Are you receiving treatment for this phobia or just praying for the giant robot from The Day the Earth Stood Still to show up and promise to take all power to do anything from everyone? You’d probably be terrified if you knew how often other peoples bad judgment or lack of competence could kill you. Best not to dwell on it.
A staggering tautology. Obviously legal gun ownership doesn’t break laws. But that’s beside the point. No one claimed that laws were being broken. You’re off topic.
Guns endanger people. They are inherently dangerous. They serve one single, solitary function - destruction. They exist to kill. You seem to believe that people merely wanting to own them is justification for the dangers that private ownership entails.
You seem to believe that 10,000 deaths annually is an acceptable price to pay for people to be allowed to own their own guns. I wonder, if we could ask them, would those 10,000 dead feel the same way?
Why is private ownership so damned important? How is its cost in human lives - even if it were merely a single life! - at all justified? If people simply want to be able to pop off rounds at the shooting range, why do they have to be able to personally own the guns they fire? Ditto for hunting? Or if the justification is self-defense, how can one possibly justify lethal firearms over less-than-lethal alternatives?
If a single human life could be spared by requiring guns to be held in trust outside of private hands, how could you argue that wouldn’t be worth it?
No, the real heart of the matter is power.
Gun owners crave power - the power to destroy. They want to be able to destroy paper targets and beer bottles. They want to be able to detonate primers, flatten lead, kick up dirt, and put holes in things, shocking and aweing themselves with the noise and fire and devastation they summon up with the pull of a trigger. They want the rush of destriction.
Some even want to be able to destroy the life of someone who wrongs them. If someone robs them of material possessions, they want to be able to rob them of their life in return. If someone tries to hurt them, they want the power to destroy that person in response. They long to exceed even the barbarity of taking “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth”.
There is no rational reason for private gun ownership.
7 Likes
A quick search for “gun shop” and “rifle range” on Google Maps shows no dearth of locations in New Jersey, just the typical clustering around population centers. Looks like there’s no place in NJ more than 50 miles from either a gun shop or rifle range…about the same distribution as pretty much any other state.
14 Likes
Your argument neglects the existence of less-than-lethal defense tools.
If you can carry a gun, you can carry a taser.
But more importantly than that, instead of treating the symptom by arming our populace with lethal responses to attacks from the unscrupulous, we could instead cure the disease by working to prevent people from being attacked in the first place. Even if you argue for the necessity of self-defense tools in the interim, it’s still only a stopgap measure.
1 Like
Would that be more than the federal, state and local laws and ordinances governing car ownership and usage?
5 Likes
So, question. Has this friend ever stated that he might be a danger to himself or others? Has he, in the past, exhibited violent behavior, maybe even involving the use of a weapon with this violent behavior? Might he had been put in a 72 hour hold that didn’t get reported to the national database for the instant check before purchasing a gun?
Would you check to make sure that he was in the National database of people with violent behavior ?How would you do that? Would you do the reporting or go to his family/doctors to confirm it has been reported? Would you do anything to stop him from being able to legally get new guns? Why not? Because he would just go the illegal route? Because it might piss him off and send him over the edge?
What would you do if you were concerned that he might use his gun on others? Who would you call? What if he had, in the past, before his problems got a concealed carry permit? Would you take steps to have his permit revoked? How would you do this? Would you take steps to ensure that he didn’t have access to his old guns? Who would you call to do that? The sheriff that issued the conceal carry permit? Would you go over to his house and explain to him the need to relinquish his guns?
Or, would you just wait until he carried out his actions, and then the story will be in the paper, “Another crazy person shoots up a school/theater/shopping mall/army base/etc.” “Nobody could have anticipated this.”
These questions aren’t hypothetical. The issue of how to deal with people whom the majority of all people agree should not have a gun, is a problem.
A friends’ family knew that a son/brother had become unstable. His actions had a history of violent behavior. But prior to that he got a CCW. The father contacted the police. “There isn’t anything we can do until he acts.” What about getting his CCW revoked? “Sorry, we can’t do anything, even with the emails and other evidence you have provided.”
Can we at least get someone to take away his gun when he goes to the bar gets drunk and starts threatening others?" .
Then he went out and acted on his threats. The father felt terrible. People were dead. All the signs were there. So the father asked. "What should other fathers or mothers do in this situation? What should other family members do? It’s too late for my son and the people he killed, what can we do do to prevent the next tragedy. "
He wasn’t talking about taking away the guns of law abiding citizens, but people who it is clear should not have a gun. I ask this question of people who are “pro-guns” because I think that THEY have the best insights on how to do this. They are the ones who are in the best position to take action. I don’t want to be the “gun grabber” because I’m “the enemy” but the people who are this guys friends need to act.
8 Likes
I have no problem with a better society, and believe I’ve worked towards it. Tasers are fine, as long as you have one taser per assailant, and don’t miss that one shot. You should know they’re sometimes lethal. As soon as we cure society’s ills, I think people would certainly need less weaponry. To my knowledge, there has never been an era where sexual assault did not occur. I would rather as few people as possible get raped and murdered. I’ve been in a room of a dozen people where I was the only individual who was not a survivor of rape. Telling them to wait until it was a perfect society is not a tenable strategy for them to become more comfortable with their level of safety. I think this would be a better society if far fewer people had guns, but until that happens, I think people who have been stalked/assaulted/raped may still have reason for them.
1 Like
You could actually have been stabbed and eaten by a rabid unicorn after making such a ridiculous statement. I wouldn’t credit it until I saw it in the news. I’m just going to assume you haven’t.
4 Likes
The problem with this debate is that one side insists there is no middle ground: if you support any attempt to regulate guns further then you are seen as agents of some sinister conspiracy to take away everyone’s guns.
You can use the argument that these bad elements of the gun-rights crowd are the fringes of the debate, but in fact the NRA has been promoting this idea forever, is the NRA “the fringe” of the debate? They dominate the debate. We shouldn’t be surprised when women (or men) are threatened and stalked. We should be asking the NRA to address these tactics publicly and loudly, their silence is tacit approval.
They have been pushing this “secret plan” Obama supposedly has since before he was elected President, and none of it is true (but of course, if it’s “secret” then they never have to prove anything, lack of evidence is considered proof of just how secret it is), and how do you talk reasonably with someone who believes in an unprovable conspiracy?
The Second Amendment is vague, and there is nothing unconstitutional about passing another amendment to clarify it-- in fact the Bill of Rights itself was made to clarify ideas in the main body of the Constitution that weren’t defined. That’s why they are called amendments.
8 Likes
See also Mace Moneta’s repeated claims that the “anti-gun” fringe is just as abusive as the pro.
3 Likes
Depth charges. Then sharks.
2 Likes
Those are all valid questions. There was a time when he should have given up his guns during a period of alcoholism, and that’s a whole other story, since as a culture we tend wink at alcoholism. How he’s doing with the bipolar in terms of medication and such, I don’t know, but he generally seems better. His politics alarm me at times, but there’s not much we can do about that, is there?
Although I have pissed him off a few times, he does not hate me or want to control me, even though there’s very little that we agree about politically.
Compare that to the other extreme, online gun control “activists.” I’m putting that in quotes since there is little reason to believe they’ve ever done anything except troll online, so maybe they are just freeloading on the topic of gun control. Although I have a lot in common with them politically, like my friend their mental states seems pretty incoherent. They also have obsessive hatred for many people not in their little clique. And of course they are frantic control freaks. Overall, they give a powerful impression of folks who are not taking their antipsychotic meds. In terms of who should go on a hypothetical list of people that should not own guns, I know they belong on that list. What? They don’t want guns? Well in the context of that list, that’s a nonsense objection, so they shouldn’t mind being on the list. It would nice to disarm all the unstable belligerent control freaks, but these folks are kind enough to self-identify, so sign them up.
Let’s review one: person probably takes his antipsychotic meds and doesn’t want to control my life versus the people that apparently refuse to take their antipsychotic meds who do want to run my life (like most people that won’t take their meds, no surprise there). In that context, the obvious choice is to reject the position of the online gun control extremists. not on the strength of their arguments but because they are much creepier.
Surely the really interesting thing, though, is that motor vehicle accidents, swimming pool drownings/near drownings and firearm-related injuries in peacetime are all preventable causes of morbidity and mortality; and thus legitimate areas for Public Health research aimed at reducing the societal burden of treating them.
True pretty much everywhere, unless you happen to be the United States… where the usually well funded and excellent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been unable to do any research on firearm related injury and death since 1993 because they intimated that the level of gun ownership might be a problem.
3 Likes
What does that refer to? The only thing I can think of is Longdon’s experience of receiving violent threats, but that’s not some mere meeting with an idiot, it’s a genuinely big concern. You seem intent on ignoring that, huh?
Instead you focus on how there’s a complete dearth of gun shops in your area, which seems to be hyperbole at best, and of course how the problem is all extremists vs. extremists, which implies some equivalence between Longdon and her critics because she holds a political opinion you consider “lacking understanding”. Do you actually figure for a moment these things would be comeasurate with stalking and rape threats?
You know, there are other dedicated gun control opponents on this thread, but it doesn’t seem like anyone else has felt the need to pretend her treatment here is anything but completely unreasonable. Treating it as comparable to advocating a different level of regulation on anything is insane. It’s like “what about the menz” and “what about the gunz” had a very ugly baby.
12 Likes
The question about control is interesting. One of the things I often want to determine is, “Are there places were we agree some control is necessary?” So that is a starting place. That is why I want to ask the questions in the case of those scenarios.
If we agree on X, then what needs to happen next? One of the things we found out after Virginia Tech was that the database that lists people who have a history of mental issues, was not being updated by the state. People have agreed that people who have a history of violent mental illness should be in this database. There should also be a way to confirm it, and get off it. There should be HIPIC protections, but it should be updated and used. It should be used to stop these people from buying legal guns. Full stop. Let’s not instantly bridge to “But they can get illegal guns… or what about just depressed people …”
UPDATE: STATE MENTAL HEALTH REGISTRY is the database I’m talking about and each state has a different procedure and some have higher or lower compliance rates. More info here
Let’s get back to making sure that this part of the system is working and stop moving the goal posts.
The other thing about online trolls vs the people working behind the scenes to make changes is that the behind the scenes money and coordinated action is very different between the weapons lobby and the people who are in favor of public and personal safety measures. (Note how I don’t say, Gun control?)
The steps that the weapons lobby have taken to hobble any kind of actions that would impede the sale of more and more weapons are numerous. They range from protecting terrorists rights to get weapons to banning the use of computers to keep track of guns. They have programs in place that stopped public health organizations like the CDC from even looking at the public health implications of guns in our society and a program to help violent felons get back their guns.
The NRA lobbying and communications organization is one of the most sophisticated and successful lobbying groups ever created (they are right up there with Big Tobacco and the Energy companies) I’m impressed with the their sophistication of their multiple layers of strategies and their ability to even use gun tragedies to sell more weapons. As a professional communicator I’m in awe of their work.
But just because I’m impressed by them doesn’t mean that they will always win.
2 Likes
Why is private ownership so damned important?
To defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. If the state is physically able to subjugate it’s citizens, than any freedoms those citizens have is purely at the whim of the state. Also, and this is a hugely important piece of context that always seems to get left out whenever that argument is brought up, the second amendment was intended to be in lieu of a standing military.
No, the real heart of the matter is power. Gun owners crave power - the power to destroy… to be able to destroy the life of someone who wrongs them… If someone tries to hurt them, they want the power to destroy that person in response.
Not all of them. But yes, you are absolutely right about the ones you see on TV or in articles like this or standing in the town square with their AR-15s and Gadsen flags. Those are scared little boys with no other way to feel good about themselves than by waving around lethal weapons, and personally, I wouldn’t trust any of them with a potato peeler, let alone a firearm.
But not everyone is like that. Not even most people are like that. But I’m going to let you in on a little secret-
There are a whole fuckload of cops who are like that.
And those are also people I don’t trust with a firearm, let alone the authority to use it however they think they can justify.
And this comes down to the crux of the thing: Watch the videos of the illegal traffic stops. Of riot cops being turned against peaceful protestors. Of them brutalizing innocent kids.
By contrast, look at the way the government backed the fuck down at the Bundy ranch.
I do not trust these people with a monopoly on the use of force. Neither did the founding fathers- It’s why they chose to have a citizen militia instead of a standing army. I believe in that principle, and it’s codified in the constitution. You have a right to lobby to change that law, and I have a right to campaign against you. I think that preventing the citizens from physically defending themselves against the government when absolutely necessary sets a very dangerous precedent.
This doesn’t mean we can’t have sane, reasonable restrictions. I support regulating guns the way we regulate driving- You take a class, you pass a written and practical test, and you get a license that fits most needs (a car, a hunting rifle). If you want to use something bigger (an 18 wheeler, a high powered sniper rifle), or something specialized (a motorcycle, a handgun), then you take another class, and a more advanced test, and get the extra sticker on your license.
5 Likes
And by “domestic enemies” they explicitly meant insurrectionists like the stupid tw#ts at the Bundy ranch, so that the state militias could be raised by Congress
Among the enumerated powers of Congress:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
See? The right to bear arms is explicitly so the rest of us can kill the Bundys.
1 Like
Yes. At the risk of going down a very deep rabbit hole, that is exactly what I’m saying.
1 Like
That’s good because usually it’s the “3 percenters” who say “I took an oath defend this country and enemies foreign AND domestic” and that’s usually followed by violent fantasies of forming right wing hit squads to assassinate anyone that drives a Prius. .
4 Likes
Yeah, those people are fucking nuts. There are circumstances under which I would advocate (and participate in) an armed rebellion, but we have an amazing system of laws and elections and courts which keep us from getting to that point.
I respect and love that system, and I have almost total faith in it. Not enough to throw away my last line of defence, but definitely enough to treat it with the respect it deserves and leave my last resort safely locked up.
As much as I agree with the “four boxes” theory of liberty- The soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box- I actually understand that the order those come in is really fucking important.
3 Likes
