Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gun Safety: the Politics (the spin-off thread)

Gun Safety: the Politics (the spin-off thread)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2023, 01:01 PM
 
<modvoice=OreoCookie>I have split this thread that originally focussed on gun safety in the movie industry in two: please continue all discussion on the political aspects, proposed policy changes and the like here, and feel free to contribute to the other thread on the topic of gun safety in the movie industry, Alec Baldwin, etc.

Edited with subego's permission.</modvoice>


My assumption is politics. I’m certainly seeing wingnuts say this is a liberal being protected by other liberals (the new prosecutors). Very few seem to care about anything else.

I haven’t heard anything about the gun being modified.

While guns do indeed get modified to have a lighter action (i.e., requiring less force on the trigger to fire), it strikes me there’s going to be a minimum which can’t be engineered past because the trigger is what applies force to the safety to move it out of the way.

Of course, this won’t apply if the safety is disabled. I have not heard it was disabled, but I wouldn’t put much weight on what I’ve heard.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; May 5, 2023 at 11:28 PM. )
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2023, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My assumption is politics. I’m certainly seeing wingnuts say this is a liberal being protected by other liberals (the new prosecutors). Very few seem to care about anything else.
A certain type of person LOVES to see a liberal mishandle a gun. I remember after the congressional baseball shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congre...eball_shooting) there was quite a bit of "he fired 100 rounds and didn't hit anything, obviously he's a liberal" going around.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2023, 10:27 AM
 
Lots of liberals are ignorant about guns.

Lots of conservatives like this because it allows them to short-circuit an argument by dismissing the arguer on the grounds of their ignorance.

Liberals mishandling guns fits in the same pigeon hole.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2023, 01:22 PM
 
To add… the Baldwin incident makes for a fantastic target because by the normal rules of gun safety, it’s entirely Baldwin’s fault.

The rules are different on set, and as I understand them, Baldwin (as actor) is not at fault whatsoever.

With most of those I’ve encountered who have it out for Baldwin, the claim the rules are different trigger an immediate dismissal, likely based on the same “short circuit” rhetoric I mentioned above.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2023, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
lots of conservatives like this because it allows them to short-circuit an argument by dismissing the arguer on the grounds of their ignorance.
"you fucken dumbass you said "clip" not "magazine" so we can now ignore the 19 dead children hahaha"
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2023, 03:19 PM
 
That’s the basic idea, but to be fair, the ignorance involved tends to be more extensive
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2023, 08:54 AM
 
"That's not a machine gun!"

"Assault rifle doesn't mean anything!"

"Most gun crime is committed with handguns not assault rifles!"

"That's just a tacti-cool AR frame with a bunch of accessories on it, my wood stock hunting rifle is more dangerous than that."

etc. etc. etc.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2023, 06:57 PM
 
This looks like a big opportunity for the “GUN CONTROL!!!” Versus “Mah rights!!!” argument. Instead, the discussion should be “who was this guy, why did he get away with discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner before he killed people, and how did he get away from the authorities?

It looks like the “suspect” may have fled the country.

One of the biggest rules for firearms use is that one must NOT be impaired when handling a firearm. Drunk (the suspect was purportedly drunk), medicated, even “really off because of this @#$% cold” are all impairments that will make safety difficult. Thus the “less red” argument for “idiot control instead of gun control” should be bigger than “mah rights.” Unless the ultra reddies are identifying with a drunk @sshole whose idea of “don’t wake the baby” is “kill everybody in the house.”

Further, the suspect is described as a “Mexican national.” Does he have the appropriate status (immigrant visa or green card)? In other words, did he legally purchase the firearm or not? The news is full of all the gore dripping stuff, and of pointing at governor Abbott (note the lower case ‘g’) for using the term “illegal immigrant”, but not about important stuff like “this guy was a permanent resident who could legally buy a gun” versus “this guy should not have been able to purchase a gun legally because he doesn’t have the right kind of immigration status”.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2023, 08:30 PM
 
Should we tell him?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2023, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Instead, the discussion should be “who was this guy, why did he get away with discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner before he killed people, and how did he get away from the authorities?
Why?
I think it is just another example in a long line just in the month of April where someone in the US misused a firearm. American gun culture that is prevalent is sick, and many of the people featured in the news should not have owned firearms are they were unable to use them responsibly.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It looks like the “suspect” may have fled the country. […] Further, the suspect is described as a “Mexican national.” Does he have the appropriate status (immigrant visa or green card)? In other words, did he legally purchase the firearm or not? The news is full of all the gore dripping stuff, and of pointing at governor Abbott (note the lower case ‘g’) for using the term “illegal immigrant”, but not about important stuff like “this guy was a permanent resident who could legally buy a gun” versus “this guy should not have been able to purchase a gun legally because he doesn’t have the right kind of immigration status”.
My feeling is that a lot of hay is made about the fact that the shooter is an immigrant and (from what I understand) not a US citizen. It seems like a neat cop out to avoid having a discussion about what the actual issue is, an abundance of firearms in the hands of people who are not responsible. And to a certain audience sensitive to those topics, it connects nicely to xenophobic beliefs they hold.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
One of the biggest rules for firearms use is that one must NOT be impaired when handling a firearm. Drunk (the suspect was purportedly drunk), medicated, even “really off because of this @#$% cold” are all impairments that will make safety difficult.
I'm surprised that that's what you took away from that sad story. Laws like constitutional carry laws or open carry treat guns less harshly than cars: you need a license to drive a car, you need to register your car and you need insurance. Among other things (e. g. proper storage), handling a firearm while intoxicated should not be a “nice to have”, but a law that is enforced.

I don't think many people can handle firearms responsibly, and training should be mandatory (with different types of training required for different classes of weapons just like with vehicles). The training of owning a firearm should be akin to getting a pilot's license, i. e. much stricter than getting a driver's license in the US.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2023, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s the basic idea, but to be fair, the ignorance involved tends to be more extensive
Is it, though?
A lot of people who like/own firearms would make the same or similar mistakes. I think the most prevalent example is suppressor vs. silencer. How many companies making suppressors actually have silencer in their company or product name? Just think of cars for a moment: just because you own a car doesn't mean you are necessarily knowledgable about cars.

Plus, when discussing regulations of firearms seriously, I think there are things that are actually important (e. g. number of deaths/injuries with handguns vs. rifles) and other things that are not really important (clip vs. magazine). When actual laws are written, yes, you need subject matter experts, but that's the same with all laws.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 09:49 AM
 
A silencer is a sound suppressor, so calling it a suppressor is appropriate unless one is talking about a flash suppressor.

I have already outlined the reason conservatives like the “ignorance” gambit, which is because it allows them to dismiss the arguer rather than address the argument.
( Last edited by subego; May 2, 2023 at 02:27 PM. )
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have already outlined the reason conservatives like the “ignorance” gambit because it allows them to dismiss the arguer rather than address the argument.
It also allows them a bit of an ego boost to pose as an “authority” on such matters.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 11:13 AM
 
Is “pose” is the right term, at least relative to the people they’re speaking to?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 11:30 AM
 
I am completely willing to forgive those who make these sorts of mistakes about firearms, but will note putting oneself in the position where this is necessary poorly serves one’s argument.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Should we tell him?
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why?
I think it is just another example in a long line just in the month of April where someone in the US misused a firearm. American gun culture that is prevalent is sick, and many of the people featured in the news should not have owned firearms are they were unable to use them responsibly.

My feeling is that a lot of hay is made about the fact that the shooter is an immigrant and (from what I understand) not a US citizen. It seems like a neat cop out to avoid having a discussion about what the actual issue is, an abundance of firearms in the hands of people who are not responsible. And to a certain audience sensitive to those topics, it connects nicely to xenophobic beliefs they hold.

I'm surprised that that's what you took away from that sad story. Laws like constitutional carry laws or open carry treat guns less harshly than cars: you need a license to drive a car, you need to register your car and you need insurance. Among other things (e. g. proper storage), handling a firearm while intoxicated should not be a “nice to have”, but a law that is enforced.

I don't think many people can handle firearms responsibly, and training should be mandatory (with different types of training required for different classes of weapons just like with vehicles). The training of owning a firearm should be akin to getting a pilot's license, i. e. much stricter than getting a driver's license in the US.
My point is that the gun didn’t just get up and murder people, nor did the guy react immediately. He went to the house, got the rifle, then murdered people. So FIRST, being inebriated and then retrieving a firearm to do harm is NOT about the prevalence of firearms. It’s about a Bad Person. There, I said it. He could have just as easily gone home and gotten an axe or a baseball bat, but instead he got an evil-looking rifle.

Second, the prevalence of firearms is (somewhat) moderated by rules about who can purchase them. A person who does not have appropriate immigration status should not be able to legally buy a firearm, any more than a person who is prohibited due to a felony conviction. Legal purchases - with all appropriate cautions and investigations - are far less of a problem than illegal purchases. Sadly, it’s easy to lie on the paperwork and get away with it (for the purchase) because various states don’t provide all the necessary information to NICS. Like Virginia STILL doesn’t ALLOW, let alone require psychologists to report patients who pose a threat to the community…how long ago was VaTech?

I am vehemently AGAINST firearms in the hands of people who cannot treat them as the dangerous devices they can be. I am vehemently against people who have criminal pasts getting firearms. I am vehemently against people with a history of abusing animals having access to (let alone owning) firearms. I am incredibly vehemently against access to firearms for people who feel their “manhood” is defined by how dangerous they can be, and even more so people who feel that being asked to stop waking the baby is a reason to murder a bunch of people.

Unfortunately instead of discussing how to safely and fairly vet people who would like to have access to firearms, while preventing those who should not have that access due to their own actions, we have a situation that is so extremely polarized that we can’t get to the middle ground. There are ways to not prevent safe, trained, sane people from having and using firearms in safe, sane ways, and at the same time preventing others from having them without ANY political involvement. But it’s all political, so nobody even gets to hear about such things.

I have owned firearms for over 40 years, and have murdered exactly zero people. There are a lot of people like me. Firearms can be used safely in sane and enjoyable activities. But since murder is a lot more likely to sell ad time, you won’t hear about how many people didn’t go on shooting rampages today. Spoiler: it’s an enormous number of people, and they collectively own an even more enormous number of firearms.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Should we tell him?
I waffled over whether I should be this cryptic, and clearly made the wrong call.

What I was trying to point out is I’m pretty sure things have gotten cross-threaded. The discussion of the Texas incident is in the PWL.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2023, 02:01 PM
 
Yes, it was too cryptic. And I’m kinda dense sometimes.

I was following Laminar’s post about AR15s, and didn’t do the background reading to see that I’d mistaken that post for a shift in the thrust of the thread. And I hadn’t looked at the PWL (my blood pressure is usually happier when I skip that forum) to see that there was a more appropriate thread there.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2023, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Firearms can be used safely in sane and enjoyable activities.
This is not a view held in many countries. Certainly not in mine (UK).
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2023, 02:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
This is not a view held in many countries. Certainly not in mine (UK).
Sure it is. There’s plenty of gun clubs in the UK. It’s just that there’s strict regulations as to what *exactly* has to happen with the gun and the ammo when you’re not actually at the gun club having fun with them in a sane and enjoyable way.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2023, 08:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
My point is that the gun didn’t just get up and murder people, nor did the guy react immediately. He went to the house, got the rifle, then murdered people. So FIRST, being inebriated and then retrieving a firearm to do harm is NOT about the prevalence of firearms. It’s about a Bad Person. There, I said it.
He was a person who had a gun but shouldn't have had a gun, because he was not equipped to deal with the responsibility that comes from owning a firearm. Even if he had no bad intent, shooting a gun in your garden close to your neighbors seems incredibly irresponsible to me.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
He could have just as easily gone home and gotten an axe or a baseball bat, but instead he got an evil-looking rifle.
That doesn't hold any water. He wouldn't have gotten as far with an axe or a baseball bat, because his force projection and reach would be much, much smaller. I know this unfortunately/fortunately from first-hand experience: while I was at the university of Toronto a student attacked a colleague with a knife two offices down. My colleague and his two neighbors tackled the perp while I called 911. My colleague was fortunately not seriously injured even though he was stabbed several times. With a gun I am he would be dead and it doesn't seem unlikely that others, perhaps myself, might have been shot, too. That day I was glad I was in Canada and not the US.

And I don't think we are having this discussion, because the rifle “looked evil”, but because the shooter killed 5 people with it.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Second, the prevalence of firearms is (somewhat) moderated by rules about who can purchase them.
How is that working out?
The issue is that the number of guns is too high, and that the laws have an ever expanding view where and how you can carry, and what constitutes a legitimate reason to defend yourself.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
A person who does not have appropriate immigration status should not be able to legally buy a firearm, any more than a person who is prohibited due to a felony conviction. Legal purchases - with all appropriate cautions and investigations - are far less of a problem than illegal purchases. Sadly, it’s easy to lie on the paperwork and get away with it (for the purchase) because various states don’t provide all the necessary information to NICS.
There is also the giant loophole that is private sales, which boggles my mind. As long as you can buy and sell guns privately or at gun shows, it is so easy to circumvent any laws that are on the books.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I am vehemently AGAINST firearms in the hands of people who cannot treat them as the dangerous devices they can be.
How many people are equipped to handle firearms? I'm thinking of both, proficiency and mental disposition? I think it is way easier to do this e. g. in the context of the military where people are in a very rigid context and to my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) weapons are managed quite rigorously.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Unfortunately instead of discussing how to safely and fairly vet people who would like to have access to firearms, while preventing those who should not have that access due to their own actions, we have a situation that is so extremely polarized that we can’t get to the middle ground. There are ways to not prevent safe, trained, sane people from having and using firearms in safe, sane ways, and at the same time preventing others from having them without ANY political involvement. But it’s all political, so nobody even gets to hear about such things.
I don't think it is polarization, it has more to do with what has happened over the last decades: the interpretation and implementation of the Second Amendment has steadily expanded over the last decades. Things like constitutional carry, open carry and shall issue laws have been passed since I first lived in the US. Congress let the assault weapons ban expire. The rise of the AR15 and “cool-looking” rifles that look like and are often related to military rifles. The Supreme Court re-interpreted the Second Amendment. And at the same time, school shootings and mass shootings have become common place. There were no active shooter drills at my high school in 1997/1998. Or metal detectors. The only gun-related “restriction” that I can remember has been passed in the last 10 years was the bump stock ban after the Las Vegas shooting.

That is why it is hard to find middle ground: the rights of gun owners have steadily expanded and ever more radical interpretations of gun rights have become common. At the same time, guns have started to impact the lives of and, indeed, infringe the rights of others. Even measures like universal background checks that have vast popular support do not and seemingly cannot get passed.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I have owned firearms for over 40 years, and have murdered exactly zero people. There are a lot of people like me. Firearms can be used safely in sane and enjoyable activities. But since murder is a lot more likely to sell ad time, you won’t hear about how many people didn’t go on shooting rampages today. Spoiler: it’s an enormous number of people, and they collectively own an even more enormous number of firearms.
I think people like you would have no issue getting your hands on firearms in a world where guns were more “well-regulated”:

- You'd pass a background check.
- Your guns would be registered to you.
- You have firearms training from your time in the Air Force, and I reckon you would pass regular proficiency tests.
- You would store your firearms appropriately.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2023, 05:58 PM
 
Oreo, I’m not saying he could have wrought the same carnage with an axe or baseball bat, only that it wasn’t “guns exist” that was the problem. Bad people who can’t handle pretending to be civilized will act out with whatever they have at hand, including firearms.

In the UK, there are more and more extreme controls on more items (kitchen knives, for example) because, deprived of a source of guns, bad people improvised and started using knives. The gun control laws in the UK certainly reduced violence with guns, but they didn’t “stop violent crime.” And I can’t help but have football “fans” come to mind here. The level of violence employed by these “fans” when their team doesn’t do well is appalling.

The “pro 2A” crowd ignores some of the better reads of that Amendment. When it was written, “well regulated” meant “well trained (and practiced).” The militia part is sort of ambiguous, since the different states had different ways of organizing them, but in the late 18th Century, “regulated” meant trained. Today, when you need your Rolex adjusted because it doesn’t keep time accurately (which is common), one option is to send it back to be “regulated.” Not “rule bound” or “controlled by law,” but adjusted.

I have military firearms training. OK, USAF firearms training, but still training. My wife’s father was a WWII vet from the 82nd Airborne Division, and someone who took firearm safety very seriously. She’s been extremely safety conscious from an early age.

Somehow having to learn safety rules doesn’t seem very onerous to us, but the 2A idiots think it’s a trap. Not without reason - a lot of gun control laws have been carefully written to allow the “ins” to decide which “outs” can and can’t have firearms. But it’s nearly trivial to take the basic rules and turn them into an apolitical, very effective curriculum that everybody could agree is fair and unbiased. But ANY attempt to address who gets access to firearms meets with a brick wall on that side of the aisle.

For example, being convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime (Item 21k on ATF Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record) will keep you from being able to buy a gun. But some states (including Texas) carefully word “domestic violence” statutes to include only cohabiting individuals. In other words, a person in a long-term relationship but not living with the other person can apparently beat the snot out of that other person, get convicted of multiple misdemeanors under Texas law, and still honestly answer “no” to Item 21k. Because the “boyfriend loophole” is more important than not letting the boyfriend go out and buy a gun to murder his girlfriend. Yes, it’s that F-ed up here. And not just here.

The ammosexuals need to stop sniffing gun oil and start being held accountable for the responsibilities that go along with EVERY right. You can say what you want in public, but you can’t scream “FIRE!” in a crowded place without repercussions. There should be exactly the same accountability for one’s actions when firearms are involved, especially before one has access.

OK, I’ve rambled enough. The points appear to be that a) anyone intent on doing violence will do violence and such violent people having access to guns makes them even more dangerous, b) being able to stop someone with a history of violence against someone in their home (“girlfriend?”) makes a lot of sense, but such rules are stonewalled by the far right, and c) where both sides feel super strongly about their positions, it really looks like the far right can handle the cognitive dissonance of being “pro life” but not supporting “protecting life,” at the expense of all logic. And it’s kids and innocent bystanders who pay for the far right’s insanity. With their blood.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2023, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
You can say what you want in public, but you can’t scream “FIRE!” in a crowded place without repercussions.
A side note. One of those "Lawyer comments on a topic" covered this on YT.

It turns out you CAN yell "FIRE" in a crowded location ... if there really is a fire. ie - truth cannot be punished.

If there's no fire, you're likely to be arrested. Especially if a bunch of people get trampled.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If there's no fire, you're likely to be arrested.
I’ve seen Penn and Teller do it in their live act.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
In the UK, there are more and more extreme controls on more items (kitchen knives, for example) because, deprived of a source of guns, bad people improvised and started using knives. The gun control laws in the UK certainly reduced violence with guns, but they didn’t “stop violent crime.” And I can’t help but have football “fans” come to mind here. The level of violence employed by these “fans” when their team doesn’t do well is appalling.
You're still consuming and repeating propaganda, and I don't think you know it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 04:10 PM
 
It's not all propaganda. Recall the UK animal rights activists, who dug up someone's dead grandma to hold hostage. They used shovels for terror. Along with bricks through windows, etc. They did just fine without guns - grandma wasn't recovered until 19 months later.

They were presently caught, and got 12 years each. Presumably released in 2018, so they're among us again. Admittedly, I haven't heard anything about shovels or bricks being restricted.

I remember commenting on this story at the time. It was memorable.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You're still consuming and repeating propaganda, and I don't think you know it.
My own personal experience is what’s actually happening here is I’m starting with the conclusion (in this context, free access to firearms is good for society) and working backwards. I unconsciously “curve fit” the arguments presented to me, and thus they all consistently mange to arrive at my predetermined result.

Among the many issues this causes is a distorted view of an argument’s convincing power.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2023, 10:12 PM
 
I have created this thread to continue our discussion on the politics of gun safety, which got sparked by this thread on Alec Baldwin accidentally shooting a set member with what he thought was a prop gun.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2023, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Oreo, I’m not saying he could have wrought the same carnage with an axe or baseball bat, only that it wasn’t “guns exist” that was the problem. Bad people who can’t handle pretending to be civilized will act out with whatever they have at hand, including firearms.
What’s so incomprehensible to a European eye is why, in God’s name, the conclusion is that bad people who can’t handle pretending to be civilised absolutely must have guns at hand, rather than just leaving them to wreak havoc and rain death upon the masses with axes and baseball bats.

Although, as subego suggests, I suppose that’s not the conclusion, but the basic premise, and the "bad people" line is just cynical shrugging-off of gun violence as the inevitable consequence.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
In the UK, there are more and more extreme controls on more items (kitchen knives, for example) because, deprived of a source of guns, bad people improvised and started using knives. The gun control laws in the UK certainly reduced violence with guns, but they didn’t “stop violent crime.” And I can’t help but have football “fans” come to mind here. The level of violence employed by these “fans” when their team doesn’t do well is appalling.
The UK has an intentional homicide rate of 1.1/100,000. The United States is at 6.5.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2023, 02:18 AM
 
@Glenn
Let me try to focus the discussion on a few points rather than answering to everything you wrote. If I missed a point you found important, just re-raise it. It is just an attempt to streamline and focus our exchange.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Oreo, I’m not saying he could have wrought the same carnage with an axe or baseball bat, only that it wasn’t “guns exist” that was the problem. Bad people who can’t handle pretending to be civilized will act out with whatever they have at hand, including firearms.
Yes, but the abundance of firearms in the hands of people who are not equipped to deal with them increases the damage. In my colleague's case, in the worst case one person could have died, but if the perp had had a firearm, it could have been multiple times that and fatalities would have been much more likely. Firearms are simply better at killing people than knives and baseball bats, and they are a great equalizer for people who are physically weaker and/or outnumbered. (The perp who stabbed my colleague was a young woman who had stalked him.)
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I have military firearms training. OK, USAF firearms training, but still training. My wife’s father was a WWII vet from the 82nd Airborne Division, and someone who took firearm safety very seriously. She’s been extremely safety conscious from an early age.
Not having met you in person, my feeling is that you are an old-school firearms owner. But gun culture is morphing: the share of gun ownership decreases, and I think on average gun owners are quite different now.

If I put myself in your shoes, I'd be worried about some of the trends I see in the gun community. Specifically, I am thinking of ever expansive interpretations of stand-your-ground laws where it seems hard to even prosecute someone who shot someone else, especially when both were armed. Where the question morphed from “Would it be the responsible thing to shoot?” to “Did you feel afraid in the moment?” What do you feel when you see people strapping their AR15s to their back or visibly carrying their pistol and enter Walmart to buy produce or order lunch at Applebees? Or if they openly carry firearms during a (counter) protest? Or while entering Michigan's State Capitol to protest? How would I feel about firearms being present in abusive homes?
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Somehow having to learn safety rules doesn’t seem very onerous to us, but the 2A idiots think it’s a trap. Not without reason - a lot of gun control laws have been carefully written to allow the “ins” to decide which “outs” can and can’t have firearms.
As far as I can tell, there was a gradual shift from feeling responsibility to feeling entitled: it went from responsible gun ownership to “Nobody, especially the government, can tell me what to do!” It is a particular interpretation of what freedom means: if I want to endanger myself or my family (e. g. by not storing weapons properly or not training with my firearm), then this is my right for as long as I don't think I endanger anyone else. Little attention is paid to the effects on others. E. g. to people who are made to feel very uncomfortable at the sight of an armed person at a Walmart.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But it’s nearly trivial to take the basic rules and turn them into an apolitical, very effective curriculum that everybody could agree is fair and unbiased. But ANY attempt to address who gets access to firearms meets with a brick wall on that side of the aisle.
The slippery slope argument (fallacy) is based on a reality that does not exist. Rights for gun owners have steadily and rapidly expanded over the last decades, and you are farther and farther away from a society where any gun control laws are being passed. What was the last big restriction that was passed? Did you feel it was onerous and unfair? (As I wrote, to my recollection, the last one was the ban of bump stocks during the Trump Presidency. Please correct me if I am wrong.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2023, 01:45 PM
 
As an aside, these things do vary by state. No open carry in Illinois. Concealed carry requires a license. A business can ban concealed carry on their premises. Concealed carry is illegal on public transportation in Chicago. We are a “duty to retreat” state, including in one’s home. Lastly, to legally own a firearm in Illinois one has to register with the State Police, who at last check were taking 8 months to complete the process.

I’m not really commenting on what the laws should be, only that if a state wishes to be restrictive, the legal framework to do so still exists.
( Last edited by subego; May 7, 2023 at 05:40 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2023, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As an aside, these things do vary by state. No open carry in Illinois. Concealed carry requires a license. A business can ban concealed carry on their premises. Concealed carry is illegal on public transportation in Chicago. We are a “duty to retreat” state, including in one’s home. Lastly, to legally own a firearm in Illinois one has to register with the State Police, who at last check were taking 8 months to complete the process.

I’m not really commenting on what the laws should be, only that if a state wishes to be restrictive, the legal framework to do so still exists.
My point is that the overwhelming trend within my lifetime was a relaxation of restrictions with the adoption of e. g. shall-issue laws, open carry, permitless carry and laws that expand the right to self-defense.

Asking about Illinois specifically, were any laws passed within, say, the last 10, 15 years that added further restrictions?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2023, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
My point is that the overwhelming trend within my lifetime was a relaxation of restrictions with the adoption of e. g. shall-issue laws, open carry, permitless carry and laws that expand the right to self-defense.
subego has a point here. SCOTUS rulings aside, the relaxation of guns laws is very much a red-state pattern. There have been challenges to gun laws in blue states, but I haven't seen much change in California for example. Perhaps because the challenge cases are still going through the courts.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
subego has a point here. SCOTUS rulings aside, the relaxation of guns laws is very much a red-state pattern.
Aren't blue states impacted by, say, not renewing the assault weapons ban and Supreme Court decisions such as the landmark decision DC vs. Heller or one which struck down a NY law that limited carrying weapons outdoors?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 12:50 AM
 
All I can tell you is what I've seen. The federal assault weapons ban expired a long time ago. I think CA has its own ban. As to a limit on open carry in public spaces, the only people I've seen doing it are cops. Have yet to watch a redneck try to wear a Glock into a supermarket.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
As to a limit on open carry in public spaces, the only people I've seen doing it are cops. Have yet to watch a redneck try to wear a Glock into a supermarket.
Seriously??? I see it here in Indiana relatively regularly. I’m pretty sure you had to have a license to open-carry, but I think the legislature recently dropped the licensing requirement.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It's not all propaganda.
"In the UK, there are more and more extreme controls on more items (kitchen knives, for example) because, deprived of a source of guns, bad people improvised and started using knives." is propaganda.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ice-plans.html

Note it's from the Daily Mail, which throws immediate red flags. Note the verbiage "could be seized," which is classic weasel wording to push a narrative while being able to claim innocence. It's pure propaganda intentionally designed to drum up controversy and shift public opinion.

"The gun control laws in the UK certainly reduced violence with guns, but they didn’t “stop violent crime.” " is propaganda.

Reducing a discussion to a binary black and white is an intentional, deliberate method of derailing conversation around a nuanced topic and polarizing people into two camps. "We'll never fix something 100% so it's pointless to make incremental improvements" is where those against any improvements want the public to land. There are clear and measurable benefits to more restrictive firearm legislation - Spheric already brought up a huge disparity in homicide rates, and in the UK, children are lucky enough to most often die of congenital medical issues, cancer or accidents. In the US for kids under 18, it's #1) guns and #2) car accidents.

"And I can’t help but have football “fans” come to mind here. The level of violence employed by these “fans” when their team doesn’t do well is appalling." is propaganda.

Taking a rare, isolated incident by some bad actors and using it to condemn a culture is an intentional, deliberate tactic used to allow someone to otherize and then flat-out disregard what a culture has to offer. This once again allows a person to bypass any nuanced discussion and view people groups in a binary state. See also: Any time there is a discussion of racism in the US and someone brings up how Europeans treat Roma - 100% an intentional, bad faith attempt to derail the conversation and disregard another viewpoint.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Seriously??? I see it here in Indiana relatively regularly. I’m pretty sure you had to have a license to open-carry, but I think the legislature recently dropped the licensing requirement.
I don't think I've seen someone open-carry in Iowa, though it happens:



I do see lots of trucks with "Sig" or "Glock" stickers, or one of those dumb wE tHe PeOpLe stickers, or the "Fuck Joe and the Hoe" where "fuck" is spelled out in firearms. I assume all of those people are carrying and are looking for an excuse to use it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 12:42 PM
 
^^ Picture

Definitely never seen anything like that around here. And I live in a red county.

The pic may be fake. Redneck is wearing a mask. Also, he could snap his smartphone, if he's even able to sit down.
     
Laminar
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 04:28 PM
 
It was from 2020, masks may have been mandated in that particular Subway at the time. He was just worried about all of the Antifa and rioters that the media told him were out looking for Real American Patriots to steal their freedom.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 05:29 PM
 
My take on the “gun culture” in the US now is that it’s toxic, driven by people who feel insignificant without some sort of symbol of power, and now so thoroughly politicized that there’s no middle ground between protecting kids and protecting cherished rights.

I personally reject being labeled as part of the gun culture. My gun-related activities are firmly entrenched in safety in everything, and my “manhood” is not defined by a truck or a rifle.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2023, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
All I can tell you is what I've seen. The federal assault weapons ban expired a long time ago. I think CA has its own ban. As to a limit on open carry in public spaces, the only people I've seen doing it are cops. Have yet to watch a redneck try to wear a Glock into a supermarket.
I don't discount your personal experiences. But I still think it is necessary to look at the larger trends in the entire country (e. g. relaxation of gun laws all around the country, increased prevalence of school shootings and firearms-related deaths being a significant contributor to why life expectancy in America is decreasing, a trend that runs counter to its peers). If you think the Californian model is something other states and the federal government should emulate, then I think this is a worthwhile contribution to the national debate.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2023, 05:44 PM
 
Sorry again for yet another delayed response. Things are kinda hectic.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Asking about Illinois specifically, were any laws passed within, say, the last 10, 15 years that added further restrictions?
Not that I’m aware of, but of course Illinois already has some of the most, if not the most restrictive firearms regulations in the country. Further restrictions would likely run into the Constitution, or more accurately, the way the Supreme Court currently interprets the Constitution.

I’m trying to distinguish this point on the continuum (slippery slope) of regulation from the more fantastical scenarios a frothing gun rights supporter might point to. A requirement to register with the police to legally own a firearm exists within the American system. The type of restrictions one would find in Western Europe do not
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2023, 01:30 PM
 
Another shooting. This one close to home in Maine. Bowling alley and restaurant. Shooter at large. Ex military who worked as a firearms instructor. Heard voices this summer. Hospitalized. Still had his guns yesterday.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2023, 07:41 PM
 
There were two hundred and ninety-eight mass shootings (4 or more people shot) in the United States in between your post and the last post before that.

If I counted correctly.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,