Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-26 08:29pm

Broomstick wrote:
2019-10-17 08:34pm
I didn't ask about past compromises. I ask what is the problem with no more brand new machine guns?

Seriously, you can't take that one sentence at face value?
Because I want a machine gun without having to pay the price of a new car. That's why.

You'd probably be singing a different tune, if in 1934, the government after some bad crashes at airshows and in general people crashing their planes; etc, severely limited General Aviation with the National Aircraft Act; limiting "off the shelf" General Aviation to <100 hp and no more than 1,500 lb GTOW; but allowing you to own heavier and more powerful aircraft if you registered with the government (including fingerprints) and paid a tax of $200 (equivalent to $3,950 today).

Only for them in 1986, after 52 years of these rules being obeyed and (kinda) working, them changing their tune and saying that "no National Aircraft Act regulated aircraft manufactured after May 1986 can be sold to the General Public."

Suddenly, it meant that Cessna 172s that were sold for about $37,810 in 1981 cost $1.5 million in 2019; because no more "legal" Cessna 172s were made after May 1986; resulting in a limited supply of Cessna 172s for General Aviation, and each time one crashes; the price of all the 172s goes up, because no more can be made for general aviation; and there are more pilots around in 2019 vs 1986 creating a demand v supply problem.

EDIT: The numbers check out on a gross level:

AOPA says "More than 90% of the roughly 220,000 civil aircraft registered in the United States are general aviation aircraft.";
ATF says 175,977 machine guns are transferrable.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-10-27 04:34pm

MKSheppard wrote:
2019-10-26 08:29pm
You'd probably be singing a different tune, if in 1934, the government after some bad crashes at airshows and in general people crashing their planes; etc, severely limited General Aviation with the National Aircraft Act; limiting "off the shelf" General Aviation to <100 hp and no more than 1,500 lb GTOW; but allowing you to own heavier and more powerful aircraft if you registered with the government (including fingerprints) and paid a tax of $200 (equivalent to $3,950 today).
I actually DID have to give a lot of ID information to the US Federal government to get my private pilot's license, including a non-expiring blanket permission to tap any and all of my car driving and medical records at any time. When I move I also have to update the ticket, meaning I not only have to tell the state I live in when I move, I have to also, in addition, notify the Feds. The Feds have my fingerpints. They've done at least two background security checks on me that I'm aware of. They might have done some I'm not aware of. They have my e-mail addresses as well.

Fuck, I think the fee just to take the test for my private license was over $200 - that was 20 years ago now so the memory is fuzzy and I doubt I still have the receipt. That's on top of the charges for the airplane, the fuel, and the examiner's fee.

What you're describing regarding horsepower and weight limits is more or less what's called "Sport Pilot" now. Yes, you have to fucking register your ass with the government to fly airplanes. What the fuck do you think a pilot's license is?

You analogy doesn't work the way you think it does.

I'm OK with requiring the same out of gun owners/users as it required by pilots. It would be nice if the whole thing was cheaper and we didn't need regulations but we do, because some people are fucking idiots and it's not fair to the folks the airplanes flown by fucking idiots might fall on.

Likewise, I'd be comfortable if there was a bit more sorting out of people who should and should not have guns, because it's not fair to the people the fucking idiots might otherwise shoot.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-27 08:43pm

Returning to Lonestar's earlier point about "compromise" being a poisoned tree now:

LINK

I'll cut it down so not to annoy people:
Gun 'sub-culture': Sydney's north is the state's new hot spot for firearms
By Sarah Keoghan
October 27, 2019 — 12.00am

Gun control activists have expressed concern over a growing firearms "sub-culture" in Sydney's north, as latest numbers reveal the owners of four of the top-12 largest individual arsenals in NSW live in the area.

The person who owns the highest number of firearms in the whole of NSW now lives in Cremorne, with 314 guns to their name.

The latest figures released by the NSW firearms registry show a resident in Mosman owns 297 guns, while a Terrey Hills resident owns 219 guns. A resident in Belrose has 181 guns in their private arsenal. The numbers exclude collectors and dealers.

...

Where the owners of NSW's largest arsenals live
Firearms registered by an individual licence holder (excluding collectors)

Suburb No. of firearms
Cremorne 314
La Perouse 305
Newcastle 300
Mosman 297
Goulburn 296
Alstonville 237
Moonbi (near Tamworth) 224
Terrey Hills 219
Dubbo 200
Molong (near Orange) 199
Belrose 181
Burwood 181

...

President of Gun Control Australia Samantha Lee said the current system was "failing to put the brakes on firearm acquisition".

"In the lovely leafy suburbs of Sydney's north, there are numerous homes storing large caches of legally accumulated firearms," she said.

"It was never the intent of the National Firearms Agreement that individual licence holders would be able to build up their own private arsenal."

...

Greens MP and anti-gun activist David Shoebridge said the gun ownership numbers indicated a growing "sub-culture amongst cashed-up individuals in Sydney’s north".

"People with the money are willing to indulge themselves in purchasing firearms as a vanity project ... which I find disturbing," he said.

Mr Shoebridge renewed his calls for a crackdown on individual license holders owning large numbers of guns.

"We can see no reason for it and we can only see harmful outcomes. From a public policy perspective it shouldn’t be happening," he said.

"Once a private individual has five firearms, they need to identify a special reason to obtain a specific need and a special reason to obtain any additional guns."
Basically, I'm getting a big:

Image

vibe from the statements given by the Aussie activists there.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-27 09:00pm

Broomstick wrote:
2019-10-27 04:34pm
What you're describing regarding horsepower and weight limits is more or less what's called "Sport Pilot" now. Yes, you have to fucking register your ass with the government to fly airplanes. What the fuck do you think a pilot's license is?

You analogy doesn't work the way you think it does.
Actually, yes it does. You seem to lack reading comprehension. I shall reduce it further to see if you can understand it.

What if the only way you could own a plane heavier than 1,500 lbs GTOW was for it to be manufactured before May 1986?

Can you work out the after effects of such a restriction on the General aviation market, particularly with the effects of metal fatigue and the deletion of about a hundred aircraft a year from the pool of General Aviation via fatal crashes?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-10-27 10:34pm

MKSheppard wrote:
2019-10-27 09:00pm
Broomstick wrote:
2019-10-27 04:34pm
What you're describing regarding horsepower and weight limits is more or less what's called "Sport Pilot" now. Yes, you have to fucking register your ass with the government to fly airplanes. What the fuck do you think a pilot's license is?

You analogy doesn't work the way you think it does.
Actually, yes it does. You seem to lack reading comprehension. I shall reduce it further to see if you can understand it.

What if the only way you could own a plane heavier than 1,500 lbs GTOW was for it to be manufactured before May 1986?
I have flown 17 different types of aircraft. Of those types, 9 were 1500 lbs or less, and five built after 1986. Note, that is not total machines flown, that is types of machines. Going by individual tail license numbers, more than half of what I've flown was built after 1990 and no more than 1500 lbs.

Frankly, if more of the old, 1970's and older ones were gone more people would buy the newer ones which are are lighter, more fuel efficient, with better handling characteristics and more safety features. Holy shit, give me a modern, computer-controlled fuel-injected engine over a clunky 1950's tech carborated engine any day. I never want to have to deal with carb ice ever again, thank you very much. I hate a silent engine. Let's hear it for the Diamond Katana 22:1 glide ratio, beats the hell out of the old Cessna and Piper 7:1 especially if the engine has gone quiet. Well, OK, the Katana is slightly over your designated weight limit so forget that one. The point is, post-1986 airplanes are in many many ways better aircraft. Having had two engine failures in pre-1986 airplanes the older ones are losing some of their luster for me. An old airplane is NOT like an old gun, and airplanes as a general rule do NOT improve with age.

In other words - you have not convinced me. In no small part because the two areas of "guns" and "airplanes" are not as similar as you seem to think.
Can you work out the after effects of such a restriction on the General aviation market, particularly with the effects of metal fatigue and the deletion of about a hundred aircraft a year from the pool of General Aviation via fatal crashes
Well, you're talking to someone who has happily flown airplanes made out of primarily wood/cloth and also primarily carbon composite. So... yeah, we'd have more ragwings and carbonwings in the fleet. Flight is not dependent upon aluminum wings. Your scenario does not rule out new airplanes. It does suppose the gradual attrition of Cessnas and Pipers, but those are only two of the many types of general aviation airplane out there. The only pre-1986 airplane I've flown that comes close to the cruise speed numbers of the RV-6 was the Mooney... and the RV-6 burns a fraction of the fuel per unit time, has FAR superior visibility, more cabin room, AND I don't have to fuck with either retractable gear or getting a high performance sign off for a 200 mph cruise speed.

Post 1986 aircraft are, in general, lighter, cheaper, burn less fuel, go faster, are more comfortable inside, have better/safer seats and restraint systems, some even come with last-ditch emergency parachutes, and easier to use, and are more easy to fit with modern panel technology like HUD's and GPS.

Stop trying to make an analogy based on a topic you do not understand.

I started flying in ultralights and experimental homebuilts, which are notoriously the less regulated end of aviation in the US and, in the case of ultralights, have NO requirements to own and fly. And I used to bury fellow pilots on a regular basis, averaged out to about one every 12-18 months. Also on one occasion had to throw out my clothing when I got home because I was never going to get the blood out. Dangerous activity minus regulations/rules/sense = bloodshed and dead bodies. Rules, regulations, and oversight are not inherently bad things.

Guns are at least as dangerous as airplanes, arguably more so. I like having the option to own/use guns but no right is unlimited, and neither should that one be. There are limits to free speech (no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). There are limits the practice of religion (like no human sacrifice). Why the fuck should the right to bear arms be unlimited when no other right is that way?

Everything you've proposed as onerous restrictions in your analogy are things I have already agreed to and done. Clearly, I did not find any of them an insurmountable obstacle.

Frankly, the only thing that really stands between me presently flying airplanes OR purchasing a few firearms is lack of funds. Not absolute lack of funds, but rather I feel a need for proper shelter, food, and other more essential responsibilities and needs being fulfilled before I drop money on either props or bullets.

I have no need of machine guns, mortar, functional tanks, or grenades in my life. I don't even feel a need to own a semi-automatic. Everything I want a gun for can be fulfilled by either a break open shotgun, pump shotgun, or a revolver. I think heavily restricting fully automatic guns is a GOOD thing and have no problems with the present law.

You remind me of pilots I used to know who were pissed about regulations that actually made sense, like regular maintenance, using proper aviation hardware, following rules about weather and cloud avoidance, not flying when you're having a medical issue, and so on and so forth. The only difference I see between you and those guys is that you're not dead.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10591
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Beowulf » 2019-10-30 04:54am

Yeah, Shep's example is dumb. So let's use a better analogy.

Cryptography is dangerous. It's used by criminals, terrorists, and enemy nations to keep their plans secret. So what if we banned the usage of cryptography that was stronger than 40-bits or equivalent? Maybe you could use stronger encryption if you registered with the government, and gave them a backdoor into your system so they could still read all your messages.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-01-10 07:07pm

I'm surprised nobody, not even Lonestar, has mentioned anything about Lobby Day in Richmond, VA yet and the massive tidal wave of bills pre-filed in the VA legislature.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-01-15 06:45pm

Image

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939b ... he-capitol
In response to what he described as “credible intelligence” of threats of violence at an upcoming gun rights rally in Richmond, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has declared a state of emergency and will temporarily ban individuals from carrying firearms on Capitol grounds.

The governor said at a press conference Wednesday that authorities believe “armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol” during the January 20 rally.

He also said that law enforcement had intercepted threats and “extremist rhetoric” similar to what was observed prior to the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. “We will not allow that mayhem and violence to happen here,” he said.

The decision to ban all weapons, including firearms, won’t sit well with the thousands of gun lovers who are expected to descend on Richmond to participate in what was billed as an open-carry affair and an opportunity to flex Second Amendment rights.

“No weapons will be allowed on Capitol grounds,” said Northam, a Democrat. “Everything from sticks and bats to chains and projectiles…. The list also includes firearms. It makes no sense to ban every other weapon but allow firearms when intelligence shows that armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol.”

READ: This Conspiracy Theory Is Firing Up Pro-Gun Activists Right Before Their Huge Rally.

On the Facebook page for the rally, several attendees are already saying they won’t comply and leave their weapons at home — even though Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney has vowed a hard line on rule-breakers. “Violations of the law will not be tolerated,” Stoney said.

The January 20 event, dubbed “Lobby Day,” was organized by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-Second Amendment nonprofit, in response to new gun control legislation introduced by the Democratic state Legislature. Northam acknowledged that the organizers had been planning the rally for some time. “I believe them when they say this is a peaceful event — that’s what democracy is,” said Northam. “Unfortunately, they have unleashed something much larger, something they may not be able to control.”

Upwards of 5,000 people said on the Facebook page that they plan to attend. Event organizers have warned the state that as many as 100,000 could show up.

A website for the rally shows that at least 60 buses are scheduled to transport attendees into Richmond on Monday. And there's word that carpools are being organized. What’s more, armed militia groups are also planning to attend, and some have even described the event as a “boogaloo” — a term that the far right uses to describe a second civil war.

In addition to banning weapons on Capitol grounds, Northam also said he’d established a unified command between state police, Capitol police, the Richmond police department, and the city's first responder teams. This is a critical move — one that’s likely borne out of the lessons learned from the massive law enforcement failures during Unite the Right, which left one dead and dozens injured. Months after that rally, an independent review team released a searing 220-page report analyzing how law enforcement’s disorganization and failure to coordinate across agencies allowed the violent, ugly scenes that unfolded that day.

Northam says that the state of emergency will be lifted on Tuesday.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3072
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2020-01-15 07:47pm

... okay?

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2020-01-16 06:30am

Let see if I have the straight:

Virginia proposed some new gun regulations and a bunch of armed thugs are now threatening armed rebellion in order to overturn them, because threatening to shoot up people who want to control access to guns is going to convince them not to control guns, because insane troll logic is a thing.

Is that where we are?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3751
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TimothyC » 2020-01-16 09:15am

Broomstick wrote:
2020-01-16 06:30am
Let see if I have the straight:

Virginia proposed some new gun regulations
Really nasty ones that arguably are more strict than the regs in NY and Cali, which is a massive change from the more lenient than Texas regs that were in place for decades.
Broomstick wrote:
2020-01-16 06:30am
nd a bunch of armed thugs are now threatening armed rebellion in order to overturn them, because threatening to shoot up people who want to control access to guns is going to convince them not to control guns, because insane troll logic is a thing.

Is that where we are?
Nope. You've got a bunch of people who don't like these new regs, and who have planned to use their first amendment rights of assembly and petitioning their government to help keep the bills from passing.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 20327
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by LadyTevar » 2020-01-16 11:01am

TimothyC wrote:
2020-01-16 09:15am
Broomstick wrote:
2020-01-16 06:30am
nd a bunch of armed thugs are now threatening armed rebellion in order to overturn them, because threatening to shoot up people who want to control access to guns is going to convince them not to control guns, because insane troll logic is a thing.

Is that where we are?
Nope. You've got a bunch of people who don't like these new regs, and who have planned to use their first amendment rights of assembly and petitioning their government to help keep the bills from passing.
I don't argue their right to assembly. I argue their right to assembly WITH GUNS.
Image
Librium Arcana, Where Gamers Play!
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 941
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Khaat » 2020-01-16 11:21am

TimothyC wrote:
2020-01-16 09:15am
You've got a bunch of people who don't like these new regs, and who have planned to use their first amendment rights of assembly and petitioning their government to help keep the bills from passing.
I notice "peaceful" missing from "right of ... assembly". Armed assembly isn't peaceful, it's intimidation. Or sedition. Or assault. Or rebellion. Or maybe just call it what it is: the ignorant yahoos who want to believe their snake-oil salesmen leadership so they can just shoot someone now and feel justified righteous.

VA Senate Bill 16 - ("Assault weapons" definition expansion, >10 round magazines) dead by unanimous *Democratic* Judiciary Committee votes - Republican Committee members *didn't vote*, "something-something-docketed-can't-be-stricken-something". House Bill 961 has no current action, but basically the same thing. Huh: Democrats voted it down. Either this is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors, or the NRA leadership doesn't know how to put on a show anymore... oh, wait. It's almost like they were voting on an *actual law*, and not a strawman argument!

VA SBs 22 and 69 - ("one gun per month") moved on, out of Committee. Sensible precaution against straw-purchases (where those are able to buy guns buy them to pass on to those who are prohibited from buying guns.) Got funding attached for enforcement?

VA SBs 12 and 70 - (Mandatory background checks) moved on, out of Committee. Sensible precaution, let's just hope they actually included funding to enforce it, or it's just more flash in the pan (see, I worked in a firearm related metaphor!)

SB 240 - ("red flag" laws) moved on, out of Committee. Sensible, again, provided there's funding for enforcement.

NRA leadership rebuttal: "something-something-coming-for-your-guns!-something-code-armed-rebellion-something!"
Actual NRA members: "Please, you're making us look stupid" to "Eh" to "OMG!!1! COMING FOR MY GUNS! COLD DEAD FINGERS!"
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 95
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Nicholas » 2020-01-16 02:27pm

Khaat wrote:
2020-01-16 11:21am
I notice "peaceful" missing from "right of ... assembly". Armed assembly isn't peaceful, it's intimidation. Or sedition. Or assault. Or rebellion. Or maybe just call it what it is: the ignorant yahoos who want to believe their snake-oil salesmen leadership so they can just shoot someone now and feel justified righteous.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here without realizing you were doing it. What is in dispute regarding this protest is the symbolic value of carrying guns at a political rally. For members of the left (clearly including yourself) a gun symbolizes a death threat. Therefor the mere act of visibly possessing a gun is an attempt to intimidate and a threat of violence.

For those on the right guns symbolize freedom, responsibility, self-reliance and adulthood. Open carrying a gun at a political rally, especially one defending the right to keep and bear arms, is an expression of pride and means much the same thing as carrying a rainbow flag in a gay pride parade.

Since this is a question of symbolism I think the correct answer is that the gun symbolizes what the person carrying it says it does and so you need more evidence then just the fact that people are stating their intent to show up with guns to prove that an assembly isn't peaceful. In that regard what is your position on the carrying of other weapons at a political protest, such as say the heavy sticks (which would make passable clubs) needed to hold up large signs or flags on a windy day?

Nicholas

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15559
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Gandalf » 2020-01-16 03:07pm

Nicholas wrote:
2020-01-16 02:27pm
Since this is a question of symbolism I think the correct answer is that the gun symbolizes what the person carrying it says it does and so you need more evidence then just the fact that people are stating their intent to show up with guns to prove that an assembly isn't peaceful. In that regard what is your position on the carrying of other weapons at a political protest, such as say the heavy sticks (which would make passable clubs) needed to hold up large signs or flags on a windy day?
If you go with "meanings are dictated by the person doing the expression," then the Confederate flag just got a lot easier to rehabilitate.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12888
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Elheru Aran » 2020-01-16 04:13pm

Gandalf wrote:
2020-01-16 03:07pm
Nicholas wrote:
2020-01-16 02:27pm
Since this is a question of symbolism I think the correct answer is that the gun symbolizes what the person carrying it says it does and so you need more evidence then just the fact that people are stating their intent to show up with guns to prove that an assembly isn't peaceful. In that regard what is your position on the carrying of other weapons at a political protest, such as say the heavy sticks (which would make passable clubs) needed to hold up large signs or flags on a windy day?
If you go with "meanings are dictated by the person doing the expression," then the Confederate flag just got a lot easier to rehabilitate.
Yeah, it's kind of dumb to look at a bunch of guys in tacticool gear packing guns standing around and be all... "PEACEFUL EXPRESSION". Like... peaceful compared to... NOT holding guns?
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 95
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Nicholas » 2020-01-16 05:20pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
2020-01-16 04:13pm

Yeah, it's kind of dumb to look at a bunch of guys in tacticool gear packing guns standing around and be all... "PEACEFUL EXPRESSION". Like... peaceful compared to... NOT holding guns?
It is also kind of dumb to look at a bunch of guys standing around and say VIOLENCE.

The meaning of symbolic speech is complicated and Gandalf has a good point that things (like the Confederate flag) can have culturally defined meanings which a person can't wish away just by saying "but I don't mean that." Still when it comes to speech, and symbolic acts are a form of speech, we should ere on the side of permissiveness. I do not think that the act of carrying a gun at a political protest in and of itself constitutes "intimidation. Or sedition. Or assault. Or rebellion" as Khaat said. And so far I have not seen any arguments to show that Khaat is correct. Since erring on the side of permissiveness puts the burden of proof on Khaat to show that these symbolic acts should be restricted I continue to hold that they should not be.

Nicholas

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15689
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Knife » 2020-01-16 06:49pm

Nicholas wrote:
2020-01-16 05:20pm
Elheru Aran wrote:
2020-01-16 04:13pm

Yeah, it's kind of dumb to look at a bunch of guys in tacticool gear packing guns standing around and be all... "PEACEFUL EXPRESSION". Like... peaceful compared to... NOT holding guns?
It is also kind of dumb to look at a bunch of guys standing around and say VIOLENCE.

The meaning of symbolic speech is complicated and Gandalf has a good point that things (like the Confederate flag) can have culturally defined meanings which a person can't wish away just by saying "but I don't mean that." Still when it comes to speech, and symbolic acts are a form of speech, we should ere on the side of permissiveness. I do not think that the act of carrying a gun at a political protest in and of itself constitutes "intimidation. Or sedition. Or assault. Or rebellion" as Khaat said. And so far I have not seen any arguments to show that Khaat is correct. Since erring on the side of permissiveness puts the burden of proof on Khaat to show that these symbolic acts should be restricted I continue to hold that they should not be.

Nicholas
Please. That is so lame, and really just trying to rationalize. A gun is a gun, it's main purpose is to kill something. An armed group is a threat by it's very nature. Adding on symbolism to shield oneself from this is ridiculous and as see through as a window. Anyone with any sort of training knows you only pull a gun when you mean to use it, you only use it if you're going to shoot to kill. Any group of people with firearms at ready use is a threat of that very thing. It is also ridiculous to pretend the people with those weapons don't know this, hence why openly carrying is an act of intimidation.

A group of people brandishing pikes and axes can't stand there and pretend they just got done cutting wood and aerating fields, and it's dim so don't worry about the torches either.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-01-16 07:06pm

Khaat wrote:
2020-01-16 11:21am
VA Senate Bill 16 - ("Assault weapons" definition expansion, >10 round magazines) dead by unanimous *Democratic* Judiciary Committee votes - Republican Committee members *didn't vote*, "something-something-docketed-can't-be-stricken-something". House Bill 961 has no current action, but basically the same thing. Huh: Democrats voted it down. Either this is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors, or the NRA leadership doesn't know how to put on a show anymore... oh, wait. It's almost like they were voting on an *actual law*, and not a strawman argument!
HB961 is now the currently active one. AFAIK, it hasn't been voted on yet.
VA SBs 22 and 69 - ("one gun per month") moved on, out of Committee. Sensible precaution against straw-purchases (where those are able to buy guns buy them to pass on to those who are prohibited from buying guns.) Got funding attached for enforcement?
Maryland has had this for decades for handguns. Baltimore has a massive record murder rate in 2019.
VA SBs 12 and 70 - (Mandatory background checks) moved on, out of Committee. Sensible precaution, let's just hope they actually included funding to enforce it, or it's just more flash in the pan (see, I worked in a firearm related metaphor!)
Maryland has had this for decades for handguns. Baltimore has a massive record murder rate in 2019.
SB 240 - ("red flag" laws) moved on, out of Committee. Sensible, again, provided there's funding for enforcement.
A woman in Colorado just used their new Red Flag law against the cop who shot her son two years ago in the line of duty by filing a false claim of a relationship with the cop. :luv:
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 95
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Nicholas » 2020-01-16 08:07pm

Knife wrote:
2020-01-16 06:49pm
Nicholas wrote:
2020-01-16 05:20pm

The meaning of symbolic speech is complicated and Gandalf has a good point that things (like the Confederate flag) can have culturally defined meanings which a person can't wish away just by saying "but I don't mean that." Still when it comes to speech, and symbolic acts are a form of speech, we should ere on the side of permissiveness. I do not think that the act of carrying a gun at a political protest in and of itself constitutes "intimidation. Or sedition. Or assault. Or rebellion" as Khaat said. And so far I have not seen any arguments to show that Khaat is correct. Since erring on the side of permissiveness puts the burden of proof on Khaat to show that these symbolic acts should be restricted I continue to hold that they should not be.

Nicholas
Please. That is so lame, and really just trying to rationalize. A gun is a gun, it's main purpose is to kill something. An armed group is a threat by it's very nature. Adding on symbolism to shield oneself from this is ridiculous and as see through as a window. Anyone with any sort of training knows you only pull a gun when you mean to use it, you only use it if you're going to shoot to kill. Any group of people with firearms at ready use is a threat of that very thing. It is also ridiculous to pretend the people with those weapons don't know this, hence why openly carrying is an act of intimidation.

A group of people brandishing pikes and axes can't stand there and pretend they just got done cutting wood and aerating fields, and it's dim so don't worry about the torches either.
This is the argument I was asking for a serious challenge to my position yet there are a number of weaknesses within it that make me reluctant to accept it. My thoughts here are not completely coherent so instead of trying to make a fully coherent response I am simply going to list the questions your argument raises for me.

1) "A gun is a gun, it's main purpose is to kill something." Who defines what the "main purpose" of a specific gun is and what gives them the authority to do so? An individual might own a gun to feed his family, or to make himself feel safe, or to relax by target shooting, what makes these purposes less important then the purpose of killing something?

2) "An armed group is a threat by it's very nature." Certainly true, yet anyone who has ever been in the presence of a crowd with whom he passionately disagrees, will know that any crowd is a threat by its very nature. There is always the potential of mob violence. For this claim to work as an argument for restricting guns the presence of guns must dramatically increase the threat. That seems plausible but it is equally plausible that the presence of guns raises the stakes in such a way as to make riots less likely. Is there evidence that guns make things enough more dangerous to justify restricting their use as symbols?

3) "An armed group is a threat by it's very nature." As I said in #2 a group of people assembled is a threat by its very nature. I believe this is a large part of why the right to assemble and petition the government is protected. The mob is a threat to the government and this is a good thing, it helps prevent tyranny. Are the problems resulting from the presence of guns really large enough to override the benefits that result from the government being afraid of the guns being used against it?

4) "you only pull a gun when you mean to use it, you only use it if you're going to shoot to kill. Any group of people with firearms at ready use is a threat of that very thing...hence why openly carrying is an act of intimidation." Intimidation is a form of communication. Openly carrying by itself cannot be intimidation because it is not directed at anyone. Or do you mean to say that the act of carrying a gun must necessarily be intended to communicate to everyone you meet "if you don't do what I want I'm going to kill you." That seems unbelievable to me.

5) In the context of this particular protest open carrying might be intended to communicate to the government the message that "if you pass these laws I will violently resist them." I accept that a large group of people delivering such a message to the government would be intended to intimidate the government. Does that make that message a speech which the government can prohibit? If so that seems to dangerously restrict communication between a government and its citizens since they are prohibited from telling it they will not tolerate the implementation of certain laws. If no, then delivering the message by walking in front of the capitol building carrying guns does not seem meaningfully different from delivering the message by standing in front of the capitol building and publicly promising to resist these laws. So why should one expression be prohibited and the other permitted?

6) The argument that open carry is intimidation seems to imply that owning a gun is something to be ashamed of that must be kept secret in order to avoid threatening your neighbors. That seems a cultural norm held by people living in areas where most people don't own guns. What makes you think it is a universal principle?

7) If we accept that intimidation is a form of threatening people and should generally be illegal this argument seems to imply that guns should generally be illegal. Are you intending to make that argument? If no, how do you avoid that conclusion?

Nicholas

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15689
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Knife » 2020-01-16 09:12pm

Nicholas wrote:
2020-01-16 08:07pm

This is the argument I was asking for a serious challenge to my position yet there are a number of weaknesses within it that make me reluctant to accept it. My thoughts here are not completely coherent so instead of trying to make a fully coherent response I am simply going to list the questions your argument raises for me.

1) "A gun is a gun, it's main purpose is to kill something." Who defines what the "main purpose" of a specific gun is and what gives them the authority to do so? An individual might own a gun to feed his family, or to make himself feel safe, or to relax by target shooting, what makes these purposes less important then the purpose of killing something?
Reality is what happens despite what we want to happen. A gun is a mechanical device meant to propel a chunk of metal to punch holes through things, specifically due to ballistics, living matter, in which to kill it. We can ascribe sentimental value to old versions, we can ascribe historical value to particular versions used in famous event or due to their new capabilities, but in the end, they exist as a tool to kill something.

An individual might own a gun to KILL something to feed his family, or as a tool to KILL attackers to make himself feel safe, or to relax by target shooting to practice using the weapon meant to KILL things. You can assign emotion baggage to the tool, does not change the purpose of the tool.

No one is using guns to change the channel on their TV, or to make pilot holes in wood to put in screws or bolts. They are a tool with a particular use. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
2) "An armed group is a threat by it's very nature." Certainly true, yet anyone who has ever been in the presence of a crowd with whom he passionately disagrees, will know that any crowd is a threat by its very nature. There is always the potential of mob violence. For this claim to work as an argument for restricting guns the presence of guns must dramatically increase the threat. That seems plausible but it is equally plausible that the presence of guns raises the stakes in such a way as to make riots less likely. Is there evidence that guns make things enough more dangerous to justify restricting their use as symbols?
I cannot believe you made that paragraph with a straight face. Of course the presence of weapons increases the threat of violence. Name any other situation in the world where the presence of weapons does not escalate the threat. And, if you are silly enough to name police, I can bring up literally millions of minority people who would whole-heartedly disagree with you. The very nature of a gun means power, the power to take a life. We hold these truths for other weapons, which is why swords, even though they've been second place to guns for literally a thousand years, are romanticized. Swords didn't have any other use but for killing either. You didn't chop wood with one, or harvest crops, they were a tool of war, thus one of power and then nobility. But the swords got the last two because of the first. So the same with guns. The purpose is one of war, or violence, to be able to kill. You can assign nobility, or individuality, or any other virtue you want on it, but all those are dependent on the fact that the gun can kill another person or creature.
3) "An armed group is a threat by it's very nature." As I said in #2 a group of people assembled is a threat by its very nature. I believe this is a large part of why the right to assemble and petition the government is protected. The mob is a threat to the government and this is a good thing, it helps prevent tyranny. Are the problems resulting from the presence of guns really large enough to override the benefits that result from the government being afraid of the guns being used against it?
Yes, because it is intimidation to others to speak out against the group with guns. If you and I are in front of the State building, and I'm for X and you're against it, but I have a gun and you do not, and you believe I have every intent of using it, it stifles your free speech. And as I said before, if you've actually had any actual training in weapons, you know that you're taught they are not show pieces, that if you have one and draw it you mean to use it, if you use it, it is for lethal intent. The very act of having a weapon with you means you think you might need it and use it. That is very intimidating to an unarmed opponent and stifles free speech.
4) "you only pull a gun when you mean to use it, you only use it if you're going to shoot to kill. Any group of people with firearms at ready use is a threat of that very thing...hence why openly carrying is an act of intimidation." Intimidation is a form of communication. Openly carrying by itself cannot be intimidation because it is not directed at anyone. Or do you mean to say that the act of carrying a gun must necessarily be intended to communicate to everyone you meet "if you don't do what I want I'm going to kill you." That seems unbelievable to me.
Bullshit. You only need a weapon on you if you're going to use it, you only use a gun if you're going to try to kill someone. Or threat of killing someone. You're being disingenuous, a group with weapons is more inherently a threat than a group without them. I somehow doubt if you're in a bank and robbers came in with guns, you'd giggle and walk out not believing they'd shoot you. They may not, they may be unloaded weapons, or they might not have the balls to shoot you, who knows... But I doubt you'd stroll out unafraid because they have the capacity to kill you easily with a gun.
5) In the context of this particular protest open carrying might be intended to communicate to the government the message that "if you pass these laws I will violently resist them." I accept that a large group of people delivering such a message to the government would be intended to intimidate the government. Does that make that message a speech which the government can prohibit? If so that seems to dangerously restrict communication between a government and its citizens since they are prohibited from telling it they will not tolerate the implementation of certain laws. If no, then delivering the message by walking in front of the capitol building carrying guns does not seem meaningfully different from delivering the message by standing in front of the capitol building and publicly promising to resist these laws. So why should one expression be prohibited and the other permitted?
They would resist them by being able to kill people. You're playing this bullshit game of skipping the important part for the ideological part. They are saying they'd resist because they can shoot and kill people sent to stop them. It is inherently intimidating and a threat. And yes, while you have the right to speak out against your government, open rebellion is something that is looked down upon. Even George Washington himself, marched at the head of a Federal Army just a few years after the America Revolution to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Let alone that these issues were settled quite violently in the Civil War.
6) The argument that open carry is intimidation seems to imply that owning a gun is something to be ashamed of that must be kept secret in order to avoid threatening your neighbors. That seems a cultural norm held by people living in areas where most people don't own guns. What makes you think it is a universal principle?
No! Bad you... Brandishing a weapon during an event with peaceful intent is ratcheting up the threat. Owning a weapon is not inherently a bad thing, I have weapons. Taking them to a protest is clearly an attempt to get power over the opposition by way of being able to kill them easily. If there were large crowds holding their Concealed Weapons Permit, I'd not have entered this thread. If there were large crowds holding pictures of the Second Amendment, I've not have entered this thread. But holding weapons in a protest is, by default, adding threat of force and death to it by definition.
7) If we accept that intimidation is a form of threatening people and should generally be illegal this argument seems to imply that guns should generally be illegal. Are you intending to make that argument? If no, how do you avoid that conclusion?

Nicholas

Wow, you're either really young and dumb or just stupid. Owning a weapon is not in and of itself a threat. Brandishing or organizing with those weapons is a threat. I really think you know this, it's not rocket science, but I do think you're not being honest in this line of thought.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 941
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Khaat » 2020-01-17 11:06am

MKSheppard wrote:
2020-01-16 07:06pm
HB961 is now the currently active one. AFAIK, it hasn't been voted on yet.
Yes, formatting. I should have thrown in the HB at the end of that block. SB dead by unanimous Dem Committee members' vote, though, while Rep Committee members twiddled thumbs and mumbled, "process, maybe".
MKSheppard wrote:
Khaat wrote:VA SBs 22 and 69 - ("one gun per month") moved on, out of Committee.
Maryland has had this for decades for handguns. Baltimore has a massive record murder rate in 2019.
Baltimore has had a massive murder rate for a long time. Show me clear causal relation of the abnormally high rate to restricted sales, specifically, please. Can't, because we don't know how many murders didn't happen because of it. Ok, show me how economics, racism, education, and citizen confidence in police is entirely unrelated to crime. Or even just murder. Complex issue; not just gun laws.
I don't suppose residents can ALSO get guns legally purchased outside the state, in Baltimore?
MKSheppard wrote:
Khaat wrote:VA SBs 12 and 70 - (Mandatory background checks) moved on, out of Committee.
Maryland has had this for decades for handguns. Baltimore has a massive record murder rate in 2019.
Again, show clear causal relationship of murder rates to this restriction. Can't, again, because we don't know how many murders didn't happen because of it.
The majority of NRA membership believe mandatory background checks is a sensible thing:
https://www.politifact.com/ohio/stateme ... said-70-8/
NRA leadership and the fringe group don't.
MKSheppard wrote:
Khaat wrote:SB 240 - ("red flag" laws) moved on, out of Committee.
A woman in Colorado just used their new Red Flag law against the cop who shot her son two years ago in the line of duty by filing a false claim of a relationship with the cop. :luv:
Well, I suppose I could drag the internet for a number of murders, murder/suicides, or mass murders that would be prevented by timely enforcement of red flag laws, but you already follow the news, and you already know a cherry-picked example of abuse of the law is an exception, not the rule. Odd, though, that we know your example is a false claim, almost like these things are complicated and investigated....

TL;DR - Crime-prevention laws don't stop it after it happens (paradox, much?), it makes it harder for it to happen next time. But there will always be gaps (as big as state lines).
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 941
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Khaat » 2020-01-17 11:20am

Nicholas wrote:
2020-01-16 02:27pm
Khaat wrote:
2020-01-16 11:21am
I notice "peaceful" missing from "right of ... assembly". Armed assembly isn't peaceful, it's intimidation. Or sedition. Or assault. Or rebellion. Or maybe just call it what it is: the ignorant yahoos who want to believe their snake-oil salesmen leadership so they can just shoot someone now and feel justified righteous.
What is in dispute regarding this protest is the symbolic value of carrying guns at a political rally.
No, it's the clear threat of violence. Unarmed rallies can get up to fist-fights and 1x2 signs' stick fights, plastic water bottles thrown, if all the attendees have are signs and plastic water bottles. When they show up in homemade riot gear, or a gun on their hip things can escalate really, really fast. They show up in that gear to come out on top because they're looking for a fight, for justification of violence in pursuit of their agenda. That's close enough to the textbook definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). Domestic terrorism kit, just add spark!
For members of the left (clearly including yourself) a gun symbolizes a death threat. Therefor the mere act of visibly possessing a gun is an attempt to intimidate and a threat of violence.
A gun kills. It kills game, it "kills" paper targets, it kills thousands Americans every year. Handguns more than other firearms. You don't show up with a gun on your hip because "I feed my family with this", you show up with a gun on your hip for the same reason police do: "I will end your opposition to me with death if necessary". Except police are trained to very specific definitions of "necessary", and these protesters aren't. And even the police get it wrong, far too often.
For those on the right guns symbolize freedom, responsibility, self-reliance and adulthood. Open carrying a gun at a political rally, especially one defending the right to keep and bear arms, is an expression of pride and means much the same thing as carrying a rainbow flag in a gay pride parade.
I haven't found a single death attributed to "by rainbow flag". There have been thousands killed by firearm violence. Take a flag.
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29531
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-01-17 04:33pm

Khaat wrote:
2020-01-17 11:06am
Baltimore has had a massive murder rate for a long time. Show me clear causal relation of the abnormally high rate to restricted sales, specifically, please.
The 2013 Firearms Safety Act, which required that handgun purchasers get fingerprinted, take safety training classes, and have a "Handgun Qualification License" should have reduced the Bodymore Murder Rate.

Peak homicide count for Baltimore was in 1993 with 353.
Lowest Homicide count for B-More was in 2011 with 196.

Trend since 2011 has been:
2011- 196 murders, 31.1 per 100k pop.
2012 - 218 murders, 34.9 per 100k pop.
2013 - 233 murders, 37.4 per 100k pop. <--FSA 2013 passed
2014 - 211 murders, 33.8 per 100k pop. <--FSA 2013 takes effect this year
2015 - 344 murders, 55.4 per 100k pop.
2016 - 318 murders, 51.4 per 100k pop.
2017 - 343 murders, 57.8 per 100k pop.
2018 - 309 murders, 50.5 per 100k pop.
2019 - 348 murders.

It's been six years since FSA 2013 took effect; and the massive overwhelming murders in B-More are by handgun.
I don't suppose residents can ALSO get guns legally purchased outside the state, in Baltimore?
What is it with people like you who talk shit about gun laws and how we need "reasonable things" but don't know a fucking thing about how the laws we have now actually currently work?

If you want to buy handguns from outside your home state, you have to have them shipped into a dealer in your home state; from whence all applicable laws for your home state must be followed.
Khaat wrote:Again, show clear causal relationship of murder rates to this restriction. Can't, again, because we don't know how many murders didn't happen because of it.
Maryland has long had restrictive handgun licensing, starting with a background check and 7 day wait from 1966; a restricted roster of state approved guns to eliminate saturday night specials since the early 1990s, one handgun a month since the mid 1990s, and no private sales of handguns since the mid 1990s; now all handgun sales have to go through MSP who registers everything via a special Form 77R. Finally, we've had a super special handgun license with fingerprinting and bullshit since 2013-14.

All this should be pushing the murder rate in Bodymore down, but as I've shown, it...really isn't working.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Knight
Posts: 974
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Zwinmar » 2020-01-17 07:57pm

That's close enough to the textbook definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
gun on your hip for the same reason police do: "I will end your opposition to me with death if necessary". Except police are trained to very specific definitions of "necessary", and these protesters aren't. And even the police get it wrong, far too often.
My problems with these statements :
1.) In many cases, the police can be seen as terrorists if you follow that definition.
2.) Police are not the only ones who have received training. There are a substantial number of people who agree with the gun-advocates who are Veterans, many of whom have received far more training than many Police Officers, not only in gun safety, but also in the Rules of Engagement.

Post Reply