Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Maybe I should have clarified that as the theoretical subset of gun owners who plan to rise up shooting in response to tyranny. I can't see many of those people being on board with the gay rights movement or the Dream Act.

Rick Santorum and others for example refer to same sex marriage laws as "tyrannical". So I can only guess that this is the sort of thing that gets their blood boiling and that they plan to rise up against.

How about you just acknowledge that painting 100 million people with a single brush just isn't going to work out well.

So long as gun ownership does in fact coincide with political belief, it will be a poor way to maintain a democracy. There are more republicans with guns than democrats, and that fact alone creates a scenario where the will of the people could be interpreted as tyrannical by an armed minority. That undermines our democracy, it doesn't support it.

Does it though?

Go back 30 years and things were much more equal. There were still slightly more guns among republicans than democrats. But Both sides hovered at near 50% ownership numbers. It's only since then that democrats have decided to give up their guns while republican numbers have more or less stayed the same.

[misko27]

So the answer is, "Yes it does coincide with political belief, at least right now."

[nenjin]

There are more republicans with guns than democrats, and that fact alone creates a scenario where the will of the people could be interpreted as tyrannical by an armed minority. That undermines our democracy, it doesn't support it.

That is my main concern with guns. People believe it will enable to "defend their rights" when the time comes. What they define as the right time and what the rest define as the right time could be frighteningly different though. At what point does "protecting myself from tyranny" become "disregarding the law because it suits your beliefs?" I don't support people's right to back up their refusal to obey the law with force, and those SOBs who took over that Wildlife Refuge did just that, and we gave them a pass for it because of this whole "freedom culture" shit.

It's sentiments like that which scare the shit out of me. When you couple that with all the anti-government rhetoric (despite the fact their boy is in the White House right now) out there, and when people start clenching their guns and talking about their freedoms, whatever they decide those are, what I want to do is call a SWAT team to stand between me and them. The threat to public order is not criminals, animals or the gubernment. Those have always been here. Right now the threat to public order is some guy going "I'VE HAD ENOUGH" and going apeshit.

[sluissa]

There are more republicans with guns than democrats, and that fact alone creates a scenario where the will of the people could be interpreted as tyrannical by an armed minority. That undermines our democracy, it doesn't support it.

That is my main concern with guns. People believe it will enable to "defend their rights" when the time comes. What they define as the right time and what the rest define as the right time could be frighteningly different though. At what point does "protecting myself from tyranny" become "disregarding the law because it suits your beliefs?" I don't support people's right to back up their refusal to obey the law with force, and those SOBs who took over that Wildlife Refuge did just that, and we gave them a pass for it because of this whole "freedom culture" shit.

It's sentiments like that which scare the shit out of me. When you couple that with all the anti-government rhetoric (despite the fact their boy is in the White House right now) out there, and when people start clenching their guns and talking about their freedoms, whatever they decide those are, what I want to do is call a SWAT team to stand between me and them. The threat to public order is not criminals, animals or the gubernment. Those have always been here. Right now the threat to public order is some guy going "I'VE HAD ENOUGH" and going apeshit.

And they call the republicans the party of fear mongering. Sheesh.

So the answer is, "Yes it does coincide with political belief, at least right now."

But last I checked nobody was forcing a power imbalance, if you even can call it that. If democrats are having lower gun ownership numbers it's because they're choosing to not own guns.

[PTTG??]

The NRA has basically been calling for a civil war, man. Look at the ads they run and it's not even subtle. They are the ones fearmongering. Pointing that out and saying that it is effective fearmongering is... decidedly something else.

[wierd]

There are more republicans with guns than democrats, and that fact alone creates a scenario where the will of the people could be interpreted as tyrannical by an armed minority. That undermines our democracy, it doesn't support it.

That is my main concern with guns. People believe it will enable to "defend their rights" when the time comes. What they define as the right time and what the rest define as the right time could be frighteningly different though. At what point does "protecting myself from tyranny" become "disregarding the law because it suits your beliefs?" I don't support people's right to back up their refusal to obey the law with force, and those SOBs who took over that Wildlife Refuge did just that, and we gave them a pass for it because of this whole "freedom culture" shit.

It's sentiments like that which scare the shit out of me. When you couple that with all the anti-government rhetoric (despite the fact their boy is in the White House right now) out there, and when people start clenching their guns and talking about their freedoms, whatever they decide those are, what I want to do is call a SWAT team to stand between me and them. The threat to public order is not criminals, animals or the gubernment. Those have always been here. Right now the threat to public order is some guy going "I'VE HAD ENOUGH" and going apeshit.

Sorry nenj, but legal is not the same as virtuous.

See for instance, the now "perfectly legal" domestic mass data collection things the NSA does, or the "perfectly legal" operation of gitmo, or any number of other "perfectly legal" things.

There is a very powerful disconnect from "legal" and acceptable.  The bigger that disconnect is between the collective view society has on what is acceptable and what the government makes legal, is the driving force of insurrection.

The linchpin between say, "another Waco Texas or ruby ridge crazy going off the rails" (which is easily put down, qed.) and another "civil war", and another "revolutionary war", is the size of the insurrecting party, who all share at least a nebulously defined view of what is acceptable in the face of what is legal.

Getting the courts to declare something won't help with the effects of systemic social scorn (in the case of gay marriage, for example.) sure, it makes what you got them to agree to legal, but that only foments anger at the got from the population you failed to get behind you.

You have to win hearts and minds. You have to change the societal view of what is acceptable. Otherwise, you risk insurrections.

This is true of both gay marriage, and of running gitmo. If the people are not collectively behind it, you are brewing revolt in a sealed cask.

[sluissa]

The NRA has basically been calling for a civil war, man. Look at the ads they run and it's not even subtle. They are the ones fearmongering. Pointing that out and saying that it is effective fearmongering is... decidedly something else.

NRA are despicable. Agreed.  NRA does not represent all gun owners. Some of us specifically go to lengths to avoid association with them. Not all animal rights activists associate with PETA. Not all environmentalists associate with Greenpeace. Next?

When do we get about to fixing the underlying problems rather than fear mongering about the symptoms? When do we stop focusing on the exceptions to the rule rather than the majority new rules will unduly affect? When do we stop spreading lies and half truths in the name of some sort of contrived morality? Some sort of "Your lifestyle is different. You're a deviant and must be punished." belief system?

[Trekkin]

The NRA has basically been calling for a civil war, man. Look at the ads they run and it's not even subtle. They are the ones fearmongering. Pointing that out and saying that it is effective fearmongering is... decidedly something else.

Recall that the NRA exists for one purpose: maximizing gun sales. That is why their answer to every single problem is for more people to have more guns in more places with more accessories, and that is why they are capitalizing on their target market's sense of lost relevance by running things explicitly intended to seem like they'd anger or scare liberals. They want people buying several guns to show they're good guys and maybe a few more just in case there really is a war, you never know, etc.

They have no interest in actually inciting a conflict that would get many of their best customers killed.

[birdy51]

The first step in my own mind is first being able to track gun sales at all.

Article on How Guns get tracked.

It's a bit dated, but given that we have a Republican congress these days, I can't imagine the laws have changed. If we aren't figuring out how guns are changing hands in an efficient manner, than we cannot hope to enact effective legislation preventing weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

[nenjin]

Some sort of "Your lifestyle is different. You're a deviant and must be punished." belief system?

The irony is pretty strong here, given the beliefs of some ardent gun owners.

When do we get about to fixing the underlying problems rather than fear mongering about the symptoms?

When you can fix what makes some Americans snap and go on a shooting spree with the best arms money can buy, we're all ears. Most people can't figure out how to solve that particular ill. The only approachable problem we see that can be addressed atm is their ability to arm themselves, and indeed anyone who wakes up one day and goes "I wanna die and want to take as many people with me as I can."

When do we stop focusing on the exceptions to the rule rather than the majority new rules will unduly affect?

When the majority take a realistic look at the situation and wonder if they shouldn't give up something for the health of the nation. But they won't. Because there's the specter of tyranny, that widely peddled boogie man that there is no real response to. Which is easier to imagine right now: the government kicking down your door and ruining your life without due process, or literally anyone above the age of 14 going on a shooting spree with a semi-auto or automatic weapon? I know which one I worry about more at night. And I didn't vote for the guy in office right now. You talk about unduly affecting other Americans. What exactly does that mean? That you give up what is to most a luxury sporting item, or that it costs you more money per year because you have to go through more registration? That the gun industry has to stop selling some lines of guns, that it does take some sort of profit hit?

If you reply with "they'll take our guns away" then I will at least do you the courtesy of letting you express your fears without accusing you of fear mongering or lying, or saying what you believe is contrived to win an argument on the internet.

Let me just straight up ask: how much are you willing to be DULY affected if it even had the chance of saving a couple lives over the next 10 years?

When do we stop spreading lies and half truths in the name of some sort of contrived morality?

When each side takes the other's arguments seriously? I get why gun owners caught in the middle are pissed, but frankly I don't see how we can have this many mass shootings and not have way more of the gun owners looking as hard at gun regulation as the rest of us are. We get they're your rights and you value them, even though many of us don't own guns and probably never will. It's not a sacrifice we have to make because it's a right we don't exercise. So all we can do is lobby, and watch the bodies pile up and wonder whether any measure is better than doing nothing at all. Gun owners are the other half of the equation to figuring out any solution, but most don't seem willing to compromise on anything, because they believe and are coached that if they give an inch, a mile will be taken.

Sorry nenj, but legal is not the same as virtuous.

I didn't say legal was virtuous. It's just the law. My bar for armed resistance against my own country is pretty high. Maybe if I was poorer and darker I'd have a lot more reason to feel like an enemy of the state and vicea versa. But if my choices were fight my own government or move, I'd probably move.

Because you can't point to one person to fight during a revolt. You just break shit. You destroy things and lives just to make a political point to the power structure. You just blindly thrash around and attack any edifice of the government. That kind of chaos is not warranted by anything the US has done domestically. Yet that's the "resistance against tyranny" fantasy that lies behind the freedom to bear arms. The ability to shoot back at the power structure and be your own person and make your own rules if ultimately the law or the country turns against your interests.

Most people would just move instead. Most people realize I think that the reality of armed resistance is probably a hell of a lot less romantic than the fantasy. No one actually wants to go through that....or do some people? They are the ones I worry about. That are just arming up and amping up waiting for something to happen, until it either does or the pressure gets to them and they go on a rampage. (Or take over a federal property while armed and basically dare someone to shoot at them.)

You have to win hearts and minds. You have to change the societal view of what is acceptable. Otherwise, you risk insurrections.

This is true of both gay marriage, and of running gitmo. If the people are not collectively behind it, you are brewing revolt in a sealed cask.

Collectives are hard to achieve when 50% support imprisoning terrorists extra judicially and even applaud it because they believe it will keep us safe, and 50% are horrified that we treat people like subhuman animals and take away their basic rights just because they're not Americans. On the gay marriage front, 50% believe it is the only right and just way to treat another thinking, feeling, tax paying American citizen. The other 50% believe allowing it to happen without protest is the same thing as condoning it. Neither side is going to come to a change of heart because the issues are too close. The only two questions are these: which side has the greater majority and will shift society to align with their ideals, and will the other side (whichever that is) respond with violence or not? And in the case of the actual topic at hand.....would they/will they respond with gun violence if society turns against their interests? Or will they take it on the cheek for 'Murica? Because in my view, right now, 'Murica is taking it on the cheek for them every time another 10+ come up dead from gun violence where no one expected it to be, not with a side arm for protection but a rifle. People have been killing people with guns in America since we started....but only in the last couple decades do I feel gun violence has shown up in unexpected places for the express purpose of terrorizing as many people as possible.

[wierd]

Nitpick: any gun that uses recoil to chamber the next round is semi-automatic. This is more than 90% of consumer firearms. (Single shot, magazine-less weapons like a blunderbuss manage to dodge the class.)

There is nothing special about a semi-automatic to make it scary. I take exception to it being conflated with full auto which sprays bullets so fast that you exhaust the magazine in under one second, which is what you just did there nenj.

[nenjin]

Fair enough. TBH I don't even like the idea of semi-auto being legal but even 20 years ago that was bridge too far. I just don't see the actual, practical need for anything like that outside of law enforcement and the military. Guns are fun, shot a whole bunch back when I was a teen. But as I've gotten older fun and sport don't seem related to what's actually going on. People are scared. Scared of being shot, scared of being made powerless. It's a scary fucking environment to have gun laws this permissive. And I don't see cooler heads prevailing or things deescalating any time soon.

[Trekkin]

Actually, that's something I've been wondering: Do people who use firearms for pest control and so forth need semiautomatic firearms, or would multi-barreled shotguns and so forth suffice?

[wierd]

When dealing with pack predators, or predators with thick hide (bear), yes. It is very useful.

Do you need a magazine capacity greater than 6 shots? NO. NOT NEEDED.

[Egan_BW]

What if the bear is armored though?