Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

[Dominus Atheos]

Actually I'm just opposed to the idea of "banning" most things. I'm not a "crack cocaine supporter" either, but I'm really opposed to arresting/fining people for possession of crack cocaine. If someone was a "crack cocaine enthusiast" and refused to give up smoking crack cocaine, I'd want to just leave them alone with their crack cocaine and not want to get the police/law involved.

[Tiriol]

From what I have gathered, the American (US) culture of gun ownership is sick. I don't mind people owning or using guns. But I do know that if Finland would have the same level of gun brutality and mass shootings, I'd vote for any politician willing to take away those guns at least from those who cannot handle them responsibly, allow others use them irresponsibly, or are flagged as likely to misuse a gun. There IS something wrong when instead of trying to do anything about the root cause of all the shootings (which is, in fact, not guns themselves, but larger problems in the society), people are willing to sacrifice children and educational professionals and train them in the art of "how to escape from a crazed gunman".

[madd0ct0r]

Actually I'm just opposed to the idea of "banning" most things. I'm not a "crack cocaine supporter" either, but I'm really opposed to arresting/fining people for possession of crack cocaine. If someone was a "crack cocaine enthusiast" and refused to give up smoking crack cocaine, I'd want to just leave them alone with their crack cocaine and not want to get the police/law involved.

Of course, in this analogy there are crack cocaine enthusiasts who are running into crowds and injecting* random other people with crack.
If you are not a user, your chance of being used anyway is not zero, and its is that impact on peoples lives they are objecting too.

Why should the majority have to suffer extreme inconvienece, worry and occasionally death to protect a minority who want their toys? Why do those minority rights trump everyone elses?


*yeah i know. Bear with me.

[Beowulf]

So we've lost:
The war on alcohol,
The war on drugs, and
The war on Terror

But somehow we're going to win the war on guns? There's more gun owners than drug users.

And do we really want to give the cops the power to say "Our confidential informant said he saw an assault weapon in the house, so we had to send a SWAT team in. It's entirely regrettable that in the process of raiding the house that we dropped a flashbang into a baby's crib, giving her third degree burns, and that we missed when shooting the dog, accidentally killing the homeowner who was unresisting facedown on the floor, right next to the officer who was shooting. It's unfortunate that nothing was logged into evidence, even though the house is now sitting empty."

[Dominus Atheos]

Actually I'm just opposed to the idea of "banning" most things. I'm not a "crack cocaine supporter" either, but I'm really opposed to arresting/fining people for possession of crack cocaine. If someone was a "crack cocaine enthusiast" and refused to give up smoking crack cocaine, I'd want to just leave them alone with their crack cocaine and not want to get the police/law involved.

Of course, in this analogy there are crack cocaine enthusiasts who are running into crowds and injecting* random other people with crack.
If you are not a user, your chance of being used anyway is not zero, and its is that impact on peoples lives they are objecting too.

Why should the majority have to suffer extreme inconvienece, worry and occasionally death to protect a minority who want their toys? Why do those minority rights trump everyone elses?


*yeah i know. Bear with me.

I just said crack cocaine to get peoples attention and let them know how seriously i take these issues. Crack cocaine is a bad comparison to firearms. A much better comparison is alcohol prohibition. Alcohol is probably the only thing that is as similarly dangerous as guns. Drunk drivers, violent behavior, all possible but uncommon behaviors associated with alcohol legalization. But with alcohol, everyone agrees that most people who drink do so responsibly, and if they don't we blame the person, not the alcohol.

Also, we tried outlawing alcohol, it really really fucking didn't work. I don't know why anyone thinks "gun prohibition" is going to go any better this time around.

[Broomstick]

You just described all handguns vs all rifles and shotguns. All long guns will behave how you describe. Are you arguing in favor of banning all long guns and allowing handguns?

Actually, to further expand, I'm also in favor of regulations that take into account both intended use and where they are being used.

Long guns definitely have utility when used for hunting and I would permit that, but would not rule out banning long guns in an urban area like New York or Chicago where hunting does not occur. Details would need to be worked out regarding people who live in such cities who travel elsewhere to hunt who own such weapons, but I think it's workable.

Appropriate gun rules for wilderness and extreme rural areas arguably should be different than those for inner cities. My inspiration for this is aviation, where there are considerably different rules in effect depending on airspace, including allow some types of aircraft to be flown only outside urban areas or even only outside suburban areas.

Different handguns have different damage potential - what a .22 does and a .50 caliber handgun does are quite different. Likewise, different long guns have different potential for mayhem. I also pointed out that ammunition also factors into this.

So... there may be multiple tiers - one for handguns, one for rifles, one for shotguns, and maybe another for ammunition.

Would it be more complicated? Absolutely, but in my opinion IF we had a more rational world it would be a sensible compromise allowing people to own and use guns for various purposes while limiting potential damage.

It would make more sense to regulate firearms based on capabilities rather than cosmetic appearance, don't you think?

Think of the above as a thought exercise more than anything. I doubt anything like it would be put into effect in the real world.

[Broomstick]

Actually I'm just opposed to the idea of "banning" most things. I'm not a "crack cocaine supporter" either, but I'm really opposed to arresting/fining people for possession of crack cocaine. If someone was a "crack cocaine enthusiast" and refused to give up smoking crack cocaine, I'd want to just leave them alone with their crack cocaine and not want to get the police/law involved.

I'm not big on banning things, either, but your right to smoke crack stops when it starts to hurt other people. If you want to sit in your backyard shed and smoke crack 'til you have a blood vessel blowout that's your own, personal tragedy but if you get high and get behind the wheel of a car that's an entirely different thing.

It's legal to get drunk on alcohol. It is not legal to drive drunk.

And while banning alcohol outright didn't work out well, we still regulate alcohol in this country, from how old you have to be to legally drink/purchase it, where you can and can't sell/consume it, what's in it (and what shouldn't be in it), and so forth.

Don't conflate regulation with banning, they aren't the same thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually I'm just opposed to the idea of "banning" most things. I'm not a "crack cocaine supporter" either, but I'm really opposed to arresting/fining people for possession of crack cocaine. If someone was a "crack cocaine enthusiast" and refused to give up smoking crack cocaine, I'd want to just leave them alone with their crack cocaine and not want to get the police/law involved.

I'm not big on banning things, either, but your right to smoke crack stops when it starts to hurt other people. If you want to sit in your backyard shed and smoke crack 'til you have a blood vessel blowout that's your own, personal tragedy but if you get high and get behind the wheel of a car that's an entirely different thing.

It's legal to get drunk on alcohol. It is not legal to drive drunk.

And while banning alcohol outright didn't work out well, we still regulate alcohol in this country, from how old you have to be to legally drink/purchase it, where you can and can't sell/consume it, what's in it (and what shouldn't be in it), and so forth.

Don't conflate regulation with banning, they aren't the same thing.

I mean, the gun-advocates' entire argument is predicated on conflating regulation with banning, and conflating both with dictatorship.

[TheFeniX]

I mean, the gun-advocates' entire argument is predicated on conflating regulation with banning, and conflating both with dictatorship.

There are multiple examples, the OP in this thread for instance, of Democrats with name recognition saying things such as "If I could confiscate every <X>, I would." Democrats routinely allow the GOP/NRA to frame the argument because they'd rather just stump for their constituents than get something done on the matter. You're alienating a whole load of Murricans by saying "we're going to take people's shit and we're going to feel GREAT about it because FUCK THEM! YEA!"

If that's the game you want to play. Fine, just expect the same level of results you've had for the past... <ever> years: lock step opposition from the other party and even moderates, and even suffering from apathy in your own party. The poor and/or minorities really don't give too many shits about rifles for reasons I've stated before. To them, it's only "rich" white kids getting shot up with rifles.

You want progress, you need to reframe the debate and get Democrats to just shut the Hell up about banning shit. Support for stricter gun control is stupid high in Murrica right now, but it starts bottoming the fuck out when you say shit like "The AR-15, only useful for murdering people, needs to be banned." The AR-15 is popular among many gun owners and you're framing it as them being the enemy.

This is pretty much the thrust of the Gun Control movement: "The gun is the problem. YOU are the problem for owning guns. We are tired of YOU! GO AWAY!" Yea, people don't like that shit. If you could find a way to STOP those people from voting? Not a bad game to play. Much like how the GOP targets poor minorities and stumps against them as "welfare queens" then systematically does everything it can to remove their ability to vote.

Because the GOP is terrible, but they are EFFECTIVE in this area. The DNC is just.... well stupid, but whatever: re-framing the debate as "the GOP and NRA fights against expansion of the background check system that would have stopped <insert shooter name here> from obtaining a weapon. They think this is fine." Oh man, actual public support behind you? But they can't even realize the only people who profit from their screams for bans are gun retailers. And, not that he's even relevant anymore: Every FUCKING time a guy like Beto (and many other Dems) tries to talk about background checks, medical health, etc, he's just going to get harangued for these types of comments.

I sometimes actually DO get annoyed I'm forced to vote for people who have no business acting as stupid as they do.

[madd0ct0r]

I dont fucking care at this point.

I dont believe that nra supporters will ever accept anything. Anything.

The supporters in thus thread have glossed over or supported the threats of armed rebellion. They've claimed it is because the language used is uninformed, but ive not seen one ever back track in a argument irrespective of technical detail, they just retreat to another 'gotcha' technicality.

If the last shooting was a legal gun they argue that background checks are ineffective. If it was an illegal gun they claim the same. They support the nra banning research on gun violence because they are afraid of the results.

They claim it is a fundamental right of freedom or property, and look puzzled that the majority of the country is getting fed up with their right to freedom to go about unshot and without wasting hours on drills that NO OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY NEEDS.

but its not the guns no. Dont let the bad man take my toys away! My rights my rights!

[TheFeniX]

I dont fucking care at this point.

Liberals really are their own worst enemy. Continue to rage against the machine, begging for a ban that just isn't going to happen. And even if by some miracle it did: would accomplish nothing but (possibly) lower body counts by a few digits and then allow the GOP to recover any losses they had, and gut the ban, and we're back to square one.

I dont believe that nra supporters will ever accept anything. Anything.

It's not about getting them to support anything. It's about getting them to just not fight it. It's about getting voters like that to stay home because their politicians won't back what they want and get swing voters to be like "well, this law won't affect ME, the good and honest gun owner, so I'll vote for this Beto guy."

If the last shooting was a legal gun they argue that background checks are ineffective. If it was an illegal gun they claim the same. They support the nra banning research on gun violence because they are afraid of the results.

This is politics: it's all about perception. Public support for expansion of background checks and mental health reporting is upwards of 90-fucking-%. Bans on specific firearms can push acceptance down to the low 20s, basically leaving it in "only pinko-commies support this" tier. Those votes do not matter, because those people don't even feel like they can stay home at this point, much less vote R. Stop stumping for people who already support you at the expense of winning.

You force the GOP to side with THEIR crazies versus trying to maintain the edge in swing voters the Dems lot after Obama was out, which is where a ton of this background check support lives. Now they are in a battle between getting primaried or losing general elections. NOTE: it is not this simple, there's other steps. However, it's a damn sure better plan than just yelling at clouds making people say "well, this idiot sounds just as bad as the NRA."

[Gandalf]

These days I'm leaning towards a metric like energy transferred at impact which is probably a better predictor of damage/death and hazard to bystanders.

That certainly works too. I'm curious about the idea of a set of metrics that could be used to classify weapons so that people could (for example) keep their grandfather's hunting rifle, but probably not an Abrams tank.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I dont fucking care at this point.

I dont believe that nra supporters will ever accept anything. Anything.

The supporters in thus thread have glossed over or supported the threats of armed rebellion. They've claimed it is because the language used is uninformed, but ive not seen one ever back track in a argument irrespective of technical detail, they just retreat to another 'gotcha' technicality.

If the last shooting was a legal gun they argue that background checks are ineffective. If it was an illegal gun they claim the same. They support the nra banning research on gun violence because they are afraid of the results.

They claim it is a fundamental right of freedom or property, and look puzzled that the majority of the country is getting fed up with their right to freedom to go about unshot and without wasting hours on drills that NO OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY NEEDS.

but its not the guns no. Dont let the bad man take my toys away! My rights my rights!

Here's the thing though. Most gun owners don't support the NRA's political stances (though many are members for things like safety training etc). Tightening background checks and doing some other structural things have ridiculously high support, as mentioned. The NRA is powerful because they have money. Vast sums of money. Money they can use to pinpoint target anyone who goes against them for primary or general election challenges. They will never support any gun regulation because at this point they're basically the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers.

But what the democrats can do potentially is leverage the support for better background checks, if an only if they can get control of both houses of congress and stop talking about bans on specific firearms - because then support plummets.

Be annoyed, sure, but that's the politics. Plus, for obvious reasons, I cannot support gun bans on ideological and practical grounds. Regulation certainly, but bans just leave vulnerable people open to organized groups of armed fascists including the police. We have something of an infestation at the moment.

[Gandalf]

Here's the thing though. Most gun owners don't support the NRA's political stances (though many are members for things like safety training etc).

Isn't being a member a tacit support of those stances?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here's the thing though. Most gun owners don't support the NRA's political stances (though many are members for things like safety training etc).

Isn't being a member a tacit support of those stances?

Yes, but it's more complicated than that. I don't give a fuck about "tacit" support in this context. It's how they'll vote that matters.

[Lord Insanity]

It is necessary to remember that 40 years ago many US schools had actual gun ranges on campus. It was perfectly normal for students to take their rifles to school on the bus and keep them in their lockers. As recently as 1983 the very idea of a mass school shooting was so absurd it was considered an acceptable subject for the satire music video Homecoming Queen's Got A Gun. It wasn't until after US schools were all designated "Gun Free Safe Zones" that we started to have a school mass shooting problem.

Of course if anyone suggests that maybe one of the best things we could do is to take down those stupid signs obviously they are a "gun-totin' yahoo".

Meanwhile that actual far right gun-totin' yahoos "know for a fact" that the "Nazi gun-grabbers" are "letting children die" just so they can call for gun bans. Is it really any wonder they honestly think shooting "Gun Control Nazis" is a good idea?

While it has been pointed out it bears repeating, the traditional reason Democrats support gun control measures is because they were trying to re-legalize slavery. Gun Control is the last vestige of the old Dixie-crats still in the party today. I would argue that is the largest contributing factor to the Alt-Riech's successful hijacking of the Republican party. They can keep goose stepping to the right while pointing at the left and going "What are you gonna do vote for the Gun Control Nazis?" If Democrats had any brains they would be encouraging every minority group in existence to not only arm themselves to the teeth but get the proper safety and self-defense training to go with it.

[Gandalf]

It wasn't until after US schools were all designated "Gun Free Safe Zones" that we started to have a school mass shooting problem.

Of course if anyone suggests that maybe one of the best things we could do is to take down those stupid signs obviously they are a "gun-totin' yahoo".

Is there a causative relationship there, or just a neat correlation?

If Democrats had any brains they would be encouraging every minority group in existence to not only arm themselves to the teeth but get the proper safety and self-defense training to go with it.

"And hopefully they don't wind up like Philando Castile, or any other young black man that the police suspected were armed."

[aerius]

It wasn't until after US schools were all designated "Gun Free Safe Zones" that we started to have a school mass shooting problem.

Of course if anyone suggests that maybe one of the best things we could do is to take down those stupid signs obviously they are a "gun-totin' yahoo".

Is there a causative relationship there, or just a neat correlation?

I'd say it's one of many factors. There's a whole bunch of things like an increase in single parent families, both parents having to work, breakdowns in family support networks, widespread prescribing of anti-depressants & other drugs which have "creates rage monsters" as a known side-effect, shitty school policies with regards to bullying, lack of mental healthcare, and a bunch of other shit. Put it all together, add some guns, and you have the recipe for weekly school shootings.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, but it's more complicated than that. I don't give a fuck about "tacit" support in this context. It's how they'll vote that matters.

This is something I've been trying to get at: a very large majority of gun owners are NOT "God and guns" morons who support the NRA/GOP religiously. What many liberals consider "scary" guns, these types might own because "it looked cool" or "it was in this movie I saw" and they have disposable income to burn and want to show off their $3,000 customized AR derivative. Maybe they DO view them as expensive toys. Doesn't matter: these people can vote.

Whatever their deal is: they can be reasoned with. They find themselves in support of multiple possible gun control laws. Then they balk when people start talking about buybacks and bans. Or even worse, maybe they talk to the gun retailer who tells them "you know, they are talking about banning <x> model..... if you buy one NOW... you'll be grandfathered in" and you have a convert to fight any attack on that model. Hi-cap mags were FLOODED into the market before the "ban" went into affect. It was going to take decades to bleed them out and by that time, the political wheel had turned and all that really happened was certain retailers made a mint off selling the mags at a premium.

I'm getting off on a rant here: keep talking about bans. Keep saying shit like "fuck gun owners, I don't care if they lose their toys" and help the NRA and GOP continue to frame the debate as Dems wanting to do nothing but make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

[Beowulf]

If Democrats had any brains they would be encouraging every minority group in existence to not only arm themselves to the teeth but get the proper safety and self-defense training to go with it.

Meanwhile:

[Lonestar]

Since I brought up armed racist goons at the beginning, I feel compelled to point out that the Dems mostly support said racist goons, and nearly always impose carve outs for them when gun laws are applied to us shitkickers.

The current (annual) iteration of a Federal AWB proposal, for instance, very exempts LEOs and retired LEOs from a AWB.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... -bill/1296

The bill also exempts from the prohibition the following, with respect to a SAW or LCAFD:

...possession by a retired law enforcement officer.

Cops killed more Americans last year than every school shooting from 1980-2018, by the way.

[Broomstick]

IMO a retired cop is now a civilian and should not get special treatment for being ex-cop.

[Elheru Aran]

Mildly pedantic remark: -both- sides of the political spectrum support the constabulary because they're basically held up to be saints except for the few obvious bad apples that never get kicked out until ten years later when they get actually declared guilty or whatever. That's not a political issue, that's a cultural issue.

Firemen get similar treatment, though that only became really obvious after 9/11.

[Lonestar]

IMO a retired cop is now a civilian and should not get special treatment for being ex-cop.

A active duty cop is a civilian.

Cops n the US aren't under the UCMJ, nor do they have their rights limited under it or something. In many ways they have greater protections than most people.

[Broomstick]

True, active duty law enforcement officers are not military, but it's long been custom (and by that, dating back to hearing my uncles who were all cops talk 40-45 years ago from personal memory) for police officers to refer to non-police officers as "civilians", to distinguish them from law enforcement.

Although if you want to argue that that is a practice that should end I'd be OK with that.