another day, another shooting

[[DHT]Osiris]

These points have been gone over ad infinitum.. Rights given by whom? Inalienable? What are reasonable restrictions? Defend to what end?

I think it's such a vague statement that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and serves as nothing more than a starting point for more discussion. It's not an answer, it's a question.

No, it's a statement, to your argument that there was no reasonable argument beyond 'I like/want my guns'. The fact that you yourself say it's a starting point for a discussion proves that there isn't just one reasonable argument, there's a few, worthwhile to discuss.

I thought that, given that the conversation was straying very far into the feels, it might be worth dragging it back to some semblance of normalcy. I agree with you that it's been discussed ad infinitum, but I'm willing to give it another go again if anyone cares to.

I'm just 'defending the scoundrel' in this instance, as it were.

 

[TheVrolok]

No, it's a statement, to your argument that there was no reasonable argument beyond 'I like/want my guns'. The fact that you yourself say it's a starting point for a discussion proves that there isn't just one reasonable argument, there's a few, worthwhile to discuss.

I thought that, given that the conversation was straying very far into the feels, it might be worth dragging it back to some semblance of normalcy. I agree with you that it's been discussed ad infinitum, but I'm willing to give it another go again if anyone cares to.

I'm just 'defending the scoundrel' in this instance, as it were.

Indeed. I think all the arguments end up in one place, which is essentially "but I reeeaaallyy like my guns."

There's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of gun ownership.

That's the gist of my terse summation.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Indeed. I think all the arguments end up in one place, which is essentially "but I reeeaaallyy like my guns."

There's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of gun ownership.

That's the gist of my terse summation.

I mean, there's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of free speech either, or freedom of movement, or freedom from search and seizure, or at least just as much evidence for each of those. We accept them because we don't see what potential negatives come from those freedoms as acutely as weapons ownership.

That doesn't mean that won't change at some point (i suspect it will). It's honestly borne out of fear for me, I see authoritarian governments as the second highest existential crisis of our current era, right behind climate change. I fear those more than random acts of violence, or even terrorism. I see mass firearm ownership as an inoculation from authoritarian governments.

Not everyone will agree with me, and that's okay.

 

[TheVrolok]

I mean, there's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of free speech either, or freedom of movement, or freedom from search and seizure, or at least just as much evidence for each of those. We accept them because we don't see what potential negatives come from those freedoms as acutely as weapons ownership.

Exactly.

That doesn't mean that won't change at some point (i suspect it will). It's honestly borne out of fear for me, I see authoritarian governments as the second highest existential crisis of our current era, right behind climate change. I fear those more than random acts of violence, or even terrorism. I see mass firearm ownership as an inoculation from authoritarian governments.

You're being reasonable here because you're at least saying it's an emotional argument (borne out of fear). Statistically, you're farm more likely to be harmed by random acts of violence and terrorism (which is still extremely low) than an authoritarian government (at least one at which you'd be willing to take up arms against in its current state).

Not everyone will agree with me, and that's okay.

Certainly is, I don't have a problem with making irrational decisions. Shit, I do it all the time, but at least call it what it is rather than trying to throw absurd statistics (as above from Paladin) to try to pretend it's something else.

 

[cirrrocco]

So small sidetrack from all the i love guns / I hate guns argument.

6 dead so far.

 

[brycejones]

So small sidetrack from all the i love guns / I hate guns argument.

6 dead so far.

The price we pay for fantasies of overthrowing the evil government.

 

[Maxima1]

So now being conservative and owning a gun means you want to help destroy our democratic government? I guess all gun owners are murderers too? And all black people are drug dealers? All immigrants are rapists?

How fucking stupid are you???

Look, if you get enough votes to overturn the 2A I will comply with the majority will of our country. But I will continue to fight against such happening via the democratic process until it does.


And, if any government ever attempts to violate our constitution and replace our democracy by force with any form of tyranny, I will fight against that too, with means both democratic and with violence if necessary. And I hope you would do so as well.

Your hypothetical was that Trump captures the military to the point they're carrying out his orders. Guess what that means if it actually got that bad? The conservative gun owners also agree. Gun ownership doesn't correlate well with freedoms. The chuds love their freedumbs.

White supremacists took over a city – now NC is doing more to remember the deadly attack

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article192202109.html

In 1898 Wilmington was North Carolina’s biggest city, and many of its city government leaders and prominent businessmen were black. In the three decades since the end of the Civil War, black people had gained more freedom and financial stability – but they would lose many of those advancements starting at the turn of the 20th century and continuing for decades more.

A former Confederate officer and U.S. congressman named Alfred Waddell led the attack, with a band of armed rioters that eventually grew to about 2,000 men.

They burned down local black-owned businesses, killed dozens of black people and forced many more to leave town and abandon their homes. They then took over city government, forcing out the white mayor and the mixed-race town council, and installing Waddell as the new mayor without a legitimate election.

 

[Skel]

Nothing is wrong with that, as I've repeatedly said, it's just an emotional argument.

I already addressed the 99.92% stat. It makes your arguments look weak when you use an obviously misleading statistic like that. Why would you use "guns hurt people" as a metric? They are inanimate objects that don't DO anything on their own. Could it be that the user WANTS a number that looks better? Numbers of guns per gun owner is reaching double digits last I looked, so if we changed that stat from object based to person based, the number would change, wouldn't it?

The vast majority of ciggerates don't cause second hand smoke.. Should we allow smoking in public places again?

Ranting, uses emotional arguments and intentionally misleading statistics make your argument look weak. Maybe your guns will help you feel stronger?

Aren't you also making "emotional arguments"? When you break it down your anti-gun arguments come from both fear of being shot, and emotions of someone else dying.

 

[TheVrolok]

Aren't you also making "emotional arguments"? When you break it down your anti-gun arguments come from both fear of being shot, and emotions of someone else dying.

I have absolutely 0 fear of being shot. None.

We have hard data on the risks of gun violence vs arguments of "I need to be able to overthrow a government" or "I like to own xyz firearm."

I'll take the data, thanks. I've said in many, many, of these threads that I'm actually by many measures a gun enthusiast I would just rather have a discussion based on facts and discussion of statistical risks than one based on emotion. In addition to that, I'd prefer the discussion take place on a population level rather than the individual level so we can avoid everyone's personal anecdote and have a discussion relevant to the statistics.

 

[Skel]

I have absolutely 0 fear of being shot. None.

We have hard data on the risks of gun violence vs arguments of "I need to be able to overthrow a government" or "I like to own xyz firearm."

I'll take the data, thanks. I've said in many, many, of these threads that I'm actually by many measures a gun enthusiast I would just rather have a discussion based on facts and discussion of statistical risks than one based on emotion. In addition to that, I'd prefer the discussion take place on a population level rather than the individual level so we can avoid everyone's personal anecdote and have a discussion relevant to the statistics.

If you don't have any emotion to it, why do you care? You seem to have some feeling that drives you to say something in "many, many, of these threads", that matter jack all to the actual problem/solution to gun violence. Unless you're just trolling in these threads..

 

[TheVrolok]

If you don't have any emotion to it, why do you care? You seem to have some feeling that drives you to say something in "many, many, of these threads", that matter jack all to the actual problem/solution to gun violence. Unless you're just trolling in these threads..

I think gun violence is a public health issue and public health is important to me. I don't particularly have an emotional response to it aside from believing that following the data is the right thing to do.

I've put out a laundry list of recommendations in a number of these threads and the response, inevitably, is "I don't like it!" or "prove it'll work, I don't believe it even though there is some evidence to support it." or the classic "if it doesn't stop all gun violence, I can't support it." Common sense seems to evade those who seem to have a significant emotional attachment to their firearms.

Shrug.

I don't have an emotional response to cigarettes, either, in and of themselves, but as I said, I do think there is importance with regard to public health.

You've gotta divorce yourself from the vehicle (gun, cigarette, automobile, whatever) and look at risk/benefit with regard to harm.

Or, simply say you don't care about gun violence enough to do anything about it. That's totally fine, just admit it. Don't hide behind, "well it's not a problem" or "there are no solutions" or "it's a mental health issue" or whatever. I'm totally fine with that response, at least it's honest.

 

[mikeymikec]

Come on Vrolok, play along with his bothsides argument already!

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I think gun violence is a public health issue and public health is important to me.

Congress told the CDC, Nyet!!! Do Not Look There!!!

 

[Puffnstuff]

IDK if you guys saw that NAS Corpus Christi was locked down earlier today for an armed person.

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi was locked down after a suspect allegedly made threatening statements - CNN

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi was placed on lockdown for about an hour Wednesday morning after someone reported hearing another person allegedly make statements that sounded threatening, a law enforcement source told CNN.

www.cnn.com

 

[woolfe9998]

I mean, there's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of free speech either, or freedom of movement, or freedom from search and seizure, or at least just as much evidence for each of those. We accept them because we don't see what potential negatives come from those freedoms as acutely as weapons ownership.

That doesn't mean that won't change at some point (i suspect it will). It's honestly borne out of fear for me, I see authoritarian governments as the second highest existential crisis of our current era, right behind climate change. I fear those more than random acts of violence, or even terrorism. I see mass firearm ownership as an inoculation from authoritarian governments.

Not everyone will agree with me, and that's okay.

How is firearm ownership an inoculation against authoritarian government? In this day and age, it's unlikely that private citizens with guns could stand up to a modern military. But let's say that they could. What kinds of people stockpile guns, especially in a democracy? Right wing extremists do. If they succeeded in overthrowing any government, what kind of government do you suppose they would establish in its place?

All I know is that from where I sit, the people stockpiling lots of AR-15's in America today would form a government far less desirable than just about any I could imagine.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How is firearm ownership an inoculation against authoritarian government? In this day and age, it's unlikely that private citizens with guns could stand up to a modern military. But let's say that they could. What kinds of people stockpile guns, especially in a democracy? Right wing extremists do. If they succeeded in overthrowing any government, what kind of government do you suppose they would establish in its place?

All I know is that from where I sit, the people stockpiling lots of AR-15's in America today would form a government far less desirable than just about any I could imagine.

'Modern military' means a lot of different things. Do you mean 'modern' like the US? Or 'Modern' like Ukraine? Would Crimea have been invaded if there was two guns for every person? It's worth asking.

To clarify, firearm ownership is a deterrence for the erosion of civil rights. As long as the citizenry has the capability of afflicting sufficient casualties on an oppressive force, it deters an authoritarian government from attempting that erosion, at least directly. I feel confident in saying that if it wasn't for firearm ownership, we would have heard about a lot more instances of US citizens on/near the border being 'deported/detained/put down' during the recent corralling of brown people down south. Over time, the ability for this to work will probably lessen. Like antibiotics, we keep inventing fancy new ways of oppressing people without the risk of riots + firearms. I worry about this, but we're not there yet.

I never specifically said stockpile. One person with 50 guns is a lot less dangerous (to a government/oppressive force) than 50 people with 1 gun. Stockpilers are likely to either end up killing themselves, killing a bunch of random innocents, or just getting killed for a few grand worth of guns.

Regarding your imagination, that's only assuming that it's right-wing extremists that form the government. I've always been under the assumption that an extremist right-wing government will be the one that has to be overthrown.

 

[woolfe9998]

'Modern military' means a lot of different things. Do you mean 'modern' like the US? Or 'Modern' like Ukraine? Would Crimea have been invaded if there was two guns for every person? It's worth asking.

I have no idea, but it's probably most productive to speak of modern democracies and specifically the US since that is the context of this discussion. That we have the 2A here and tons of people own guns, and what benefit or detriment is that.

To clarify, firearm ownership is a deterrence for the erosion of civil rights. As long as the citizenry has the capability of afflicting sufficient casualties on an oppressive force, it deters an authoritarian government from attempting that erosion, at least directly. I feel confident in saying that if it wasn't for firearm ownership, we would have heard about a lot more instances of US citizens on/near the border being 'deported/detained/put down' during the recent corralling of brown people down south. Over time, the ability for this to work will probably lessen. Like antibiotics, we keep inventing fancy new ways of oppressing people without the risk of riots + firearms. I worry about this, but we're not there yet.

You "feel confident?" That is some odd speculation from you there.

So far as I can see, the only form of "civil rights erosion" that guns deter is the taking away of the guns themselves. The NRA's success these past several decades has resulted in 100's of millions of guns in private hands. This and the radicalism of some of these gun owners is why mandatory buy-backs/confiscation of guns is not a viable option. Hence, the presence of the guns seems to ensure their continued presence.

When you have some evidence of any other government abuses being deterred by gun ownership, let me know.

I never specifically said stockpile. One person with 50 guns is a lot less dangerous (to a government/oppressive force) than 50 people with 1 gun. Stockpilers are likely to either end up killing themselves, killing a bunch of random innocents, or just getting killed for a few grand worth of guns.

Any form of rebellion against an oppressive government that has a reasonable chance of success will involve people stockpiling guns, especially assault weapons, and handing them out at the right time. Unless you expect every single person to own an assault rifle. But sure, it could be more distributed than centralized. It isn't a major point either way.

Regarding your imagination, that's only assuming that it's right-wing extremists that form the government. I've always been under the assumption that an extremist right-wing government will be the one that has to be overthrown.

Wouldn't have to be an extremist government of any kind. Could be a democracy. When people depart from facts and the truth they can become convinced that they are being oppressed when they're not. Don't believe it? It's exactly what is happening right now in the U.S. We have a population of delusional, armed people who could take up arms against the government, or even their fellow citizens. What if Trump got thrown out of office or worse, assassinated. How do you think his gun owning supporters might react? How will they react next year if Trump loses the election and tells them it was rigged against him, which there is a 100% chance he will.

 

[Maxima1]

Wouldn't have to be an extremist government of any kind. Could be a democracy. When people depart from facts and the truth they can become convinced that they are being oppressed when they're not. Don't believe it? It's exactly what is happening right now in the U.S. We have a population of delusional, armed people who could take up arms against the government, or even their fellow citizens. What if Trump got thrown out of office or worse, assassinated. How do you think his gun owning supporters might react?

His supporters would only succeed if the Republicans allow it. They are generally a sad, senile lot. It's the educated Republicans who would ultimately be making this decision to discard democracy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You "feel confident?" That is some odd speculation from you there.

Not super odd. Events like Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian siege, the Bundy ranch, have shown that a) the govt going in after entrenched enemies with firearms is super dangerous to all involved, and b) they don't like doing it. Firearms deters aggressors.

So far as I can see, the only form of "civil rights erosion" that guns deter is the taking away of the guns themselves. The NRA's success these past several decades has resulted in 100's of millions of guns in private hands. This and the radicalism of some of these gun owners is why mandatory buy-backs/confiscation of guns is not a viable option. Hence, the presence of the guns seems to ensure their continued presence.

See above, unlawful search and seizure is a great example of rights that are hard to erode if your target has weapons. I agree, the NRA is a cancer and the radicalization of gun owners (and really just citizenry) is horrifying. Without a deescalation of some of the more extremist ideals we now hold in the US and abroad, I don't have super high hopes for our future wrt violence. You are right though, self defense is self-perpetuating, on purpose.

When you have some evidence of any other government abuses being deterred by gun ownership, let me know.

The Black Panthers have a rather long and sordid history regarding civil rights and violence. I have a fuzzy memory of groups protecting voting establishments from ne'er-do-wells, though I cannot find a source at this moment.
I did find this though:

When Black Panthers Carried Guns, Conservatives Supported Gun Control

The debate around guns has not always been the partisan stalemate it is today. But it has, like so many other political issues in the US, always been partly about race.

www.buzzfeednews.com

While one cannot guarantee it, it's reasonable to assume that the person in that photo was defending his right to protest pretty well by holding a rifle. For certain, nobody told him to vacate to a 'free speech zone'.

I'm confident that if I spent more time on it, I could come up with further instances of potential abuses deterred by firearms. It's super hard for any of this to be anything but conjecture of course, given that if the deterrence was successful, we probably never heard of it (as with most deterrences). It's kind of a microcosm of the overarching US policy of 'spend 10x more than everyone else combined on the military'. Yeah it's expensive but its hard to argue with the results.

Wouldn't have to be an extremist government of any kind. Could be a democracy. When people depart from facts and the truth they can become convinced that they are being oppressed when they're not. Don't believe it? It's exactly what is happening right now in the U.S. We have a population of delusional, armed people who could take up arms against the government, or even their fellow citizens. What if Trump got thrown out of office or worse, assassinated. How do you think his gun owning supporters might react? How will they react next year if Trump loses the election and tells them it was rigged against him, which there is a 100% chance he will.

I agree completely! Ironically I had an argument conjured in my mind as I was posting my last, in the event you went down the path of 'US military attacking civilians' (which most do). I was going to bring up this exact potential, for radicalized citizens taking things into their own hands, in large enough numbers/disperse enough concentrations to overwhelm local law enforcement/national guard. I'm glad you brought it up first, because it means we're on the same page. I live in what would probably be considered a rather bourgeoisie area of an otherwise rural region, and that would (in an absolutely worst case scenario) be a prime target for someone who's been convinced that his grievances lie with the 'elite'.

Now mind you, I don't have some innate fear that roving bands of Never-Anyone-But-Trumpers is going to come around setting fire to houses (as a nonspecific example), but I damn sure would want to know that I could protect me and mine if some shit went down. If aforementioned idiots are armed, I expect to be as well, and I'm not likely to give up my right to defend myself without a very good reason, namely one that's not 'because someone else illegally did something'.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not super odd. Events like Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian siege, the Bundy ranch, have shown that a) the govt going in after entrenched enemies with firearms is super dangerous to all involved, and b) they don't like doing it. Firearms deters aggressors.

See above, unlawful search and seizure is a great example of rights that are hard to erode if your target has weapons. I agree, the NRA is a cancer and the radicalization of gun owners (and really just citizenry) is horrifying. Without a deescalation of some of the more extremist ideals we now hold in the US and abroad, I don't have super high hopes for our future wrt violence. You are right though, self defense is self-perpetuating, on purpose.

The Black Panthers have a rather long and sordid history regarding civil rights and violence. I have a fuzzy memory of groups protecting voting establishments from ne'er-do-wells, though I cannot find a source at this moment.
I did find this though:

When Black Panthers Carried Guns, Conservatives Supported Gun Control

The debate around guns has not always been the partisan stalemate it is today. But it has, like so many other political issues in the US, always been partly about race.

www.buzzfeednews.com

While one cannot guarantee it, it's reasonable to assume that the person in that photo was defending his right to protest pretty well by holding a rifle. For certain, nobody told him to vacate to a 'free speech zone'.

I'm confident that if I spent more time on it, I could come up with further instances of potential abuses deterred by firearms. It's super hard for any of this to be anything but conjecture of course, given that if the deterrence was successful, we probably never heard of it (as with most deterrences). It's kind of a microcosm of the overarching US policy of 'spend 10x more than everyone else combined on the military'. Yeah it's expensive but its hard to argue with the results.

I agree completely! Ironically I had an argument conjured in my mind as I was posting my last, in the event you went down the path of 'US military attacking civilians' (which most do). I was going to bring up this exact potential, for radicalized citizens taking things into their own hands, in large enough numbers/disperse enough concentrations to overwhelm local law enforcement/national guard. I'm glad you brought it up first, because it means we're on the same page. I live in what would probably be considered a rather bourgeoisie area of an otherwise rural region, and that would (in an absolutely worst case scenario) be a prime target for someone who's been convinced that his grievances lie with the 'elite'.

Now mind you, I don't have some innate fear that roving bands of Never-Anyone-But-Trumpers is going to come around setting fire to houses (as a nonspecific example), but I damn sure would want to know that I could protect me and mine if some shit went down. If aforementioned idiots are armed, I expect to be as well, and I'm not likely to give up my right to defend myself without a very good reason, namely one that's not 'because someone else illegally did something'.

You only feel you have a need to protect yourself against batshit righties because they were allowed to purchase so many firearms to begin with. In Europe, they have plenty of batshit white nationalists, but they don't have so many guns, and the need to protect oneself against them is therefore much less.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You only feel you have a need to protect yourself against batshit righties because they were allowed to purchase so many firearms to begin with. In Europe, they have plenty of batshit white nationalists, but they don't have so many guns, and the need to protect oneself against them is therefore much less.

Right, the crazies in Europe just use shit like machetes instead :|

Yes I know those are statistically less likely. But the risk analysis tells me that given how critical the result of a failure is regarding self defense (even if it's unlikely to happen), I'm willing to accept the risk.

 

[JSt0rm]

Right, the crazies in Europe just use shit like machetes instead :|

Yes I know those are statistically less likely. But the risk analysis tells me that given how critical the result of a failure is regarding self defense (even if it's unlikely to happen), I'm willing to accept the risk.

but those knife attack scenarios kill far less.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

but those knife attack scenarios kill far less.

Yes, they absolutely do. I don't dispute the numbers regarding knife violence vs gun violence. I dispute the notion that anyone should be subject to 'might makes right' because someone else does something illegal. 'God made man, Colt made them equal' as it were.

 

[woolfe9998]

Right, the crazies in Europe just use shit like machetes instead :|

Yes I know those are statistically less likely. But the risk analysis tells me that given how critical the result of a failure is regarding self defense (even if it's unlikely to happen), I'm willing to accept the risk.

I'm not criticizing your calculus as an individual. Like I said, the success of the NRA and the firearms industry who backs it has created a situation where the country is a dangerous place to live relative to other first world democracies. Hence, the logic of it is self-perpetuating. We're likely always going to be a country with a high murder rate and higher probabilities of politically motivated violence, and the firearms industry will keep profiting away, unless or until it all just collapses.

There's not much we can do about it now. Strengthening background checks could help...a little. But there's not much else we can do. We should have done what they did in Europe 70 years ago, back when there weren't so many guns out there. But we did it the American way, where corporate profits matter more than human lives. Same thing with climate change, and just like with the guns, it's probably too late for that too.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm not criticizing your calculus as an individual. Like I said, the success of the NRA and the firearms industry who backs it has created a situation where the country is a dangerous place to live relative to other first world democracies. Hence, the logic of it is self-perpetuating. We're likely always going to be a country with a high murder rate and higher probabilities of politically motivated violence, and the firearms industry will keep profiting away, unless or until it all just collapses.

There's not much we can do about it now. Strengthening background checks could help...a little. But there's not much else we can do. We should have done what they did in Europe 70 years ago, back when there weren't so many guns out there. But we did it the American way, where corporate profits matter more than human lives. Same thing with climate change, and just like with the guns, it's probably too late for that too.

I don't disagree, and I think it's a pretty depressing notion, that the best we end up with is huddling with guns waiting for the end of the world which we can actually calculate with relative confidence, just not do anything about.

I'm sure some alien archaeologists are going to have a field day when they discover our planet in a few thousand years.