Another fucking spree shooting. Great.

nbd, just don't give the RWNJs any reason to dismiss arguments.

No, actually, fuck them. They don’t have any fucking numbers either. The only numbers they have are 2 as in Second and Thousands as in Dead Americans. fuck them. The defense is on them. Fuck them. I’m done with them playing the “realists” in these fucking arguments

Or basically what Andrew Farrell said upthread about how trampled vs shot

i think the argument has to be pointed at quietist or camp-follower republicans (and whatever independents can be peeled off) at this point. we're held hostage to their party position. the party won't listen to people who want reform. the people driving the party position won't budge unless the ground shifts. so where can it shift? the people who don't super give a shit about gun rights but also have messed up ideas about the need to take action on reform. it's like the line race relations activists take on dealing with white people: we're at a point where yall need to have these conversations among yourselves and start doing the work with your fellow white people. well, republicans need to be trying to move other republicans.

I'm hearing the "its a waste of breath trying to change gun control laws, the country is awash with guns on the black market" argument a lot on FB
...
Given this kind of no-win situation I think supporting any and all gun control legislation makes sense from a strategic point of view - some approaches may be effective, some may be ineffective, but passing as much as possible increases the odds that some minimal gains will be made *AND* also (perhaps more importantly in the long view) would serve as the basis for further action in the courts to re-evaluate the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, put the NRA/gun lobby on the defensive, etc.

I do think being "awash with guns" is a major impediment to gun control laws being effective but vehemently disagree that "it's a waste of breath". The litmus test for any proposed law (gun control or otherwise) isn't "will this law instantly eliminate all instances of X". A gun-loving culture awash with guns needs to be slowly changed into a gun-hating culture with much less guns. That will take decades, if it's even possible at all. But baby steps. Any laws that can get passed -- even if they don't prevent a single act of gun violence! -- are worthwhile to show that US as a society thinks guns are a problem that must be addresed. Flag in the ground n all.

otm

to be fair we are very good at telling people they can't be trusted with certain weapons, but those people tend to be the political leaders of other countries

hmm, that's not a bad idea

we'll just get trump to say that if everyone doesn't get rid of their guns asap, we will "totally destroy" their owners and they "won't be around much longer"

so I'm at a bar watching the baseball game and there's a guy here with a sidearm (NM is open carry) wearing a Rick and Morty tshirt that says "wubba lub dub!!!"

god bless america :-/

I only wish we knew how to fix the cultural problem of firearms being used to compensate (for lost masculinity, etc). Ultimately, I think the ideal is a world where guns are no longer seen as a means to to address powerlessness and feel potent, but viewed with no more affection than we would have for other mechanical devices, and perhaps a fair amount of revulsion.

I don't know how to effect this. Perhaps if every gunshot depicted on TV was followed by gore, agonal breathing, and the misery of family members, that might help. The direction most fictional media has increasingly taken for decades, trivializing the consequences of gun violence, treating guns as problem solving tools, should disgust us. They provide the resolution to most police procedurals, with the commercial break cutting in before any reflection on the suffering. But I'm not innocent. I buy and enjoy war films and FPS shooters (though I haven't touched a firearm since serving in the Army).

FPS games are so fucked up

Every other developed country in the world has managed to legislate the use of firearms in a way which minimises gun violence, and they all have the same war films and police procedurals on TV etc so I don't think that's really the issue

Yeah its def not an issue.

It does bum me out that it's become such a dominant part of the videogame industry but thats just me.

have you seen their police procedurals, they're shit

Why do all of these types consistently ignore what happened in Australia. We had a massacre you'd all remember (Port Arthur shootings) and our PM did a wide ranging gun ban/amnesty and WE HAVE HAD NO MASS SHOOTINGS EVER SINCE.

― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:57 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(yes, we've had shootings, and homicides and suicides but nothing will stop those in any country)

― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Tuesday, October 3, 2017

but we have a Bill of Rights with a Second Amendment, see

I love a foreign police procedural

I hate cop shows, FPS/military games, war propaganda movies u name it

it is an issue i think because i think the depiction of guns as not psychologically *heavy* items but almost these lightweight instruments of justice, the way they're depicted and fetishized with such casualness to the point that our culture is infiltrated with them at every turn, the way that even if you've never touched one or seen one IRL you can just easily *imagine* using one and doling out justice or w/e....it's kinda fucked up.

the difference really is our gun laws vs other countries' laws though.

Y'all, we have a Supreme Court that has seen a right to bear arms in the Second Amendment; comparing us to Australia or whatever will do no good. We need to elect candidates who can stack the Court with justices who can overrturn District of Columbia v. Heller.

Fortunately, the late Nino's majority opinion in Heller also said this:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I can hear opponents of gay marriage licking their chops: "The Framers, I'm sure, didn't envision a right to marry a man free of state intrusion in the Constitution." No, they didn't. But I'm a cynic. Appoint men and women who, aware of public moods and societal trends, will enact the laws I want and interpret the laws such that they help me. If a groundswell of support for gun restrictions is sustained, the courts and Court tend to respond, especially men with antenna as finely tuned as Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.

But, nah, nothing will happen.

but there are cultural differences even in action films though, i mean obviously for example Hong Kong action films are super OTT but they also tend to be a bit more concerned with morality, maybe?

A frustration for me is that few people I talk to on the anti-gun side know shit about guns whereas everyone on the pro-gun side, including my family, can distinguish semi-automatic from automatic weapons and can recite legislation. This situation reminds me of what Robert La Follette used to tell Progressives at the turn of the century regarding tariffs: stop ceding knowledge to the other side; memorize their arguments; learn the boring facts. Yet the moment every politician who agrees with me sounds like an idiot on television.

*at the moment

ugh it's just like abortion

i don't want to have to know all this shit about procedures and whatever and argue with obstinate creeps i just want women to have abortions whenever they want

yeah well what can you do

Ignorance of details hasn't harmed the political prospects of climate deniers.

I have handled guns and been to gun shows and participated in private gun purchases fwiw

Vote for me!

i think the thing w/these types of guys is that there are rarely signs bc to be honest like many people they had very active fantasy lives which they shared with no one, and they marinate on this shit for a long, long time before this occurs. they never appear to be different from other people, in the sense that people really think they'll kills dozens for no reason. the story about him treating his GF like shit is sadly a common trait about your average shithead guy. Adam Lanza could be any random troubled kid in any town. Elliott Rodgers reminds me of many unfortunate assholes i've known. Klebold and Harris were on the surface your random high school shitheads. but no one knew what was going on in their heads, until it was too late.

no one ever thinks any of these guys will do it. the people who know them reframe all of their asshole behavior after the fact as if it's a sign but that's just 20/20 hindsight and fresh context. you never know who will do it. which is why the gun laws have to be changed.

Ignorance of details hasn't harmed the political prospects of climate deniers.

― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017

they also have rhetorical fervor; we have Joe Manchin

I concur w/ this thread

meaningful gun control can be important+necessary while there also being validity in marginalized ppl wanting them for self-defence

— end the boo-geoisie (@mechapoetic) October 4, 2017

Yea Alfred OTM re: anti-gun ppl (including myself) know shit about guns. I played Syphon Filter but I don’t know wtf a magazine is really. So it’s hard to coalesce around a simple message - some ppl want to nix the 2a, some want to disarm the police (?), some want to ban assault rifles. Everyone focused on the AR-15 after Orlando (despite the fact that the guy used a different gun), but it went nowhere.

I think a good one would be “BAN ASSAULT RIFLES.” Should fit on a bumper sticker.

some want to disarm the police (?)

this is not that outrageous a demand except on its own

May be worth starting a “Las Vegas shooting and it’s aftermath” thread as things get bonkers. Not prone to conspiracies, but ready to believe that...well, let’s see...

What does that mean?

So long as any legalese makes it difficult for anyone, no matter how rich or motivated, to purchase a weapon capable of killing dozens before law enforcement can intervene, or weapons modifications that accomplish the same, I'd be content. I agree with the gun experts that the old assault weapons ban focused on cosmetic aspects, and just caused the manufacturers to cosmetically modify their designs. Focus on measurable quantities like "muzzle energy x rounds per minute when fired by a competent firer". Fix the threshold value so that typical hunting weapons like 1+4 round shotguns or bolt action rifles, or smaller ammunition capacity self-defense handguns, are permitted, but semi auto rifles or submachine guns with higher ammunition capacity, can't. The legislation is a soluable problem.

Would that still permit most gun homicides and suicides? Yes, and that's tragic. But it would prevent murder sprees on the scale of Sandy Hook or Mandalay Bay.

^ should read: "semi-auto versions of military assault rifles and submachine guns with..."

ay be worth starting a “Las Vegas shooting and it’s aftermath” thread as things get bonkers. Not prone to conspiracies, but ready to believe that...well, let’s see...

― Eazy, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:01 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What does that mean?

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

i don't know, but you know they'll be cranking out conspiracies for this one. someone upthread mentioned the absolute horror of sandy hook and how it might have prompted more conspiracies than normal. on one hand you have the people making shit up to try to counter what they believe will be an event that could turn people against their precious 2nd amendment, and on the other you have people subconsciously searching for any sort of explanation other than the real one, that their fellow co-humans are capable of unleashing madness and mayhem on children while everyone around them does literally nothing in response. the same applies to las vegas. the bogeymen of "islamic terrorism" or mythic evil immigrant violence is absent and you have people like jimmy kimmel tearfully addressing the situation and speaking out about it honestly, so those who stand for the 2nd amendment will find another story to tell themselves and they'll find an eager audience that wants to hear any other story other than the one that actually happened.

when i catch a glimpse of alex jones i begin to morph into a guy with bandaged knuckles who says "...i got mad and punched a wall", so i can't bear to check, but i'm assuming today he talked about everything in las vegas except for what actually happened

Whats transpired btw with ISIS trying to claim this one? I mean people claim all sorts of rubbish but is it confirmed theirs was rubbish?

Alfred very OTM here. Gun advocates take full advantage of the lack of information of (many) on the other side to simply paint them as ignorant and alarmist. As a dude who grew up with guns and was a high level competitive shooter as a teen that now has not a single firearm in the home and only technically owns them because of a collection of antique handguns that is stored in a locked location at my mothers house with no available ammunition, I'm happy to clarify things for anybody that wants information. AMA I guess?

Some starter hints - learn the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and be careful about using the terms. I've seen hundreds of posts/tweets about how automatic weapons should be illegal, followed by immediate "they are u dumb lib" shutdowns. We can't open the conversation that way anymore.

(Oh and to flappy bird, magazines=clips. It's the removable/replaceable piece of a semi-automatic (or automatic) that allows for how many rounds can be fired before you need to reload the gun. Higher capacity=more shots that can be fired before replacing the magazine. Pedantically yes, bolt action rifles can also use magazines. Revolvers (which is your usual old school film noir/"six-shooter"/cowboy handgun, still heavily used today) can't. "Tactical" shotguns can, pump-action or double barrel/single shot shotguns can't. Yes, there are semi-automatic shotguns, because hey, what a wonderful world we live in. No automatic ones though.)

Yeah, there's a lot of technical information a person can learn about firearms, including not just highly specific details regarding every part of the weapons and their ammunition, but also the forces generated by firing and how or if they can be damped, how to sight in a scope, gun cleaning and maintenance, plus all the accessories - holsters, gun safes, trigger locks. It is a whole world of details heaped upon details and hobbyists and enthusiasts eat that stuff up and never tire of it.

But very little of that massive heap of facts has any real bearing on whether one can understand the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws.

while i get how being gun-conversant can be helpful for establishing credibility with the pro-gun advocates, i do think that sane gun policy really shouldn't require knowing the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic, or, like, a .338 Lapua or .308 winchester. this i think serves the interests of the gun lobby by making gun safety about the lethal capabilities of guns in the hands of a "trained" shooter and not, say, an angry domestic abuser or suicidal person. in those situations, the rounds per minute or stopping power or w/e are largely irrelevant. gun violence in the US is largely banal, and gun legislation should reflect that.

xp

whoa people still use revolvers? cool

if the focus is on how to limit the lethality of johnny trenchcoat by making large volume magazines and suppressors illegal (both of which: make them illegal!) and not on making garden variety handguns difficult to obtain (they're not!), we're missing the trick imo

i'm all for the demystification of guns as 'violent objects' if it serves an end result that is: fewer guns, fewer people enamored with them. i worry, a little bit, that an emphasis on the correct understanding of the mechanical details subserves the idea that "guns don't kill people, people do". i realize that i didn't always post that way on here, times change, do not @ me

i'm just astonished at people who think silencers make gunshots completely silent

goldeneye has a lot to answer for

I'm right there with you in general gbx (esp in the way that I've been an endless broken record about the mistaken idea that lethality is linked to gun type on here before) but but if we want to reach rational gun owners, the ones that are largely in favor of workable restrictions and can be turned against the NRA we need to look reasonably educated and informed about the issue. Also we need to avoid the terrible pitfalls of cosmetic assault rifle legislation which I am now convinced set us more steps back than forward and I'm still pissed at weak willed NRA petrified dems for selling that half-measure bullshit instead of actual functional things that might have not only stood up to scrutiny but actually, you know, worked. That political capital could have been spent on closing the goddamn gun show loophole, but yet here we are.

I am curious how many people (not going to speak for gbx but I count myself in this number) have crossed that line of growing up with guns, not being afraid of guns as object or w/e, but ending up mortified and terrified by the way guns function culturally in the modern day. Also, it's terrifying how many of the new culturally identifying pro-gun people are wildly ignorant about the realities of guns - AR15 worship is fucking stupid on a purely logical level. AR15 mod worship is ten times as stupid, and the dudes that fetishize flash suppressors and folding stocks ought to be looked at by hunters the same way car nerds look at those rolling coal assholes. No one with a basic understanding of how this shit works should or does believe in the good guy with a gun myth. I'd like to think there's a whole quiet chunk of people with my background that are ready to get flipped, but maybe that's optimistic/delusional.