He’s absolutely right that the freedom to own the weapons and the ammunition to cause a massacre like this is quite literally written into the fabric of our country, and that, for the moment, all we can do is say “gosh please don’t do that sort of thing.”
Whenever this happens, people like Obama and Biden and Warren say “can we please do something?” I hope someday someone will have the guts and ability to actually do something to unweave that particular bit of our constitution.
My inclination for how I would respond would be similar to how this guy conducted the interview. I would be worried that I’d become a target of people’s rage, pretty much no matter what I said. I have a family and I would not want them in the crosshairs either. So, I would measure my words very carefully and probably also do what he did: not provide very many. Be vague, rather flat and emotionless, somewhat ponderous, and get that damn interview over asap.
without massive limits on the sale of pre-packaged ammunition, probably about right
20th floor
I think there’s so much more to it than even that.
"So much of Trump’s appeal is wrapped up in his sense of machismo, but he borrows almost exclusively from the worst of American masculinity, clinging to an old school version of manliness that’s about toughness, bluster, an imperative to superiority, a disdain for humility, and a need to dominate others—especially women.
Trump’s concept masculinity seems to guide his politics, which is so much about attempting to dominate Barack Obama, Muslims, the media, and other enemies real or perceived."
“I think that what has more do with it is a resurgence of the traditional vision of patriarchy, which is appealing to some, both men and women.”
I think the guy was fairly good in his interview. There’s a bit where he says something like “find out who sold him that gun”… but then he thinks about it and lays the blame back on his brother saying that HE bought the gun and made the choice to do what he did.
I do wonder about how much his brother knew. I doubt he knew of the plan, but he must’ve seen signs in retrospect and he didn’t give any of that away in the short interview. Maybe a lawyer told him not to discuss?
I do still believe this is a minority of the nation though. Clinton beat him in the popular vote by a decent margin which to me was more about so many voters either disliking her enough to not vote for her, or from voters not showing up because they figured she was going to win handily regardless (plus additional factors, bu those being the main two).
45 is disgusting and does not represent me as a father or patriarch…he does however represent my own father and a couple uncles and a brother in law on numerous levels…so unfortunately I feel it still way to often even if anecdotally.
Because BoingBoing has the most intelligent and thoughtful commenters I know, I have to ask…
How do I respond to folks on my FB timeline saying gun control prevents citizens from defending ourselves against foreign and domestic threats?
To me: it’s paranoia and naiveté thinking that, should the government declare war against its own citizens, any amount of gun fire will make a dent in an Apache helicopter.
But that’s where this guy is coming from. It’s all about individuals having the right to defend themselves in a Red Dawn type situation. I just don’t know how to respond to that line of thinking with any sort of useful rebuttal.
Any wisdom whatsoever here?
And at the risk of going off-topic, I think that the election results are also reflective of another problem, the lack of faith that Americans have in their political system.
Undiagnosed Mental Illness, most likely.
You could point out how well (which is to say: not at all) being armed in the middle of a mass shooting incident went for the people being shot at, including one of the musicians:
Sounds like you have a good start. Tell him that trying to reason with that “logic” is like trying to take out an Apache helicopter with an AR-15, and then tell him good luck with that.
The music festival was a weapon free zone. The good guys followed the rules and didn’t bring theirs, so everyone had to wait for the LVPD to show up.
Not that it would have done any good…realistically there was no safe way to return fire from the festival. The only safe way to stop this maniac was to storm his hotel room after evacuating the surrounding rooms, which eventually happened.
By some good guys with guns.
I wish I had some useful advice to offer you; unfortunately, people are prone to believe what they want to believe, and all the facts and empirical evidence in the world won’t change their minds.
Someone on this thread opined that there must be an unspoken magical belief that carrying a loaded firearm 24/7 somehow automatically makes a person “bulletproof.”
Call it willful denial, cognitive dissonance or wishful thinking; the fact remains that far too many people seem to believe it wholeheartedly.
Agreed; should it ever come to that, the average US citizen is toast, regardless to how big their own personal arsenals may be…
Don’t waste your time. You could point out a concert full of armed people would have resulted in more fatalities: as the gun nuts will inevitably claim, “Well, if people at the concert had guns, they could have shot back!” they neatly ignore the facts: no one knew where the shooter was, nor could they have shot him, so people would have been shooting randomly in whatever direction they thought the shooter was hidden.
The people who believe they need guns to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats–and that having a gun would somehow have saved lives in this case–live in an echo chamber of paranoia which amplifies their deep and profound fear of an imaginary dystopian future, a fear that prevents us from confronting and solving the dystopian reality in which we’re actually living.
Yes, but do keep in mind that Biden, at least, wants to do something to attack the root causes of this kind of violence - regardless of whether the tools used are ANFO, hatchets or firearms.
Around 2013 he led a task force that proposed the whole nation should have the same kind of instant background checks we enjoy in Delaware, and limits on magazine capacities, but he’s not an anti-gun crusader. His vision’s a little bigger than that.
I’m not a big Biden fan but on this subject we’re in agreement.
You mean like the M-16?
You’re allowed to have an opinion, but please do basic research. People running their mouth only contributes to people on both sides of the gun issue being obdurate.
This is pretty much the short of it. @AllisonMoon i would tell the person that you’d be willing to talk about it. Not argue, not criticize. A real conversation. But that can’t happen if he’s not willing to be open to have his mind changed or consider that certain things he believes in are incorrect. If he wants a piece of evidence that will blow his mind and magically change his opinions then that’s not going to work, rarely that’s how conversations happen.
If he’s not willing to put in the work than i’m afraid you’re talking to a wall. That being said treat him with respect and civility, and you’d be happy to share some information about your points of view and that he should consider what they have to say.
See I don’t like that argument. However technically true it may be. Since it carries the unavoidable implication that the person your talking to intends to kill things, And specifically intends to kill people. It tends to simply rachet up the anger rather than making the point you’re aiming at. It’s also, however much you may dislike it, pretty easily countered by all the legit, non murdery uses for firearms. Hunting is a totally legitimate reason for firearms to exist, and it even involves killing. So it becomes a divicive and circular argument. It’s not going to win anyone over or shift the conversation.
I find it more helpful to unpack the warped social aspects of gun ownership in this country. Stress that guns are inherently dangerous. It also helps to work in a bit about how of shitshow of inconsistent regional gun laws outs gun owners in a really weird risky legal position. Frankly if Obama really wanted to take your guns. He probably could. There’s a non zero possibility that even the most above board gun owner has violated some statute. Even if it was just by driving down the wrong stretch of highway on the way to the range.
