Warren by the arm and asked him to consider the perspective of white parents in the Deep South. “These are not bad people,” the president said. “All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big black bucks.”

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:27 (two years ago)

kind of incredible what an aggressive action door-knocking is now interpreted as.

I’m sure it was the color of the person knocking on the door, not the knocking itself. Has he shot Mormon missionaries?

― Every post of mine is an expression of eternity (Boring, Maryland), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:28 (two years ago)

Over coffee, Eisenhower took Warren by the arm and asked him to consider the perspective of white parents in the Deep South. “These are not bad people,” the president said. “All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big black bucks.”

Reminds me of the line in The Royal Tenenbaums when Royal refers to Danny Glover’s character, a gentle soft spoken man, as a “big black buck.” To a racist, every black man is a scary giant with superhuman strength who’s up to no good.

― Every post of mine is an expression of eternity (Boring, Maryland), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:32 (two years ago)

The infrequency of home invasion / hot prowl break ins which result in homicide, where homicide was part of the intent, is such that whenever it does happen it's national news. Like what happened in Idaho a few months ago with those college students, for example. That's not to diminish the nightmarish nature of such a scenario, but it's so damn rare. I think more valuable than stocking up on weaponry is just secure your home really well and don't make it an easy target.

However I guess having lived for a number of years in a couple different neighborhoods of Los Angeles which were heavy on the burglaries and having known people whose homes were broken into while they were there, I also understand the fear that can come from having such a thing happen.

― omar little, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:32 (two years ago)

tbf to Eisenhower we still don't know if that quote's apocryphal, for Warren hated his guts.

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 16:34 (two years ago)

Yeah actual home invasions are very rare, and the vast majority of the ones that happen are people who know each other. (Domestic violence, people stealing pills or cash from grandma, etc.) Which are still bad obviously, but the risk from random people deciding to come to your specific home and break in with intent to do harm is so small that taking any precautions beyond locking your doors is a hyperbolic overreaction.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 19:14 (two years ago)

And burglars usually try to hit when nobody's home, though obviously sometimes it happens while people are. I've known people who it's happened to, but when they yelled the person(s) ran away.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 April 2023 19:16 (two years ago)

🚨 The grandson of the man who shot Ralph Yarl blames the NRA:

"Ludwig said his grandfather had been immersed in 'a 24-hour news cycle of fear and paranoia.' 'And then the NRA pushing the ‘stand your ground’ stuff and that you have to defend your home.'"https://t.co/fCA2VCvnAn
— Peter Ambler (@PeterMAmbler) April 20, 2023

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 April 2023 15:34 (two years ago)

^^^

― The Triumphant Return of Bernard & Stubbs (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 20 April 2023 20:40 (two years ago)

good

― Perverted By Linguiça (sleeve), Thursday, 20 April 2023 20:41 (two years ago)

Fucking gun in some kid's backpack went off in a classroom in one of my sons' schools today. It didn't hit anybody but the classroom teacher was "grazed" by shrapnel or something. The school went into lockdown, security got the kid and arrested him (just assuming it's a "him"), and they dismissed everyone and sent them home early. My kid was unfazed — he was in a different part of the building, didn't hear the gunshot or anything — but christ alfuckingmighty.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:12 (two years ago)

what the FUCK

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:12 (two years ago)

first of all, I'm glad your kid is alright, and I'm glad everybody else is mostly alright. but how is this bullshit acceptable? why are people supposed to be expected to live w/ this shit

― Cthulhu Diamond Phillips (Neanderthal), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:13 (two years ago)

It is so not acceptable, I'm so mad about it. Especially because earlier this week I had to sit through a goddamn county commission meeting where a group of local high school students was begging them to go on record supporting some version of a red-flag law or really anything at all to limit the flow of guns and they harrumphed a lot about "freedom" and "My family came to this great country 7 generations ago" and voted down the resolution 7-3. Goddammit.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:16 (two years ago)

jesus christ, I’m so sorry. that’s a nightmare

― k3vin k., Friday, 28 April 2023 19:26 (two years ago)

I'm so sorry, tips.

― the dreaded dependent claus (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:36 (two years ago)

really glad to hear no one was hurt.

― c u (crüt), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:45 (two years ago)

just horrible, glad your kid is ok tipsy

― Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 28 April 2023 19:53 (two years ago)

And what made that kid think he needed to bring a pistol to school? Just showing off?

― Andy the Grasshopper, Friday, 28 April 2023 20:08 (two years ago)

It was apparently a 14-year-old, a 9th-grader, god knows what or why. There are reports out there that he had actually posted photos of him with the gun at school on social media — I haven't seen those posts, so I don't know if it's true, but most likely he was just being a dumb little shit and showing off.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Friday, 28 April 2023 20:59 (two years ago)

there's no cure for adolescent brains, but there are gun safes and trigger locks

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 28 April 2023 21:06 (two years ago)

And prosecuting the shit out of whoever is supposed to be the legal owner and caretaker of that thing.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Friday, 28 April 2023 21:09 (two years ago)

Ugh

― The Triumphant Return of Bernard & Stubbs (Raymond Cummings), Friday, 28 April 2023 21:13 (two years ago)

knowing how casual many gun owners are about their handguns, the kid probably just lifted it out of the glove box of his dad's car because his dad never looks in there anyway

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 28 April 2023 21:14 (two years ago)

seven months pass...

Wow

Today is the 11-year mark of Sandy Hook and still nothing has changed. We just released this video @DemocracyMoms with our partners called Thoughts & Prayers. We hope you follow us there and donate to the cause to help us get this on the air. #gunreform https://t.co/DY98A3nvEB pic.twitter.com/ftbg0Soj96
— Mothers4Democracy/MothersAgainstGregAbbott (@MomsAGAbbott) December 14, 2023

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 14 December 2023 18:28 (one year ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.