N'Al on 18/1/2018 at 20:31
For 'few people' just read 'AK-toting feline'. Voilà.
xStevieNx on 18/1/2018 at 20:31
I know that the general stereotype for anyone who is pro-gun is exactly the type in that commercial or in the article. A trigger happy redneck kinda person. But that stereotype takes away from everyone who treats firearms with reverence and respect. The idiots and murderers of the U.S. give a really bad reputation to the rest of us lawful gun owners, and it's understandable. When you hear about someone killing 50 people at a music concert, it is scary to think about. But their fucked up actions shouldn't impede our rights as American citizens to bear arms. In the UK, alcohol is legal, in fact it's legal 3 years earlier than in the U.S. But think about how many people are killed in drunk driving accidents, I don't know the exact number, but I bet it's a lot. Yet drinking is still legal, because the idiots who drink and kill people are pegged as the problem, not the alcohol. The fact that they were stupid and drove drunk and killed someone shouldn't stop everyone from being able to drink responsibly. And yes, the U.S. does make up most of the gun deaths in the world, but that is NOT a gun problem. A gun doesn't shoot on its own, it requires either an idiot who isn't using it responsibly, or a murderer to pull the trigger. Those people are the problem, not the guns.
N'Al on 18/1/2018 at 20:33
So what.
Renzatic on 18/1/2018 at 20:46
Quote Posted by xStevieNx
I know that the general stereotype for anyone who is pro-gun is exactly the type in that commercial or in the article. A trigger happy redneck kinda person. But that stereotype takes away from everyone who treats firearms with reverence and respect.
This is somewhat true. Everyone is big on stereotyping everyone these days. It's part and parcel with our current political clime.
I mean hell, in a rather vague, nonchalant sorta way, you could consider me pro-gun, simply for the fact that changing the Bill of Rights would open up a particularly nasty can of worms, and even if we did, it'd take a herculean effort to enforce a gun ban in a country where there are as many guns as people, and half the people who own them are pretty hardcore about it. It'd make more sense to address the root of the issue, and find out what we can do to prevent more gun violence.
...but unfortunately, the NRA has successfully lobbied a ban against any such studies, so I guess all we can do is endure, and hope for the best.
caffeinatedzombeh on 18/1/2018 at 23:13
Quote Posted by xStevieNx
In the UK, alcohol is legal, in fact it's legal 3 years earlier than in the U.S. But think about how many people are killed in drunk driving accidents, I don't know the exact number, but I bet it's a lot. Yet drinking is still legal, because the idiots who drink and kill people are pegged as the problem, not the alcohol.
You realise guns are legal here too right? We just use them for hunting and for pest control rather than suicide and murder.
Nicker on 19/1/2018 at 02:06
Quote Posted by xStevieNx
I don't know how guns are viewed in your country, but millions of people use guns everyday in America, for hunting, for sport, or for self-defense, in a completely harmless and peaceful way. Unfortunately, the few people who decide to use guns for violence are the ones that everyone likes to focus on.
More importantly, "responsible gun owners" seem reluctant (if not hostile) to any reasonable attempt to limit who can buy guns, where and with what capacity to kill. Somehow their non-existent "right" to own any gun they want is more important than their responsibility to participate in a meaningful dialogue about public safety.
How about they come to the table instead of flipping it on its side, crouching behind it and screeching, "From my cold dead hands"!
And please stop insulting us with your false equivalences. Guns are not knives, booze or cars. We can tell the difference.
CHEESE KILLS!!!!
catbarf on 19/1/2018 at 19:55
Quote Posted by Renzatic
America isn't the only 1st world country that allows its citizens to have guns. Finland, Austria, Iceland, Germany, France, I believe they average roughly one gun per every three people. Hardly rare.
Don't forget Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and the Czech Republic, all of which have dramatically lower violent crime (and gun crime) rates than the US.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
The most obvious conclusion you could draw from that is we don't have a gun problem exactly, so much as a culture problem. We tend to look at our guns as status symbols and toys, rather than the weapons they are. It makes us a lot more cavalier about them overall.
That's an interesting interpretation. I'd take it more as reflective of the role firearms play in petty crime. We don't just reserve firearms for hunting or sport; we place a heavy emphasis on self-defense, and that means lots of handguns in manufacture and circulation. Throw in a sales system compromised by both unscrupulous sellers and toothless enforcement of straw purchase laws, and the result is a lot of violent, borderline-third-world cities overflowing with handguns. Keep in mind that handguns make up 97% of our firearm homicides, it's not military-style 'range toys' that represent the bulk of our crime problem.
Quote Posted by Nicker
More importantly, "responsible gun owners" seem reluctant (if not hostile) to any reasonable attempt to limit who can buy guns, where and with what capacity to kill. Somehow their non-existent "right" to own any gun they want is more important than their responsibility to participate in a meaningful dialogue about public safety.
How about they come to the table instead of flipping it on its side, crouching behind it and screeching, "From my cold dead hands"!
Purely anecdotal, but I find responsible gun owners are more willing to come to the table when they aren't being put on the defensive by essentially being called irrational and irresponsible right off the bat. These discussions have a tendency to be one-sided, rather than actual dialogue.
Tocky on 20/1/2018 at 01:53
Quote Posted by catbarf
Purely anecdotal, but I find responsible gun owners are more willing to come to the table when they aren't being put on the defensive by essentially being called irrational and irresponsible right off the bat. These discussions have a tendency to be one-sided, rather than actual dialogue.
As a responsible gun owner I immediately recognized the stereotype Nicker referred to as being the majority of gun owners. Let's not kid ourselves, most are up in arms at the mention of any restriction of any kind no matter how sensible. They think the slightest most reasonable restriction is a slippery slope to Hitler type confiscation of guns. Of course those aren't exactly the responsible ones but they ARE the majority in my estimation.
Nicker on 20/1/2018 at 02:39
Yeah I probably should have qualified my comments with many or a majority of.
Not all gun owners are kard karrying KKK members and not all gun control advocates are closet commies creating a back door for a Russian invasion (that would be Trump...).
That said, organisations representing gun owners seem consistently and vehemently opposed to almost any kind of restrictions either on who can own guns, the mental state of potential owners, how many guns they need and of what sort. Who really needs a 50cal sniper rifle besides the military?
They certainly would not agree to allow their guns to be controlled by a "A well regulated militia"...
catbarf on 20/1/2018 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Tocky
Let's not kid ourselves, most are up in arms at the mention of any restriction of any kind no matter how sensible.
Quote Posted by Nicker
That said, organisations representing gun owners
seem consistently and vehemently opposed to
almost any kind of restrictions either on who can own guns, the mental state of potential owners, how many guns they need and of what sort. Who really needs a 50cal sniper rifle besides the military?
Well, in my experience, there are two aspects to this.
The first comes from the history of gun control measures in the US, which is to say the tendency for 'compromise' measures to be essentially incremental restriction that is never reversed. When gun control advocates say they want a dialogue or compromise, what it's virtually always calling for is acquiescence. A lot of gun owners have reached the point of saying enough is enough and refuse to give any ground, no matter how small, when they won't get anything in return and see it as another step towards something like an Australian-style mass ban. I don't think that's actually what most gun control advocates are looking for, but when you've got people like Cuomo and Feinstein getting on television and making those implications, it fuels that perception.
The second comes from what 'reasonable' or 'sensible' restrictions look like- and I find that those terms are often used, like I said, to basically frame gun owners in a negative light right off the bat. Instead of 'let's have a conversation to figure out which restrictions are reasonable and which aren't', it's framed as 'here are some proposals we have predetermined to be reasonable, if you're a reasonable person you'll accept them'. Take that .50 cal sniper rifle. Who really needs one? Nobody, but to my knowledge they've never been used in a criminal capacity, so a ban wouldn't be addressing our gun crime problem in any way. Reasonability is often characterized by how little a proposal will affect law-abiding citizens, when it really ought to be about whether or not a proposal will accomplish its intended goal and justify its impact on law-abiding citizens. Many of the popular talking points (eg assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits) fall short in that regard.
There are plenty of things the federal government could be doing to tackle gun crime that wouldn't step on the toes of gun owners, which I would consider reasonable measures, but neither side seems interested. Republicans don't want to spend tax money on gun violence deaths that overwhelmingly occur outside their constituency, and Democrats seem to consider guns, rather than gun crime, as their primary target.
Quote Posted by Nicker
They certainly would not agree to allow their guns to be controlled by a "A well regulated militia"...
I really don't like appealing to the 2nd Amendment, since the Constitution was meant to be changed, but in the context of when it was written a 'well-regulated militia' doesn't mean what people seem to think it means. The Militia Acts defined the militia as all able-bodied white men, not a government-sponsored organization, and formed the basis for what would later become selective service. Linguistically, the expression 'well-regulated' didn't have its modern meaning of government control, but rather meant 'in proper functioning order' (a common example from the era is a 'well-regulated clock'). The intent of the 2nd Amendment was that, lacking a standing army, the newly formed United States could call upon its citizenry to defend it, armed to the teeth with the military weapons of the day.
Things have rather changed in the last two centuries, and the back-and-forth of what the 2nd Amendment
really means just seems to me like a pointless distraction from addressing contemporary issues.