I did so! @anon50609448 often says things worth more likes here!
6 Likes
None of the other things you listed are weapons of war. An AR-15 is a weapon of war.
And there is a spectrum of beliefs about guns. Some believe that we should outright ban ALL gun ownership, some believe that everyone is entitled to own whatever weapon they want. MOST people fall on the spectrum between the extreme positions. Unfortunately, the pro-gun, NRA position shuts down all discussion and dialogue that would get us to some meaningful reform. Are mass shootings all about guns - no. But it’s also naive to think that ignoring the issue of gun control wouldn’t have an impact on the issue. The REASON that people decide to go into a place and kill as many people as possible are complicated and complex. The ABILITY to kill nearly 20 people in a few minutes are aided by easy access to rapid fire weapons that have no other use than just that.
19 Likes
But yet, every single one of those are a direct result of the “no regulations on firearms whatsoever” stance that you have given support to. Those are the consequences of the stance that you have, regardless of whatever wishful thinking that you might have that it is otherwise. Furthermore, you’ve shown that you’re willing to engage in rampant fallacious reasoning in order to defend that stance.
As for me, I’m a big believer in the right not to be shot and to live without risk of being shot. But my young nieces and nephews apparently do not have that right anymore–and I’m deliberately not having kids because I don’t want them to be massacred one day. And those are also the consequences of the position that you are holding. So it comes down to the fact that, as a result of the position you hold… people die. People die that don’t need to. And I can’t “agree to disagree” either.
11 Likes
Fair enough. Nonetheless, there are still millions of people who own millions of AR-15s and believe they have a right to own them.
So either we decide as a society that no civilian should own an AR-15, or that we should figure out a sieve to separate those who may from those who may not. Which do you prefer?
If a different position, when enacted, will demonstrably result in fewer people dying, let’s do it. But I’m not interested in enacting any more “security theater” than we already have.
1 Like
Maybe. There have been plenty of times historically, when a majority of Americans believed something was their right and we changed that. There was a time when the majority of American men felt that a woman’s body and property was their right to essentially own. We changed divorce, marriage, and other such related laws. There was a time when white people felt it was their right to own the bodies of black people - we changed that. There was a time when beating your children was not just acceptable or tolerated, it was actively encouraged. We changed that. There was a time where gay people were arrested for engaging in homosexual activities, and now same sex couples are on the road to enjoying the same marriage and adoption rights as straights. People had arguments against literally all of these things, the majority of people embraced those arguments as sound and correct, even backed by god.
I’m not proposing any legislation here, BTW and I find either/or questions to be incredibly limiting in being to have a conservation about gun control.
Personally, I’m for stricter limitations on certain types of weapons, stronger background checks (especially when it comes to clear indicative issues, such as domestic abuse or other kinds of history of violence), closing loop holes (gun shows, online sales), mandatory training and perhaps insurance of some kind. None of this would restrict people from owning most fire arms, but it would at least recognize that fire arms can be dangerous for those who own them, and those around them. It would also recognize that some people DO pose a threat to others.
Look, I know plenty of people who own guns, in my family, among my friends, etc. Owning guns isn’t necessarily an indication of peoples political beliefs, propensity for violence, or anything else really. I DO think that the fetishization of guns is very dangerous. It’s quite different from the line that some are trying to trot out that the real problem here is hollywood. Or the mental illness argument. I don’t think either are the driver of the underlying problem, more an expression of them. Until we deal with our societal issues, we’re going to keep having mass shootings, and some common sense gun control measures would help us to curb the violence UNTIL we can better get to and deal with the root of our societal problems.
19 Likes
I personally have always supported reasonable gun control - but I’m coming to believe that the only way to move the Overton Window and get anything done is to push for a complete ban.
Gun absolutists need to fear this happening in the real world- not just their fantasy world - to move the issue forward.
9 Likes
Explaining to someone else how I wasn’t thinking anyone was operating in bad faith didn’t help? What was the problem? No worries here.
heres a sieve.
A) How many hands do you have?
B) How many guns do you own?
If B is > A, Reduce B, repeat.
As with a lot of other societal ills, young people will probably do the moving. The reaction of high school students in this case has been more vocal and political than I’ve seen before, and in a couple of years Millenials will start sending their own kids off to elementary school. In addition, there’s the demographic shift to a more urbanised population; it’s really a stretch (from a number of aspects) to argue that someone in the city “needs” a semi-automatic rifle to defend his home and family.
This is important. As much as we talk about fetishisation, engaging in (usually self-gratifying) fantasy is also a major driving factor for absolutists. Whether it’s the right-wing fantasy of being a freedom fighter against the NWO or the nerdy ego-inflating fantasy of being able to cosplay with real weapons (comic-cons had to put rules about that in place for a reason) or variations in between, this kind of thing gets in the way of reality-based thinking that leads to reasonable limits on rights.
9 Likes
Um… I’m going to point to the rest of the world for evidence. Like Australia, which hasn’t had a mass shooting in 22 years, even since they enacted gun control.
Also:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
(For bonus irony points… the author of that Onion article… lives a mile from the Florida High School where this shooting happened )
15 Likes
By all means, let’s put Australia’s proposed laws on the table. If they pass, then let’s see how many guns are turned in.
All of those were cases of Americans physically or legally oppressing other Americans. A gun owner only oppresses another American by threatening to use, or actually using, that gun.
2 Likes
An intrinsic purpose of owning a weapon is to threaten- there’s no deterrence if no one knows you own one.
13 Likes
Same with the whole bird-feathers ban for hats. Amazingly, most people don’t want hats and garments that they can’t walk down the street wearing without getting arrested.
5 Likes
This is why people seem to love open carry laws so much. Not so they can feel safer, but so they can make a statement by making others around then uncomfortable.
16 Likes
At which time, they are breaking laws and should be subject to confiscation or some sort of punishment, yeah? If someone waves a gun in my face or shoots at me, with either the intention to scare me or to actually kill me, how are they a responsible gun owners?
I actually don’t 100% agree. It often is, but there are plenty of people who hunt who would never think to use that weapon to threaten other people. You can certainly argue that they are threatening deer or whatever critter they are hunting, but I don’t feel threatened by friends and family members who own guns for shooting animals, because they lock those guns up at other times.
There was also a recent story of an older man, maybe in his late 70s or 80s, who had a break in, and shot the intruder (who I think survived and was later arrested). The man who shot the intruder is no threat to you or I, but he was able to defend himself from a real threat. He said in the article that he wouldn’t have shot the guy if he had just stolen stuff and left, but the guy came into his room and so he shot him. He said he also felt bad for doing so, but felt it was him or the intruder.
I do agree with that and am generally not a fan of open carry laws.
5 Likes
Yes - but you don’t style your presentation to be a steely eyed gunslinger who shots from the hip. Guys like that are making a statement. But “only joking” I’m sure.
6 Likes
Agreed, they certainly are making a statement. But that’s what makes this whole thing so complicated. Gun owners aren’t all those guys. Just like the extreme of the pro-life movement who represent a minority have captured all the attention, so have these open carry extremists. It’s more about virtue/culture signaling than it is about coming to terms on what sort of laws we need to have about guns.
5 Likes
I’m guessing you didn’t know any farmers with a need for dynamite?
Even though dynamite doesn’t keep well and they already knew how to make ANFO, farmers did stock up. At least the ones I’m related to did. In my childhood dynamite was once just another dangerous tool, like ANFO or gunpowder or blasting caps or a combine harvester. Great for moving rocks and stumps and accidentally killing your children and friends. I’m told it used to be sold at the Farm & Home store on Main Street here, but only to adults who didn’t look too crazy or foolish and never to college students.
Valid point well made! Farmers moved on, found other methods. Mostly ANFO and large machines.
Please don’t.
