I think that’s conflating two different issues. The “Big City Democrats” I know usually favor more restrictions and background checks for handguns and assault weapons, but few seem especially concerned about rural folks with hunting rifles.
7 Likes
Its like cars. They CAN be lethal, hence all the training and licensing and restriction on who can or cannot drive them.
Regulations are good. Lack of regulations is bad. This just seems logical to me? /shrug
13 Likes
Hey, that’s me! I’m all about the Canadian forms of gun laws.
4 Likes
Responding to you here and in regards to your previous post (and thank you whomever set up this separate thread, great idea).
I’d guess that gun ownership is much higher in the south as an aggregate (and in states that are highly rural in general, like vermont)
And you’d be making a very good guess. I grew up in Maine myself, and most families had at least one rifle, although handguns were more rarely owned back when I was still living there. Here’s a graphic I found showing percent of ownership per state, which tracks pretty well with your guess: Gun Ownership by State
I just think that gun issue is a much more complicated one than liberals against, conservatives for.
Absolutely. The problem is that it’s became a default “fact” that this is so, so every time a Democratic president gets elected the NRA and others immediately begin screaming the message that “they’re coming for your guns!” We need to show that this is not the case, and we need to pressure mainstream Democrats to move away from feel good gun legislation that doesn’t really have much bearing on reducing gun violence, like magazine restrictions and such.
I haven’t owned a gun in a long time. My father had a 30-30 when I was a kid, and we used to go hunting every year. Then I was in the military, and after that I had a shotgun for trap shooting for a few years until my first son was born. We got rid of the gun then and I haven’t owned for almost two decades now. And I’ve vacillated back and forth between being pro-gun, to vehemently anti-gun, to a more nuanced place where I think some restrictions and measures are useful, but we also need more research to determine which ones have proven most effective so we can promote those and ditch the others.
I miss that 30-30 though… that was a nice little rifle. Wish the old man hadn’t sold it, my older brother and I would be fighting over it. And he’d win, he’s way bigger than me and has WAY more guns than I do. 
6 Likes
The problem is the rhetoric often comes across as “Guns are evil! Ban the guns!” rightly or not.
3 Likes
And unlike cars they’re actually DESIGNED to be lethal. If a company could design an otherwise-functional car that was incapable of killing anyone even if a driver tried to use it for that purpose they’d be hailed as geniuses and their innovations would soon be mandatory for all new models sold.
When a gun manufacturer tries to develop a safer weapon they’re subjected to boycotts and lobbied against by the NRA.
13 Likes
I prefer “Guns are dangerous objects! Regulate them the same way we regulate other dangerous things!” but a lot of people seem to hear that they way you just described.
13 Likes
If neo-Nazi punks come for you, any means necessary works.
If the state comes for you, violent resistance is not the bigger answer.
Yeah. You heard me correctly. People have crunched the numbers on this, non-violent resistance works more frequently than violent resistance against state actors.
Violent resistance requires external state actors to be successful. Of all the violent resistance groups fighting the Nazis internally, zero were successful. Meanwhile the Rosenstraße protests forced the Nazis to release Jews and massive casual civil opposition ensured that no Jews were deported from Bulgaria. They didn’t even bother making enough stars.
Source: Why Civil Resistance Works by Chenoweth and Stephan.
They don’t just lay out a convincing evdience-based case that NVR works better, they lay out an undeniable one.
(And yes, there will be casualties. Violent resistance still offers no advantage in this regard.)
14 Likes
And the Nazis didn’t even have all the modern weaponry and surveillance tools of the U.S. government. I don’t care how many rifles your militia has stockpiled, Uncle Sam is going to have you hopelessly outgunned.
You don’t win by shooting back against the biggest military force the world has ever seen. You win by convincing them they’re fighting for the wrong side.
8 Likes
The only thing worse than no regulation is bad regulation.
I’d rather have no car licensing requirements (as in South Dakota prior to 1959) than have driving licenses restricted to male landowners with income over $200K a year, for example. Bad regulation is bad.
Good regulations are by definition good.
But since good regulations turn bad over time as conditions change, and there is a limit to how many regulations can be maintained and updated in the face of changing conditions, anything that does not sorely require regulation should not be regulated, as a pragmatic measure. This is just basic logic applied to history.
Right now we have many existing firearm regulations, and most people believe there are good reasons for firearm regulation. So it’s important that those regulations should be good ones, and not simply economic barriers to self-defense imposed on the law-abiding poor.
6 Likes
Well put. Fig leaf measures like that just encourage people to be clever about finding ways around the law.
Personally I suspect that “safer” is a bit of a marketing word in this case. I can think of specific situational failure cases where this technology might prevent accidental deaths but I’m not sure it is entirely better than basic “common sense” available alternatives.
3 Likes
That’s part of it though isn’t it? There’s theoretically a multi-level threat, but what might be considered an appropriate response to one invites intervention by the state.
1 Like
The common argument is when the police and military have proven the effectiveness of the technology we can consider civilian legislation.
Yes, keeping your handguns locked away in a safe would be at least as effective a way to prevent them from getting in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them—like the hundreds of children who kill, injure, or die via gun accidents each year.
But one reason so many people don’t keep their handguns safely locked up whenever they’re not in use is the claim that they need them handy for self-defense. If your entire rationale for owning a handgun is to protect yourself in the event of a home invasion or a mugging then it stands to reason that you’d need it handy in a nightstand or a purse. In other words, places where kids or ne’er do wells could also get them.
That’s where technologies like fingerprint locks come in. But trying to develop that kind of technology even for the people who want it is to invite the wrath of the NRA and other groups. They actively oppose virtually anything that might make guns less likely to kill people.
6 Likes
Agreed!
Full disclosure, I was QA for years, ISO9000 man. Continual improvement. Horrible slogan, but man is it necessary!
5 Likes
Actually, the answer doesn’t come down to conversion, though that’s a part of it, it’s about the imposition of costs on the powerful. It’s not unlike violent resistance in that regard, which often uses a strategy of attrition. One principle difference is that participation is increased by NVR methods. You don’t have to be healthy, agile, mostly male, young, and spry with decent vision. You can be anyone. And if you have to choose between killing and not killing, one choice is easier. Resistance in general needs numbers.
Unless you are seeking out Neo-nazis where they live, you are acting in self-defense and it’s difficult to see a mass state crackdown on such measures. There are other reasons not to seek out trouble: Reprisals. The assumption is that you can intimidate people into submission. The reality is they will resist this and take revenge. This revenge, however, will mostly likely be taken on vulnerable populations.
3 Likes
OH, I have met them. There was a famous case of a renowned write for a gun magazines - not an up and comer, but someone established for his knowledge of hunting and hunting rifles. He went on a tear about how ARs are worthless for hunting and has no problem with them being banned. To say he caught hell would be an understatement.
It seems like many people feel firearm laws should be on the forefront of the police’ minds and the courts, and the laws. But I don’t think it really is. Hell I think they punish drug users much more harshly. I think they are used more or less to tack on more time than anything and not sought after pro-actively. I see repeated examples of thieve getting off the hook easy for stealing guns - including this law in CA which was supposed to help decriminalize theft under $1000, but it meant stealing a gun was just a misdemeanor. And there is a horrible example of a guy stealing 80 some guns from a safe, and he got - PROBATION??? 20 years probation, but still.
And then you have something like 160,000 people refused on NICS per year. And you get maybe two dozen convictions federally from that. That number seems really, really low. It is a crime to lie on the form. And while I am not suggesting EVERYONE who fails a check should go to jail, but if you want to focus on people trying to buy a gun and are up to no good, those are probably the people.
Because they are worried about city crime, and I guess terrorists. Or mass shootings. Even though the potential to cause harm with “hunting rifles” is also there - see the Austin Bell Tower Shootings.
I have to concede, I have gotten tired of them beating this drum. Yes, Democrats are more likely to rubber stamp a new gun law, but I think they are just using a fear based tactic to solicit more funds.
Unless he is a jerk, he would at least share. I am waiting my turn to own my great grandpas .44-40 lever action. I have only shot it once, but it is pretty neat.
They are already regulated - a lot. And for the most part, if you use them other than on private land, you need some license to do so or to use them at designated areas. IE hunting you have to pass a hunters safety course and get a license, CCW you have to take a course and get a license, and you can only shoot at designated range, not in your back yard in the city. (Note there are some exceptions to the CCW thing.)
It isn’t like operating a gun safely is hard. It is so easy a 5 year old can do it safely with supervision. But I am a big proponent of safety, and any new shooter I encourage to get some basic training, read up on proper handling, and drill it into yourself.
Even if we required a license to own a firearm, I don’t see it helping much. Most of the gun deaths aren’t from people not aware of what they are doing is wrong, but because they don’t care, or they are careless. Same as how a drivers license doesn’t make one a good or safe driver. I see people every day who either are unable to drive safely, or choose not to.
I know accidents are tragic, but given the number of people with access to them (probably closer to 100 million, than the 80 million I use for number of gun owners), ~800 a year is very, very small. Also some of those are suicides that were marked as accidents.
With all that said, I am still very pro education and information. There has been grass roots orgs pushing for safety and education. The NRA actually has the only program I know of that teaches kids gun safety.
I agree. I got flak on a KMFDM forum because some guy in Uruguay thought we should revolt, and I was like, “That would be a bad idea.” But later I posted a picture of a gun and was like, “Weren’t you the guy advocating peaceful protest?”
“Yep. Just because I have the tools for violence, doesn’t mean I advocate using them for violence.”
At the risk or irking some people, I will repeat again, America - with all it’s problems and shit going on right now - is still better of probably in it’s history. People in general are waaaay too placated and “happy” (which by no means means everyone is “happy”.)
Combine this with the fact that the reason for the first Civil War are not really a factor now. Remember back then:
-
People were MUCH more loyal to their STATE than they were to the Federal Government. Remember how our voting and legislature works is so one state can’t bully around another. We are basically like a big Europe under one flag - like the EU.
-
They had a single legal law to draw a line in the sand with - slavery.
-
They had state leaders willing to attempt to succeed, resulting in nice and neat battle lines.
-
The Federal Army at the time was very small. Remember back then we were still on the Militia system, the standing Federal Army was small, and only increased during war time.
-
Even then, tens of thousands if people who lived in the South fought for the North, and vice versa.
So we have none of those things right now. Hell even if you got all the people who wanted to tear down the government, good luck on finding a 3rd of them who actually agree on what they want to replace it with. Civil War is a fantasy and it should never be a real option.
5 Likes
There is a very salient factor in the American Civil war that may have turned things around, namely external support. The CSA was rebuffed by other major powers. This was also a major factor in the American Civil War. The Union blockade was effective because it was respected, but not because it was physically capable of stopping inward traffic (which was legally significant at the time). It is also uncertain how the Continental Army would have fared without French assistance during the Revolutionary War.
3 Likes
I’m pretty sure that’s the strawman argument presented by the ‘cold, dead fingers’ lobby.
1 Like
No, it isn’t.
1 Like
