The infuriating harassment of women who favor gun sanity

I think the armed right wing prowling the streets is part of the global Fascist revival, and it appeals to the usual people from the disaffected middle class and veterans. They are Brown Shirts. Call them that.

There is nothing about them that gives me the urge to unilaterally disarm. I see Fascists, and for some reason i do not get the urge to start dressing like Gandhi. Not only is that not a good look for me, the Fascists would have deeply appreciated Gandhis philosophy of nonviolent resistance. What worked against the British would have been an all you can eat buffet for the Nazis.

When I see people saying “Oooo Fascists, we need to disarm to prove we are better!” I can only say a pox on both your houses.

Don’t lie, we know you’re a bleeding-heart leftie who hates guns.

FWIW, and this will greatly annoy @Mister44 and all the people I’ve unrelentingly railed against on this issue, I would love to own a serious scoped rifle. I’m just pretty happy with how shit works here which is: if you realllllllllly wanna shoot guns, you’d better do it at a range or on private property with express permission of the owner and also that the ability to own and keep guns is predetermined by need (for farmers) or sport (registered and long-term member of a shooting range at which you must attend regular events to maintain your licence) and the overarching legal requirement to own and use a gun safe.

3 Likes

How safe is safe enough?
Not America’s level of safety - that’s for sure.

What freedoms are you willing to give up for that security?
Considering I question the intelligence of most of my countrymen (and humanity, in general) the freedom of owning a "kill this now’ button is a freedom I’m willing to forego… crazy, I know.

Is it “fair” to penalize the vast majority of harmless people because of the small minority of abusers?
Is it fair to be gunned down as you’re enjoying an evening movie? Or attending school? Or going to church?

Should the misuse of things you may value lead to their restriction as well?
Depends on the potential for abuse. Weed? Shouldn’t be illegal. Meth? Should probably be illegal. Guns? Those too.

Should other safety measures be put in place and enforced?
They are - it’s called a helmet. You know…the things race car drivers wear? Oh wait, you seem to be aware of them.

Who needs a private plane? They could crash into buildings.
Who needs a straw man? It could burst into flames at any minute and destroy your crop.

What about dangerous sports like skiing or sky diving?
Oh, you mean where the majority of the risk is shouldered by the person participating in the activity? Seems totally analogous to me.

I sure am glad the current drug laws are keeping us safe from harm.
Except the dangers of drug use are provably overblown while the dangers of widespread gun ownership are entirely obvious.

Even without guns I am sure you still experience random and senseless violence. If you think people are going to suddenly be nice and stop hurting one another because they lack guns, you’re naive.
Wait, you’re admitting that random and senseless violence is an inevitability? It would probably make sense to remove a device that can kill instantly (considering humans are so unpredictable and impulsive) wouldn’t it? People are dumb. Fights happen. I’d rather know that it’s a level playing field than one stacked against me. Guns are not the playing-field steamroller they are the cheat. I accept people are fallible and I’d rather those fallible people have to commit physically sickening acts if they want to, instead of the perceived push-and-forget simplicity of using guns.

2 Likes

… so when gun control advocates try to play guilt by association and try to lump me in some category that contains me and those brown shirts, they’ve obviously lost any chance of my cooperation.

2 Likes

We took my wife to a firing range a couple of years ago… My brother-in-law set her up with a nice scoped rifle (don’t recall what it was) - her anal-retentive/OCD genes kicked in and she was getting some impressive results after a bit… She was disappointed that we didn’t get a chance to shoot last year…

her anal-retentive/OCD genes kicked in

This is probably the reason behind why I’d down for long range static target practice. I’m a bit OCD when it comes to certain subjects.

I personaly feel like people who hunt for “sport” should themselves be the prey sometimes. OTOH shooting “pests” is something I’ve yet to come to terms with as I accept that overpopulations of certain animals (even domestic ones) can lead to worse outcomes for everyone (sometimes even the animals themselves) but there’s no fucking way you’d ever get me to shoot an animal*.

*humans - depending on the target - are an exception to this rule :stuck_out_tongue:

Ah, so like the rest of us you are a victim of the oligarchy that controls the government to protect their business… Y’all need to blame ‘the family’. :wink:

…and that’s why I want the legal right to concealed carry: so that when the windows and tires get shot out of my hybrid, I don’t have to duck and hope pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top that they go away.

And I know where you’re coming from: before that last election, I don’t know how many “close calls” I had with ginormous SUVs with Romney and anti-Obama stickers plastered on them. I guess driving a hybrid automatically makes me a raving gun-grabbing pacifist government-loving communist, or some shit.

And before anyone else gets all mad, I too think the NRA is nuts.

The U.S. government is armed better than Al-Qaeda, too. Afghanistan should have taken, what, 3 months, tops?

And, oh, ffs, “addiction to guns”, what is it with Boing Boing and hyperbole today, anyway?

http://milescityacehardware.com/diy/images/skunk-1.jpg

I live in a semi-rural area. These little guys are everywhere. They’re also prone to be rabid. It takes animal control 20 minutes, minimum, to get to my house.

This time of year is when there’s more livestock young, and coyotes also have young. They gotta eat. And once they get a taste for livestock, it’s all over.

You could argue that we could go with a system where farmers get an exception. The part of the U.S. I live in, though, tends to treat people like the folks in Chicago, and the folks in rural central Illinois, have the same wants and needs.

And I live next to a town that’s listed as one of the 100 most dangerous cities in America…but doing a quick search makes it look like there have been two shootings in the last five years.

This Australian guy was gunned down down…why? For the luls of course.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/australia-suffering-from-drive-by-shootings-piers-morgan-claims-gun-control-works/

That shooting was in Sydney. Warning, the article has some anti-immigrant nonsense.

1 Like
  1. False equivelancy: AQ doesn’t play by the rules of war. The US army (sort of) does.

  2. America has an addiction to guns. It’s not hyperbole. One firearm in private hands for every man, woman and child is fucking ridiculous.

  3. I already did argue for a system where farmers get an exception. There is an undeniable need for farmers to have guns. That insta-kill feature is occasionally useful for being humane. If those in the city cannot be differentiated from those in rural areas it’s a systemic problem, not a legal one.

  4. “two shootings in the last five years.” I don’t know which town you’re talking about but you cannot be making this argument if you’re in Illinois, Chicago being the murder capital of America and all.

  5. O RLY? Since handguns are intensely controlled here, where exactly do you think all the guns being used in the commission of these drive-bys are from? Thx uncle sam. I live in Sydney. Drive bys are increasing in frequency but are a laughable blip in overall crime here. We get one every month or couple of weeks at most. One.

1 Like

Last month I had some clown on a cherry red Harley shouting abuse at me at a traffic light because of my Obama sticker, and this light is red for about two minutes.

And the really great thing was there was absolutely no reaction on my part, none, not even a flicker, I mean you couldn’t have measured anything using a polygraph. It was as if I’d glanced out the car window and seen a small stray dog shitting on the sidewalk.

Not America’s level of safety - that’s for sure.
Oh come now, crime wise, you are very unlikely to get hurt in America in most places.

freedoms are you willing to give up for that security?
What about police surveillance? Mandatory searches? Loss of privacy? etc

Is it fair to be gunned down as you’re enjoying an evening movie? Or attending school? Or going to church?
Again, the likelihood of that happening is small. I think laws should be made according to reality, not some fantastic “What if everyone just went out and shot everyone else?”

Who needs a straw man? It could burst into flames at any minute and destroy your crop.
Point taken, but it seems to me the fear of guns often stems from a fear of the highly unlikely. I’ll touch more on this below.

Oh, you mean where the majority of the risk is shouldered by the person participating in the activity? Seems totally analogous to me.
Right, these risky activities, along with things like helmet use and to some degree drug use mostly only effect the people partaking in them. But if limiting guns is a public safety issue, why wouldn’t we also limit one’s ability to harm one’s self? Theoretically that is what drug and helmet laws do. America is already not safe enough, could we be even safer by outlawing or further regulating other risky activities? What level is an acceptable risk? Why not ban a frivolous activity if it saves even one life?

How far do we let our imaginations wander before we look at the reality? How many small private owned planes could be loaded up with some home made napalm and crashed into rabbit orphanages? (The horror) When we let our imaginations run away, or let an isolated, unlikely incident be something we are constantly fearful of, then we end up with having to take our damn shoes off at the airport and have a porno scanner sniffing our underwear at airports.

Except the dangers of drug use are provably overblown while the dangers of widespread gun ownership are entirely obvious.
Ah, see I don’t think that is a fair statement at all. Depending on the drug, some of them have long term health effects, and weed will effect a still developing brain. Of course legal drugs like tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine all have documented side effects.

There are two areas where drugs are directly responsible for violence and death, but yet guns get the blame. The first is one is more likely to make bad choices while under the influence. Accidents, sexual coercion, assaults, and consumption of junk food are all linked drug and alcohol use. I’m supposed to be penalized because someone got drunk or high and did a bad thing? That is shifting the blame from the person to an inanimate object.

Second A LOT of the people injured by guns are done so because of the drug trade. From street level crime in Chicago, to the cartels in Mexico. There is even a percentage of crime so that people get the money to buy drugs. Magically remove all guns tomorrow and they would still be killing each other over drugs. Magically remove the drug laws and I bet you would see violence reduced.

Wait, you’re admitting that random and senseless violence is an inevitability? It would probably make sense to remove a device that can kill instantly (considering humans are so unpredictable and impulsive) wouldn’t it?
Again, I am to pay for the sins of a tiny minority of people? What about allowing me the ability to protect myself in the unlikely event of attack?

Guns are not the playing-field steamroller they are the cheat.
Guns are a great equalizer. A gun can stave off an attack by 3 or 4 guys with bats and knives. Being armed with a taser or a knife doesn’t. A 90lb women now has an advantage over a 250lb man. The bad people of the world do not play by “rules”. The worst danger I’ve ever been in was not brought about by a single guy wanting a fight. It was brought on by a dozen people wanting to kick my ass.

I’d rather those fallible people have to commit physically sickening acts if they want to, instead of the perceived push-and-forget simplicity of using guns.
You’re making an assumption that is is somehow easier for a man to pull a trigger than strike out with a punch or a stab. Given how many people are quick to throw a punch on woldstarhiphop I don’t know if that is the case. At any rate, often time’s violence is not a one on one thing. There are people goading and encouraging in the violence. And again, these people don’t play by “rules”. Outlaw guns and “stabby” knives? They still somehow find guns and make stabby knives, or they just revert to the good ol’ method of 5 guys with clubs.

1 Like

It’s wonderful that us folks using anonymous and androgynous handles can have a respectful debate about the virtues of the tools that are firearms, as well as potential methods to mitigate the risks inherit to those tools.

It’s a shame that the women in the article don’t have that same privilege. Rather, they got spit on, stalked, harassed, and threatened. How do we fix that?

I don’t know how we fix that. But I do think the first step is to not ignore that abuse while we rush to our established positions on gun control. (or, comic book covers).

6 Likes

And… You are added to my “can’t be trusted with a firearm” list.

1 Like

+1 for my literal LOL.

1 Like

Do I really need to be the one to tell people that the government has much better and many more guns than you do?.. …False equivelancy: AQ doesn’t play by the rules of war. The US army (sort of) does.

This is where you’re missing sort of a major point. Our constitution is very specific about having no standing armies: Only a small navy (whose duties as described are much closer to what our Coast Guard is actually doing), and the ability to raise an army from the local militia- and for no more than two years.

The intent was that the power to wage war was not to be trusted to a few individuals, but distributed across the entirety of the population, in the same way that representative democracy distributes the power to make and enforce laws.

We have strayed very far from both of those principles, and our system is buckling. I think that it is a strong enough system to recover- I think we can find a peaceful and prosperous solution to our problems, and that the current climate will be seen in retrospect as simply growing pains. BUT, looking at just how bad some specific things have gotten, I would not be surprised to see another civil war within my lifetime. I really, really hope it doesn’t come to that.

But, it does lead me to your next point:

America has an addiction to guns.

It’s not an addiction like the guy who’s hooked on heroin and can’t quit when he wants to- It’s more like the guy who keeps drinking because it’s the only thing that stops the voices.

I’m sure that somewhere, you have met a guy who feels weak and scared and powerless, and so he compensates with a lot of macho bluster and setting out to prove just how much tougher he is than everyone else.

Right now, we have tens of millions of those guys- And it’s not without good reason. We live in a country where your job can move overseas without notice, your retirement savings can vanish into thin air, you have no idea what’s in your food or where it comes from, getting sick can put you into bankruptcy and a lifetime of debt, and the people responsible for all of this get rewarded for it. It’s a country where a major city can be wiped out by a natural disaster and the government does nothing. The average American seriously lives in fear that he won’t be able to provide for his own basic needs.

Mind you, there’s a hell of a lot of great and positive stuff too- We have Tesla Motors and Virgin Galactic and some of the best universities in the world- But we also have this nagging stress that never quite goes away, even when you’re actually rich.

So we have a lot of desperate people looking for something that will give them some sort of sense of security, and some sort of reassurance that they are capable of surviving. Some of us do what we can to fix the underlying problems, and yes- Some of us prepare for the worst.

I have a job that pays next to nothing, and I’m neck deep in debt. I am drowning in this world- But I’m a maker, a scrounger, and hang around with a lot of SCA and homesteader types. I know how to build water filters, generators, and yes, firearms and black powder, from whatever I can salvage. I have a pretty strong sense that my chances of survival actually increase with the collapse of civilization. I understand that that’s probably pure fantasy, but damn it if it doesn’t give me a little comfort to know that I’d be okay in a worst case scenario. There are times when it’s the only thing that gets me through the day.

So there are a lot of less intelligent people who simply don’t have the mental capacity to understand anything beyond “bigger dog”. Instead of fighting to restore the middle class, they fight to keep the immigrants from taking what little they have left. Instead of learning to build a composting toilet and grow penicillin, they stock up on guns and ammo. Taking this guys guns away isn’t going to fix the problem- It’s going to make him snap.

Now, we can talk about the issues around violence and gun ownership. We can look at what the Europeans are doing differently. We can debate rights, responsibility, and natural law. BUT- The one thing you cannot do, is take this shit out of it’s fucking context.

4 Likes

Okay, so how about we keep the militia and disband the armed forces? I’d be fine with that. I’m sure we could find a better use for the military budget.

3 Likes

Both are valid:
-I believe you are wrong because your ideas don’t make sense to me, probably because you have no idea what you are talking about.
-I believe you are wrong because your ideas don’t make sense to me, even though you have knowledge and experience in this area.

It isn’t some kind of magic or hypocrisy if you look at the root message.

@xeni I’ve heard that all hackers are racist trouble makers like weev. Responsible computer users need to step up and shut that bastard down.

As a “responsible gun owner” I am infuriated. No one should have to deal with being spat on, stalked, harrassed at their home, mock attacked, or any of this other bullshit for expressing their opinions. I would not willingly lend my time or resources to any person or organization that approves of such tactics and behavior.

Totally agree with this. It manifests itself in many ways whether that becomes clinging to extremist viewpoints, depression and suicide, or finding a way to carry on. These are individuals and populations that are being economically displaced and some can’t cope or adapt and they end up lashing out, or lashing themselves. :sad: But for the grace of the FSM there go I. Hopefully they can find more productive pursuits for their energy.

2 Likes

I don’t want to disband them entirely, but…

Ideally, I’d love to strip the standing military down to the Coast Guard, intelligence, and Special Forces, then make National Guard membership mandatory for two years after high school and one week per year until age 50. You’d be issued a rifle and sidearm once you qualify, which would be your responsibility to keep safely stored and in good working order thereafter.

If a foreign entity asked for help (the first Gulf War, Israel, UN peacekeepers), then anyone would be able to volunteer to go for a year at a time. Otherwise, you’re back to regular life and your annual week of refresher training.

End result is a massive decrease in costs, almost no meddling in foreign affairs, and the ability to muster roughly 200 million troops in the unlikely event of an invasion.

I believe that would be the closest we could get to the founders’ original idea, while still adapting to the modern world.