Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:46 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
So what would prevent people from stealing locked firearms and doing illegal things with them? Let me guess, a ban right? Is confiscation in there too?
What prevents it in other countries? One of the major factors is relative scarcity. There is such an incredible abundance of guns in the US, and they are so widely celebrated at gun shows, gun shops, and personal collections that they're almost impossible to avoid. Whereas in most countries, a thief who breaks into a random person's home is unlikely to find a gun there, whether locked or unlocked. It is, therefore, no big surprise that a significant proportion of illegal guns in Canada come, not from theft, but from our neighbor to the south, the gun capital of the universe. Countries that don't have this issue, like the UK, tend to have far fewer guns even among the criminal classes.

As for bans and "confiscations", you seem to be imagining a world where some very arrogant lawmakers impose gun restrictions, bans, or whatever, against the will of the people. That's not how it works. As discussed below, the way it has to work is just the way it worked with tobacco: a gradual, incremental change in culture so that instead of gun worship, the culture evolves to one where people mostly just don't want the dangerous nasty things around unless they absolutely need to have them. I really believe that the gun culture is on the wrong side of history. Sometimes, as with the health care debacle, the US is just a little slow in catching up with the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Quote:
Sometimes I worry how big a shooting spree it would take for there to be true gun-control upheaval change. We've had dozens killed and that hasn't dented the issue. Would it take 500 dead in one spree to do it?
What's scary is that I think a very few gun grabbers hope for that.
I'm beginning to detect a pattern of gratuitous snark here. Is it your contention that gun control advocates are hypocrites who are not genuinely concerned about the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives each year to gun violence, many of them children? If so, please tell us what you think gun control advocates are really concerned about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
A gun ban would not only be politically impossible at the present, it would be colossally ineffective. American culture is a gun culture -- a culture that celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence. That's the source of the problem of shootings -- the ubiquity of guns makes shootings much easier, quite obviously, but it's impossible to address this problem of guns being incredibly easy to access without massive changes in American culture. America as a culture will not accept any significant restrictions on the availability of their (our) precious guns.

I don't know what the solution is exactly -- how do you change a culture in a directed and focused way? Obviously that can and has been done (i.e. America is less patriarchal and racist than it was in the past, even as these are still very significant problems), but I don't know what public policy can change that, though I do think at the margins various gun control proposals (large magazine ban, expanded background checks, targeted bans on certain characteristics that can make mass shootings even deadlier) might have a tiny but positive effect on shootings. But even at best, these might just reduce the average body count of school shootings from 10 or whatever to 7, or something like that.

IMO, of course.
You're absolutely correct about the need for a massive culture change. But I think the culture change around tobacco smoking is encouraging evidence that it can be done, with the role of enlightened lawmakers being at least as much to promote and advance these changes as to actually legislate restrictions and prohibitions, though the two work together, with legislation gradually nudging the culture.

Watch any movie or TV show from the 50s, say, and one is amazed at how much the tobacco culture has changed. Pretty much everybody smoked, and they smoked everywhere. Cigarettes were glorified as a sophisticated adult activity, they were advertised everywhere, and ad agencies made fortunes just from designing eye-catching cigarette packaging.

What happened was gradual, incremental, and effective. Cigarettes were never "banned" and they weren't "confiscated". One of the early initiatives was removing the smoking section from airplanes, which airlines were happy with because the smoking would gum up their ventilation systems about as badly as it was gumming up the smokers' lungs. Then you couldn't smoke in restaurants, or bars, or workplaces. You could still smoke if you were so inclined, just not inside any public places. So smokers would gather outside the front doors of their workplaces, until the stench became problematic and people entering and exiting the building complained. So now smokers had to furtively move away into the darker recesses outside the building, with signs warning them to stay away from the doors.

Meanwhile, tobacco companies could no longer advertise, and they could no longer sponsor certain events (or in some cases, any events at all). Cigarette packages began to bear health warnings. Talk about eye-catching design that made ad agencies tons of money: this is what cigarette packaging will soon look like in Canada -- basically one giant illustrated health warning, with the brand name in plain type on a small part of the package.

At the same time as all this was going on, tobacco companies were being sued -- successfully -- for billions of dollars for the health problems their products were causing.

So I think the moral of the story is that a multi-pronged approach on many different fronts slowly and incrementally transformed the tobacco culture from one in which smoking was widely accepted and even celebrated, to one where people began to wonder why they would need the vile, nasty, dangerous things. If you had told a smoker back in the 50s what the smoking world would look like in 2019, they'd probably have thought you were crazy, and would likely be adamant that no one in a free country would accept such restrictions. But the reality is that although there are smoking activists who condemn such policies, most people are supportive of the policies because most people no longer smoke, and the ones that do recognize the dangers. My contention is that the gun culture, like the tobacco culture, will eventually be viewed as having been on the wrong side of history.
  #152  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:03 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
All of the Bill of Rights is important. Many here would happily tear it up just to get rid of the 2nd Ad. I am pointing out that while we're talking about getting rid of constitutional protections just to get a little imaginary safety, that other Amendments cause lives lost also.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you could lose the 2nd, or at least interpret it more tightly, and the safety/freedom trade off would be favorable.

I've never heard anyone call for trashing the entire B of R just to dump the 2nd. I've heard of a few who would do so to dump the 1st.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #153  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:25 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm beginning to detect a pattern of gratuitous snark here. Is it your contention that gun control advocates are hypocrites who are not genuinely concerned about the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives each year to gun violence, many of them children? If so, please tell us what you think gun control advocates are really concerned about.
I think what DrDeth means is that there are some gun-control advocates who are hoping for a "one step back in order to make several steps forward" type of event. That while the killing of 500 people in one giant spree would be a tragedy, it might the long-awaited catalyst for major gun control that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
  #154  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:46 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think what DrDeth means is that there are some gun-control advocates who are hoping for a "one step back in order to make several steps forward" type of event. That while the killing of 500 people in one giant spree would be a tragedy, it might the long-awaited catalyst for major gun control that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
That is a fair argument to make here...when someone here posts such an opinion to counter. In the meantime it is a strawman argument.
  #155  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:05 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
You're absolutely correct about the need for a massive culture change. But I think the culture change around tobacco smoking is encouraging evidence that it can be done, with the role of enlightened lawmakers being at least as much to promote and advance these changes as to actually legislate restrictions and prohibitions, though the two work together, with legislation gradually nudging the culture.
Tobacco doesn't have the same utility that firearms do. They provide individual benefit, but any single cigarette isn't' going to be life changing. Cigarettes aren't used daily to defend the lives of the populace. Cigarettes aren't a right guaranteed in the constitution. Cigarettes don't last for over a hundred years. Basically, the comparison is not apt.

But I take your point. When the CDC engaged in a propaganda campaign against firearms, they also analogized tobacco as a model to follow. It's also quite apparent that the idea of going after gun culture is becoming more popular in gun control circles. It's also why even small incremental forays need to be smashed and exposed for the ulterior motives that they represent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't know what the solution is exactly -- how do you change a culture in a directed and focused way? Obviously that can and has been done (i.e. America is less patriarchal and racist than it was in the past, even as these are still very significant problems), but I don't know what public policy can change that, though I do think at the margins various gun control proposals (large magazine ban, expanded background checks, targeted bans on certain characteristics that can make mass shootings even deadlier) might have a tiny but positive effect on shootings. But even at best, these might just reduce the average body count of school shootings from 10 or whatever to 7, or something like that.
And what would that have done for the incident in question? How would a background check prevent firearms from being stolen and used for nefarious purposes? This is an example of why it seems like gun control advocacy groups seem to celebrate when a tragedy occurs, they do what I've seen referred to as a "blood dance", happy to use any incident as a springboard to launch into advocacy for unrelated policies on the backs of the tragedy. It would be like in reaction to a high profile suicide, Everytown comes out against high capacity magazines.

The only thing that prevents this incident is a ban and confiscation. Unless that is the proposal on the table, then anything else is either woefully misguided or a ruse to get on the path towards a ban and confiscation. It could be both.
  #156  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:14 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
A gun ban would not only be politically impossible at the present, it would be colossally ineffective. American culture is a gun culture -- a culture that celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence. That's the source of the problem of shootings -- the ubiquity of guns makes shootings much easier, quite obviously, but it's impossible to address this problem of guns being incredibly easy to access without massive changes in American culture. America as a culture will not accept any significant restrictions on the availability of their (our) precious guns.

I don't know what the solution is exactly -- how do you change a culture in a directed and focused way? Obviously that can and has been done (i.e. America is less patriarchal and racist than it was in the past, even as these are still very significant problems), but I don't know what public policy can change that, though I do think at the margins various gun control proposals (large magazine ban, expanded background checks, targeted bans on certain characteristics that can make mass shootings even deadlier) might have a tiny but positive effect on shootings. But even at best, these might just reduce the average body count of school shootings from 10 or whatever to 7, or something like that.

IMO, of course.
I'll go out on a limb here and propose a few things that would change the culture here:

1. Be inclusive (and all that entails) You bring up racism, and while racism is very much changed since Jim Crow, we now have a ton more advocates for more and more and more changes since it now has traction. But this isn't really inclusive. You can blame those who are probably 'racist', scared or some other reason that they feel threatened when they are told that even though they haven't been racist at all, that THEY are part of the problem.
This is also a HUGE problem in regards to our political factions. Divisive policies, divisive parties, keep themselves in power and pretty much fuck everyone else. This is the point where you probably go 'nuh uh, not MY party, and not MY policies'
You (general you) are not only part of the problem, you are making it worse.

We have too many folks telling us about problems and not very many telling us about solutions (that don't directly fly in the face of some other people)

2. Fix the economic distress. For some amount of people, this is telling them to go get a job, and some job skills that will be useful. For others, its paying more in taxes. For some it's getting the political parties to stop being divisive (Good Luck!) For the middle class, it's getting them to agree to keep getting the shit end of the stick.

3. Get the media to stop being hyperbolic. Stop giving attention to all the bad shit and change the narrative. The 24 hr news cycle was possibly one of the worst things to come to the world in the past 50 years.

Upon re-reading this, the problem is politicians and policies aimed at dividing the country so they stay in power.
Abolish political parties and the power that goes with it.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 05-13-2019 at 11:16 AM.
  #157  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:25 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
When the CDC engaged in a propaganda campaign against firearms
Cite?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #158  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:34 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Cite?
That the CDC engaged in a propaganda campaign, or that they analogized tobacco? Here's an article from Reason. I could have pulled the quote from anywhere, but this is a decent read:
Quote:
Yet four years earlier, in a 1987 CDC report, Rosenberg thought the area adequately scrutinized, and his understanding sufficient, to urge confiscation of all firearms from "the general population," claiming "8,600 homicides and 5,370 suicides could be avoided" each year. In 1993 Rolling Stone reported that Rosenberg "envisions a long term campaign, similar to [those concerning] tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace." In 1994 he told The Washington Post, "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."
  #159  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:38 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Cigarettes aren't used daily to defend the lives of the populace.
Cigarettes aren't used daily to terrorize the populace, either.
  #160  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:45 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
...but this is a decent read:
I'll read the whole thing later today, but your excerpt sounds like somebody at the CDC wanted a propaganda campaign, not necessarily that the CDC went ahead and implemented one.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #161  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
And what would that have done for the incident in question? How would a background check prevent firearms from being stolen and used for nefarious purposes? This is an example of why it seems like gun control advocacy groups seem to celebrate when a tragedy occurs, they do what I've seen referred to as a "blood dance", happy to use any incident as a springboard to launch into advocacy for unrelated policies on the backs of the tragedy. It would be like in reaction to a high profile suicide, Everytown comes out against high capacity magazines.
This discussion has obviously morphed into the broader issue of gun violence and mass shootings. Whatever advocacy groups do, nothing I said could remotely be construed into being a "blood dance" or "happy" at having a tragedy to exploit.

Quote:
The only thing that prevents this incident is a ban and confiscation. Unless that is the proposal on the table, then anything else is either woefully misguided or a ruse to get on the path towards a ban and confiscation. It could be both.
This is just the sort of silliness that prevents even the possibility of discussing this issue. We already know that some gun control efforts can have some effectiveness -- mass shootings with full auto weapons are quite rare, and I think it's reasonable to believe that this rarity is related to the relative difficulty in acquiring full auto weapons.

But you didn't even attempt to address what I really said. Do you agree with my assessment of American culture with respect to guns? I assume (because I think you're a smart guy) that you agree with it, you just don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, that America mythologizes violence and especially gun violence in a way that most other prosperous countries' cultures do not.
  #162  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:06 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But you didn't even attempt to address what I really said. Do you agree with my assessment of American culture with respect to guns? I assume (because I think you're a smart guy) that you agree with it, you just don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, that America mythologizes violence and especially gun violence in a way that most other prosperous countries' cultures do not.
I certainly agree there is gun culture in the US. I disagree with any non-objective assessment you've made regarding that culture. "Celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence" Oh please. That's on par with saying that gun control advocates have a culture of doing a blood dance celebrating the murder of children. I don't think you realize how wildly off base and offensive it can be to portray others as mustache twirling villains who celebrate violence.
  #163  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:08 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This discussion has obviously morphed into the broader issue of gun violence and mass shootings. Whatever advocacy groups do, nothing I said could remotely be construed into being a "blood dance" or "happy" at having a tragedy to exploit.



This is just the sort of silliness that prevents even the possibility of discussing this issue. We already know that some gun control efforts can have some effectiveness -- mass shootings with full auto weapons are quite rare, and I think it's reasonable to believe that this rarity is related to the relative difficulty in acquiring full auto weapons.

But you didn't even attempt to address what I really said. Do you agree with my assessment of American culture with respect to guns? I assume (because I think you're a smart guy) that you agree with it, you just don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, that America mythologizes violence and especially gun violence in a way that most other prosperous countries' cultures do not.
Mass shootings with legal full auto weapons are not rare. They do not happen. There are approximately 600,000 full auto weapons in civilians ownership and represent tens of thousands of dollars of investment each. It takes a year to pass a background check to purchase one IF you live in a state that allows them. They are not, and should not be part of any discussion of gun control. There is no relative difficulty. It is next to impossible for most to enter that playing field. The term "safe queen" fits those firearms best, rarely seeing the light of day.
  #164  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:14 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think what DrDeth means is that there are some gun-control advocates who are hoping for a "one step back in order to make several steps forward" type of event. That while the killing of 500 people in one giant spree would be a tragedy, it might the long-awaited catalyst for major gun control that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
Why would they think that? The irony is that when the next record-setting mass shooting happens -- even one of that magnitude -- it probably won't move the needle on the gun control issue one bit. Sandy Hook did not. Vegas did not. The cumulative effect of all the mass shootings of recent years put together did not.

Here's what will happen instead. The gun side will say that it's impossible to discuss the issue rationally in the heat of the moment after such an event. The gun side will declare a societal problem and ruminate about the mental health of the particular individual. The gun side will point out that the guns involved were legal, or else that they were illegal, as if either way that settles the issue. The gun side will blame the media for their incessant coverage of the event and declare "media attention" to be a major part of the problem. The NRA will tell us how much safer all those victims would have been if they had all been armed. And of course, thoughts and prayers will abound.
  #165  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I certainly agree there is gun culture in the US. I disagree with any non-objective assessment you've made regarding that culture. "Celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence" Oh please. That's on par with saying that gun control advocates have a culture of doing a blood dance celebrating the murder of children. I don't think you realize how wildly off base and offensive it can be to portray others as mustache twirling villains who celebrate violence.
That's not what I said at all. And what I'm saying certainly doesn't just apply to gun owners (which includes me, by the way). It's the whole American culture, from the very beginning -- the frontier pioneer, the western/cowboy hero, the idealistic young man who volunteers in wartime and becomes a war hero, the grizzled cop who doesn't play by the rules and gets the bad guys, and much more -- these are all uniquely/iconically American archetypes, all of whom used deadly violence (usually with guns) in the service of decency, goodness, and American values (in the myth-making). The media and art has celebrated violence (and gun violence in particular) for decades, if not more, with these and other archetypal characters -- in literature, movies, television, and even music. It's not just America that has these icons and archetypes, but among wealthy countries, I believe America is holding onto these the most, and celebrating these the most.

Do you really disagree with any of this? If so, what part?

I don't understand what I've said that could possibly incite such a negative reaction from you, unless you're just knee-jerk responding to straw men assumptions.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-13-2019 at 01:24 PM.
  #166  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:23 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Mass shootings with legal full auto weapons are not rare. They do not happen. There are approximately 600,000 full auto weapons in civilians ownership and represent tens of thousands of dollars of investment each. It takes a year to pass a background check to purchase one IF you live in a state that allows them. They are not, and should not be part of any discussion of gun control. There is no relative difficulty. It is next to impossible for most to enter that playing field. The term "safe queen" fits those firearms best, rarely seeing the light of day.
<bolding mine>

Pray tell, which guns can and should be part of the discussion?

And what is the appropriate length of time after a shooting is it okay to have that discussion?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #167  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Mass shootings with legal full auto weapons are not rare. They do not happen. There are approximately 600,000 full auto weapons in civilians ownership and represent tens of thousands of dollars of investment each. It takes a year to pass a background check to purchase one IF you live in a state that allows them. They are not, and should not be part of any discussion of gun control. There is no relative difficulty. It is next to impossible for most to enter that playing field. The term "safe queen" fits those firearms best, rarely seeing the light of day.
Thank you for helping to make my point.
  #168  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:26 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Mass shootings with legal full auto weapons are not rare. They do not happen. There are approximately 600,000 full auto weapons in civilians ownership and represent tens of thousands of dollars of investment each. It takes a year to pass a background check to purchase one IF you live in a state that allows them. They are not, and should not be part of any discussion of gun control. There is no relative difficulty. It is next to impossible for most to enter that playing field. The term "safe queen" fits those firearms best, rarely seeing the light of day.
Bolding mine. Perhaps they SHOULD be used as an example of how a class of weapons can be effectively removed from public use?
  #169  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
What prevents it in other countries? One of the major factors is relative scarcity. There is such an incredible abundance of guns in the US, and they are so widely celebrated at gun shows, gun shops, and personal collections that they're almost impossible to avoid. Whereas in most countries, a thief who breaks into a random person's home is unlikely to find a gun there, whether locked or unlocked. ...
As for bans and "confiscations", you seem to be imagining a world where some very arrogant lawmakers impose gun restrictions, bans, or whatever, against the will of the people. That's not how it works. As discussed below, the way it has to work is just the way it worked with tobacco: a gradual, incremental change in culture so that instead of gun worship, the culture evolves to one where people mostly just don't want the dangerous nasty things around unless they absolutely need to have them. I really believe that the gun culture is on the wrong side of history. Sometimes, as with the health care debacle, the US is just a little slow in catching up with the rest of the world.
....

You're absolutely correct about the need for a massive culture change. But I think the culture change around tobacco smoking is encouraging evidence that it can be done, with the role of enlightened lawmakers being at least as much to promote and advance these changes as to actually legislate restrictions and prohibitions, though the two work together, with legislation gradually nudging the culture.

Watch any movie or TV show from the 50s, say, and one is amazed at how much the tobacco culture has changed. Pretty much everybody smoked, and they smoked everywhere. Cigarettes were glorified as a sophisticated adult activity, they were advertised everywhere, and ad agencies made fortunes just from designing eye-catching cigarette packaging.
...

Meanwhile, tobacco companies could no longer advertise, and they could no longer sponsor certain events (or in some cases, any events at all). ....

... My contention is that the gun culture, like the tobacco culture, will eventually be viewed as having been on the wrong side of history.
Yes, that's true, but there are still 300 Million guns in the USA, how do you propose to get rid of them? Even if people stop buying, that leaves 300 Million.

The problem with this is that guns serve useful purposes: Hunting, sports (Several Olympic sports, and smoking has never been one), and of course home defense.

Actually smoking is coming back in films. Big Tobacco is spending a lot in under the table bribes (or just having one of their non-tobacco branches pay) just to have smoking portrayed in films. I have posted links and cites but the incidence of smoking in film is going up again, not down. And of course Big Tobacco can still advertise in print media, like magazines, and they do so.
  #170  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you could lose the 2nd, or at least interpret it more tightly, and the safety/freedom trade off would be favorable.

I've never heard anyone call for trashing the entire B of R just to dump the 2nd. I've heard of a few who would do so to dump the 1st.


Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Yes, and who do you trust to start meddling with the Bill of Rights?
  #171  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think what DrDeth means is that there are some gun-control advocates who are hoping for a "one step back in order to make several steps forward" type of event. That while the killing of 500 people in one giant spree would be a tragedy, it might the long-awaited catalyst for major gun control that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
Yep. and I did say a "few'.
  #172  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Cigarettes aren't used daily to terrorize the populace, either.

Are you really terrorized?

https://www.quora.com/Looking-at-the...erned-about-it
…an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461)” There Is No ‘Epidemic of Mass School Shootings’

Out of some 330 million Americans:

Between 3,000 and 49,000 die from the flu each year (+200,000 hospitalized)
"
  #173  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:43 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Are you really terrorized?

https://www.quora.com/Looking-at-the...erned-about-it
…an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461)” There Is No ‘Epidemic of Mass School Shootings’

Out of some 330 million Americans:

Between 3,000 and 49,000 die from the flu each year (+200,000 hospitalized)
"
Death is the leading cause of loss of life and just look at all the horrible ways in which you can die! What's one more, eh?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #174  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:45 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I certainly agree there is gun culture in the US. I disagree with any non-objective assessment you've made regarding that culture. "Celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence" Oh please. That's on par with saying that gun control advocates have a culture of doing a blood dance celebrating the murder of children. I don't think you realize how wildly off base and offensive it can be to portray others as mustache twirling villains who celebrate violence.
That's not what I said at all.
That seems like exactly what you said. Here, this is what you said (my bold):
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
American culture is a gun culture -- a culture that celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence. That's the source of the problem of shootings -- the ubiquity of guns makes shootings much easier, quite obviously, but it's impossible to address this problem of guns being incredibly easy to access without massive changes in American culture. America as a culture will not accept any significant restrictions on the availability of their (our) precious guns.
Maybe an example would add clarity for you. Do you think Planned Parenthood celebrates and mythologizes abortion? If someone were to say that Planned Parenthood celebrates abortions, and that dude, all women should have abortions all the time because they are great and super awesome! I think that would be pretty offensive. Planned Parenthood wants women to have control over their bodies, their reproductive health, their privacy. They don't celebrate abortion, but they recognize it's a medical procedure that should be available to women. Characterizing that as celebrating and mythologizing abortion is derogatory and demeaning.

As you say, This is just the sort of silliness that prevents even the possibility of discussing this issue.
  #175  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That seems like exactly what you said. Here, this is what you said (my bold):
I was talking about America as a whole. Not gun owners, not the NRA, not anything that should be considered derogatory or negative about any group except for the entirety of American culture. I went into detail in my later post about what I meant, which you haven't addressed. What in those details of my critique of American culture, if any, do you disagree with?

Quote:
Maybe an example would add clarity for you. Do you think Planned Parenthood celebrates and mythologizes abortion? If someone were to say that Planned Parenthood celebrates abortions, and that dude, all women should have abortions all the time because they are great and super awesome! I think that would be pretty offensive. Planned Parenthood wants women to have control over their bodies, their reproductive health, their privacy. They don't celebrate abortion, but they recognize it's a medical procedure that should be available to women. Characterizing that as celebrating and mythologizing abortion is derogatory and demeaning.
I can't for the life of me tell how this is relevant to my assertion at all. If you said "American culture celebrates sex", then that would be analogous, and I'd be interested to see what else you had to say on the subject. But a specific organization? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said -- I'm critiquing American culture as a whole. Certainly not any group or organization within it.

Quote:
As you say, This is just the sort of silliness that prevents even the possibility of discussing this issue.
I'd really, really appreciate if you could respond to my specific and actual words, especially when I went into detail as to what I meant. Here it is again:

It's the whole American culture, from the very beginning -- the frontier pioneer, the western/cowboy hero, the idealistic young man who volunteers in wartime and becomes a war hero, the grizzled cop who doesn't play by the rules and gets the bad guys, and much more -- these are all uniquely/iconically American archetypes, all of whom used deadly violence (usually with guns) in the service of decency, goodness, and American values (in the myth-making). The media and art has celebrated violence (and gun violence in particular) for decades, if not more, with these and other archetypal characters -- in literature, movies, television, and even music. It's not just America that has these icons and archetypes, but among wealthy countries, I believe America is holding onto these the most, and celebrating these the most.

What part of this is "silliness"? Please, tell me in detail. I really, really want to know your thoughts on my words.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-13-2019 at 01:55 PM.
  #176  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:01 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
But if you don't believe that a constitutionally enshrined right to own a specific type of weapon is in any way an "essential liberty", then that particular bit of oratory is not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Yes, and who do you trust to start meddling with the Bill of Rights?
Me, for example. I certainly am not going to be scared off from rational consideration of the pros and cons of constitutional amendment by pompous blathering about the supposed hazard of violating the holy virginity of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and we as a nation have been meddling with the Constitution for as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing about Amendments 1 through 10 that is in any way exempt from the stated procedures for meddling that apply to the rest of the Constitution.

The reason that some gun-rights-culture enthusiasts try to frighten people into believing that repeal of the 2nd Amendment is some kind of unthinkable desecration of the sacred Bill of Rights text is simply that they don't want people to really start thinking about how archaic and counterproductive the 2nd Amendment has become.

As I said, gun ownership is fine in and of itself, but there's no intelligent reason nowadays to treat it as an inalienable fundamental right. I say let's alienate it already and get on with managing gun ownership in a rational way, on a par with ownership of other dangerous but useful objects.
  #177  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:07 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Are you really terrorized?
My son doesn't drill multiple times a year to learn the right way to hide from smokers infiltrating the halls of his school.


Me personally, I'm not terrorized, but then again, I don't need to wield a firearm to feel safe. Maybe you should ask one of them people what they're so frightened of. I mean, a good third of the country is so scared of other gun owners that they need to arm themselves for personal protection.
  #178  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But if you don't believe that a constitutionally enshrined right to own a specific type of weapon is in any way an "essential liberty", then that particular bit of oratory is not relevant.


Me, for example. I certainly am not going to be scared off from rational consideration of the pros and cons of constitutional amendment by pompous blathering about the supposed hazard of violating the holy virginity of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and we as a nation have been meddling with the Constitution for as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing about Amendments 1 through 10 that is in any way exempt from the stated procedures for meddling that apply to the rest of the Constitution....
Well, see, I think all of the Bill or Rights are essential liberties.

I dont trust you. Or anyone else. See, the only likely way to get the 2nd repealed is thru a new Constitutional Convention. And they wont stop with just repealing the 2nd.

After all, we allow books like the Anarchist Cookbook to be printed and sold, yes? Radical hate groups can proselytize and recruit, true?

Hard core criminals get away with the crimes due to constitutional protections, right?

Maybe the Convention turns right wing, and disallows Abortion, and makes Christianity the Religion of the land.

Too dangerous by far.
  #179  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I was talking about America as a whole. Not gun owners, not the NRA, not anything that should be considered derogatory or negative about any group except for the entirety of American culture. I went into detail in my later post about what I meant, which you haven't addressed. What in those details of my critique of American culture, if any, do you disagree with?
That doesn't make it any different, or any better as far as I can see. I disagree that American culture is a gun culture -- a culture that celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence. You have these complaints that I'm not responding to what you've written, yet I keep copy and pasting what you've written.

Quote:
I can't for the life of me tell how this is relevant to my assertion at all. If you said "American culture celebrates sex", then that would be analogous, and I'd be interested to see what else you had to say on the subject. But a specific organization? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said -- I'm critiquing American culture as a whole. Certainly not any group or organization within it.
I wouldn't get hung up on the PP aspect of it. You can substitute PP for "american culture" and it's the same. Do you think American Culture celebrates abortion?

Quote:
I'd really, really appreciate if you could respond to my specific and actual words, especially when I went into detail as to what I meant. Here it is again:
Yeah, I've been doing that, by quoting you. Celebrating and mythologizing violence is your phrase. What you describe could easily be expressed by saying that American culture recognizes that as a last resort there are times when violence is necessary, and while often tragic, is an important aspect of individual liberty as recognized in our founding documents. If you want to say there is a gun culture, fine I agree. But once you start editorializing, saying that culture celebrates and mythologizes violence, then no.

Last edited by Bone; 05-13-2019 at 02:08 PM.
  #180  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:13 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Tobacco doesn't have the same utility that firearms do. They provide individual benefit, but any single cigarette isn't' going to be life changing. Cigarettes aren't used daily to defend the lives of the populace. Cigarettes aren't a right guaranteed in the constitution. Cigarettes don't last for over a hundred years. Basically, the comparison is not apt.

But I take your point. When the CDC engaged in a propaganda campaign against firearms, they also analogized tobacco as a model to follow. It's also quite apparent that the idea of going after gun culture is becoming more popular in gun control circles. It's also why even small incremental forays need to be smashed and exposed for the ulterior motives that they represent.
Tobacco is actually a very apt analogy because it does represent exactly the kind of culture shift required in the domain of guns, and similar kinds of pushback occurred. As with guns, tobacco advocates characterized it a pleasurable activity to which responsible adults were entitled, and do-gooders needed to mind their own business. As for having "utility" beyond that, for personal defense and so forth, I'm sure you're aware of the vast body of statistics indicating that the utility is actually negative, in terms of the overall balance of risk/benefit tradeoff (and I'm not just referring to the controversial Kellerman studies). The conclusions are actually self-evident if one just looks at the dramatically lower rates of gun violence in every single advanced democracy on the planet.

As for the constitutional matter, this is a whole different discussion that some would characterize as the biggest blunder the Founders ever made, and that was further aggravated by an astoundingly myopic interpretation by a conservative court in the Heller ruling. But I can keep the discussion simpler. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents an evolving society from embracing the kind of culture change I'm describing, whose practical effect would be to make the second amendment nothing more than a curious anachronism, just like the one about quartering soldiers in your house. Such a situation would simply make the second amendment an anachronistic reminder that, as I said before, sometimes the US is a little slow in catching up to the rest of the world.

Your last sentence is astonishing. Why would you want to "smash" cultural changes that are motivated by reason and a desire to reduce the tremendously high rate of gun carnage? The is probably the clearest statement I've yet seen of the desire for ideology to prevail over reason on this subject.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to characterize honest gun advocates as "mustache twirling villains" (though I question whether some, like the current NRA lobby, have any interest in honesty). The honest ones just embrace a misguided ideology and somehow are able to rationalize the experience of the rest of the world as irrelevant. From your standpoint as a libertarian I can see the attraction of self-sufficiency in personal defense, and the relative lack of priority given to the collective interests of the community. The ideological divide here is how much destructive power in the hands of an individual is appropriate and is a reasonable risk/benefit tradeoff, given the human condition and its propensity for anger and drunkenness and jealousy and revenge and all those other things I already talked about. The US stands absolutely alone among all advanced countries in having evolved a culture which says that "almost no limit" is a reasonable answer.
  #181  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That doesn't make it any different, or any better as far as I can see. I disagree that American culture is a gun culture -- a culture that celebrates and mythologizes violence, and in particular gun violence. You have these complaints that I'm not responding to what you've written, yet I keep copy and pasting what you've written.

I wouldn't get hung up on the PP aspect of it. You can substitute PP for "american culture" and it's the same. Do you think American Culture celebrates abortion?

Yeah, I've been doing that, by quoting you. Celebrating and mythologizing violence is your phrase. What you describe could easily be expressed by saying that American culture recognizes that as a last resort there are times when violence is necessary, and while often tragic, is an important aspect of individual liberty as recognized in our founding documents. If you want to say there is a gun culture, fine I agree. But once you start editorializing, saying that culture celebrates and mythologizes violence, then no.
Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. But how was this so (apparently) personally offensive to you? Who was I calling a "mustache-twirling villain"? How is this critique harmful to the possibility of this discussion? I'm even with you on the subject of gun bans!

And you still didn't respond to my detailed critique -- which part of this, specifically, do you disagree with, and why am I wrong:

It's the whole American culture, from the very beginning -- the frontier pioneer, the western/cowboy hero, the idealistic young man who volunteers in wartime and becomes a war hero, the grizzled cop who doesn't play by the rules and gets the bad guys, and much more -- these are all uniquely/iconically American archetypes, all of whom used deadly violence (usually with guns) in the service of decency, goodness, and American values (in the myth-making). The media and art has celebrated violence (and gun violence in particular) for decades, if not more, with these and other archetypal characters -- in literature, movies, television, and even music. It's not just America that has these icons and archetypes, but among wealthy countries, I believe America is holding onto these the most, and celebrating these the most.

Which part of this poisons this discussion, or indicates that anyone is a mustache-twirling villain, or is silliness, or is otherwise not compatible with reasonable discussion? I'm really trying to engage here. I think this could be a very interesting discussion on American culture, if only you'd engage with the details of what I'm saying.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-13-2019 at 02:19 PM.
  #182  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
See, the only likely way to get the 2nd repealed is thru a new Constitutional Convention. And they wont stop with just repealing the 2nd.
Meh, this is more scare talk meant to reinforce the false notion that repealing the 2nd Amendment is unthinkable. I very much doubt that a ConCon is realistically any more likely than repealing the 2nd Amendment via ratifying a new one. I don't think that either of those measures is at all likely to occur in the immediate future, but I think we'll get around to repealing the 2nd eventually.

And I don't buy your alarmist rhetoric that it would somehow result in destroying the entire Bill of Rights. I mean, the self-serving incentive for such alarmism is pretty clearly apparent.
  #183  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
.. As for having "utility" beyond that, for personal defense and so forth, I'm sure you're aware of the vast body of statistics indicating that the utility is actually negative, in terms of the overall balance of risk/benefit tradeoff (and I'm not just referring to the controversial Kellerman studies). The conclusions are actually self-evident if one just looks at the dramatically lower rates of gun violence in every single advanced democracy on the planet.....

... The honest ones just embrace a misguided ideology and somehow are able to rationalize the experience of the rest of the world as irrelevant. From your standpoint as a libertarian I can see the attraction of self-sufficiency in personal defense, and the relative lack of priority given to the collective interests of the community. The ideological divide here is how much destructive power in the hands of an individual is appropriate and is a reasonable risk/benefit tradeoff, given the human condition and its propensity for anger and drunkenness and jealousy and revenge and all those other things I already talked about. The US stands absolutely alone among all advanced countries in having evolved a culture which says that "almost no limit" is a reasonable answer.

Actually, so far there have been no studies that have shown that. And yes, Kellerman was garbage.

I love these "no true scotsman" terms " advanced democracy" and "advanced countries". Somehow Mexico isn't "advanced." Sounds a little racist, eh?
  #184  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Meh, this is more scare talk meant to reinforce the false notion that repealing the 2nd Amendment is unthinkable. I very much doubt that a ConCon is realistically any more likely than repealing the 2nd Amendment via ratifying a new one. I don't think that either of those measures is at all likely to occur in the immediate future, but I think we'll get around to repealing the 2nd eventually.

And I don't buy your alarmist rhetoric that it would somehow result in destroying the entire Bill of Rights. I mean, the self-serving incentive for such alarmism is pretty clearly apparent.
Such a repeal would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

Not gonna happen.

"Destroying"? Oh no, not "destroying" just meddling. And that meddling will destroy.

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-13-2019 at 02:26 PM.
  #185  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:26 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I love these "no true scotsman" terms " advanced democracy" and "advanced countries". Somehow Mexico isn't "advanced." Sounds a little racist, eh?
If you don't understand what the word "racism" means, maybe.
  #186  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:31 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Actually, so far there have been no studies that have shown that. And yes, Kellerman was garbage.

I love these "no true scotsman" terms " advanced democracy" and "advanced countries". Somehow Mexico isn't "advanced." Sounds a little racist, eh?
You got me. I'm a raving racist!

You know, and I know, the unique problems that Mexico has in which whole swaths of the country are in the control of violent criminal drug cartels, and why no rational person would consider Mexico's rate of gun violence in a comparison of the US with similar countries to be in any way even remotely useful. This old trope of yours is getting very tedious.
  #187  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:55 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Such a repeal would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Yes, that's how Amendments are done.

Thus, if the citizenry of this country start to buy into the idea that 10,000+ deaths a year is too high a price to pay for gun freedoms, the process you describe is what would be done to fix it.

There's no need for a slippery slope or a Constitutional Convention, no need to put the 1st amendment at risk, or anything else. Just the same amendment process we have followed for our entire history.
  #188  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:25 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As I said, gun ownership is fine in and of itself, but there's no intelligent reason nowadays to treat it as an inalienable fundamental right. I say let's alienate it already and get on with managing gun ownership in a rational way, on a par with ownership of other dangerous but useful objects.
Pre-McDonald California is a good indicator of what happens without a robust 2nd amendment. No thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Tobacco is actually a very apt analogy because it does represent exactly the kind of culture shift required in the domain of guns, and similar kinds of pushback occurred. As with guns, tobacco advocates characterized it a pleasurable activity to which responsible adults were entitled, and do-gooders needed to mind their own business. As for having "utility" beyond that, for personal defense and so forth, I'm sure you're aware of the vast body of statistics indicating that the utility is actually negative, in terms of the overall balance of risk/benefit tradeoff (and I'm not just referring to the controversial Kellerman studies). The conclusions are actually self-evident if one just looks at the dramatically lower rates of gun violence in every single advanced democracy on the planet.
If all you're saying is that a culture shift would need to occur then I wouldn't disagree with that. Any other comparison is not apt. As for the rest, no, I disagree with your assessments of the body of statistics, do not think it is self evident, and frankly don't care what other countries do with their gun laws as long as they don't try to push their laws on the US. Like, I care zero about other countries gun laws. You bring this up fairly often but I'm not sure if you really understand how unpersuasive it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Your last sentence is astonishing. Why would you want to "smash" cultural changes that are motivated by reason and a desire to reduce the tremendously high rate of gun carnage? The is probably the clearest statement I've yet seen of the desire for ideology to prevail over reason on this subject.
Because gun control folks have had trouble pushing laws and the courts their way, attacking the culture is the next step. Things like limiting exposure, closing down shops and ranges, propagandizing in schools, etc. seek to move culture over time. Those efforts are what should be opposed and smashed. On the contrary, I would like to see gun culture expand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. But how was this so (apparently) personally offensive to you? Who was I calling a "mustache-twirling villain"? How is this critique harmful to the possibility of this discussion? I'm even with you on the subject of gun bans!
Most of the hyperbole from gun control folks I don't respond to. If you're reasonable, then I'm willing to engage to persuade you the errors of your ways. It's not personally offensive - my response to you is meant to illustrate how what you think you're doing is innocuous, but it's really not. Not from my point of view anyways. That kind of subtle disdain expressed is pretty common and what I find can permeate through folks who are in favor of more gun control. It's pretty destructive to discussion, IMO.

It's as I said in my first post to this thread - most times there are just fundamental differences in world view that make you say things like others celebrate violence without considering that to be inaccurate or offensive. Characterizing people who think differently than you in such a negative way is making your ideological opponents into mustache twirlers.
  #189  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:38 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
<bolding mine>

Pray tell, which guns can and should be part of the discussion?
Well, these guns have been regulated out of general ownership for almost a hundred years. If you want to use them as an example for gun control have it. They make up about .15 % of all guns in the country, no new guns have been added to the list since 1986, and every transaction is processed by hand.

Not to mention the financial considerations. They are worth so much money that they are rarely used, and routinely never see the light of day. Again, if you think they have any relevance in today's broader gun control discussion, by all means go for it.

Quote:
And what is the appropriate length of time after a shooting is it okay to have that discussion?
Not sure why that is directed to me, I couldn't care less.

ETA: I forgot to add that the only deaths in recent memory using a legal full auto gun were done by cops. FWIW

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-13-2019 at 03:41 PM.
  #190  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:03 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
As for the rest, no, I disagree with your assessments of the body of statistics, do not think it is self evident, and frankly don't care what other countries do with their gun laws as long as they don't try to push their laws on the US. Like, I care zero about other countries gun laws. You bring this up fairly often but I'm not sure if you really understand how unpersuasive it is.
"Pushing their laws on the US" is a strange characterization that seems revealing. It strikes me as a way to discredit inconvenient evidence. I bring up gun laws in other comparable advanced countries in the same spirit as the famous maxim "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". You should care a great deal more than "zero" about gun laws in other countries, and the results of those laws, because it's effectively living history in real time: a glimpse of what the US could be like if it took a similar path, to the extent that the circumstances are similar (which in most important ways they are).

I simply cannot fathom a rational reason for ignoring that body of evidence except to presume that it's the same reason that opponents of UHC and of greater government involvement in health care also care "zero" about the experiences of all other advanced countries, despite how much there is to learn from them. And the reason, of course, is that they don't like the learnings, because the conclusions present an uncomfortable conflict with their ideology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
On the contrary, I would like to see gun culture expand.
Which seems to bear out what I just said above. I mentally ask myself, what evidence would persuade you otherwise, and I have to conclude that the answer is "none". Can you really disagree with that?
  #191  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post


Most of the hyperbole from gun control folks I don't respond to. If you're reasonable, then I'm willing to engage to persuade you the errors of your ways. It's not personally offensive - my response to you is meant to illustrate how what you think you're doing is innocuous, but it's really not. Not from my point of view anyways. That kind of subtle disdain expressed is pretty common and what I find can permeate through folks who are in favor of more gun control. It's pretty destructive to discussion, IMO.



It's as I said in my first post to this thread - most times there are just fundamental differences in world view that make you say things like others celebrate violence without considering that to be inaccurate or offensive. Characterizing people who think differently than you in such a negative way is making your ideological opponents into mustache twirlers.
What subtle disdain? What people am I characterizing "negatively" who "think differently" than I do? Where did I say "others" celebrate violence?

I seriously can't tell what on earth you're responding to. I can't help but assume that you're prescribing preconceived notions to my posts.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #192  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:38 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I simply cannot fathom a rational reason for ignoring that body of evidence except to presume that it's the same reason that opponents of UHC and of greater government involvement in health care also care "zero" about the experiences of all other advanced countries, despite how much there is to learn from them. And the reason, of course, is that they don't like the learnings, because the conclusions present an uncomfortable conflict with their ideology.
Because other countries histories and culture are sufficiently different that I don't find comparisons especially useful or meaningful. It usually devolves into the nuanced ways that differences exist and an exercise of squaring round peg. Combine that with the fact that the US has 50 states that are each their own sovereign and it's much more useful to get contrasting data points within the US than to look outside of it. Even then the square peg round hole problem exists, but it's not as stark.


Quote:
Which seems to bear out what I just said above. I mentally ask myself, what evidence would persuade you otherwise, and I have to conclude that the answer is "none". Can you really disagree with that?
Are you referring to culture, or to specific policy proposals? Yeah, I'm not going to agree with you on culture, but there are lots of proposals that I could get on board with if I had faith that politicians and advocates pushing gun control were acting in good faith. That's never come close to happening.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What subtle disdain? What people am I characterizing "negatively" who "think differently" than I do? Where did I say "others" celebrate violence?

I seriously can't tell what on earth you're responding to. I can't help but assume that you're prescribing preconceived notions to my posts.
Do you really not get that characterizing people as celebrating violence is a negative? How would you interpret the statement that American culture is one that celebrates abortion?

No, not preconceived, just responding to what you're writing.
  #193  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Do you really not get that characterizing people as celebrating violence is a negative? How would you interpret the statement that American culture is one that celebrates abortion?

No, not preconceived, just responding to what you're writing.
Okay, so you don't like "celebrating violence". Yes, that is meant as negative. But who were the "others" that I was characterizing negatively? Who are those who "think differently" than I do? Those are your words, and I don't see what they apply to that I wrote. I'm an American, and my culture is American. I think it's reasonable to critique elements of one's own culture.

But you've snipped this following paragraph, without responding to it, at least twice already. Please, please respond to it this time -- it's my good faith attempt at a detailed critique of American culture related to guns. Here it is again, and I hope you'll respond to it and tell me what you disagree with, and what you find in it that's incompatible with reasonable discussion:

It's the whole American culture, from the very beginning -- the frontier pioneer, the western/cowboy hero, the idealistic young man who volunteers in wartime and becomes a war hero, the grizzled cop who doesn't play by the rules and gets the bad guys, and much more -- these are all uniquely/iconically American archetypes, all of whom used deadly violence (usually with guns) in the service of decency, goodness, and American values (in the myth-making). The media and art has celebrated violence (and gun violence in particular) for decades, if not more, with these and other archetypal characters -- in literature, movies, television, and even music. It's not just America that has these icons and archetypes, but among wealthy countries, I believe America is holding onto these the most, and celebrating these the most.
  #194  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:52 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Pre-McDonald California is a good indicator of what happens without a robust 2nd amendment.
But the Second Amendment back then was just as much a part of the Constitution as it is now. What you're saying is that even with the Second Amendment in place, promoters of gun-rights culture aren't going to get gun laws that make them happy unless they have a particular interpretation of the Second Amendment active in the courts. If the courts change their interpretation of the Second Amendment again, you're going to be complaining about what you consider excessive restrictions on gun rights again.

This is why we as a nation need to give up on trying to make promoters of gun-rights culture happy about their right to gun ownership. The whole point and purpose of gun-rights culture is the state of not being happy about having enough gun rights, and constantly striving to expand their extent.

The archaic concept of a right to gun ownership serves no modern purpose except to pit promoters of gun-rights culture against the rest of society in a constant struggle to get their own way. The goal isn't workable compromise or improved security: it's this never-ending power struggle that reinforces their self-image as beleaguered misunderstood heroes surrounded by enemies.

Regulating ownership of dangerous but useful objects is intrinsically about negotiation of tradeoffs between risks and safeguards. But the whole point of gun-rights culture is to sidestep negotiation by playing the Fundamental-Right trump card. It's not about guns: it's about dominance and power. Gun rights and gun-rights culture is the social pathology that other gun-owning societies don't have (at least, not to anything like this extent), and that's why their gun problems are nowhere near as bad as ours.
  #195  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Okay, so you don't like "celebrating violence". Yes, that is meant as negative. But who were the "others" that I was characterizing negatively? Who are those who "think differently" than I do? Those are your words, and I don't see what they apply to that I wrote. I'm an American, and my culture is American. I think it's reasonable to critique elements of one's own culture.
Critique it all day long, fine with me. I'll continue to critique your critique when it is critiqueable. You're really asking who are those that think differently? Everyone that doesn't agree with you, by definition. Being a member of a group doesn't give a free pass to make baseless criticisms of that group.

Quote:
But you've snipped this following paragraph, without responding to it, at least twice already. Please, please respond to it this time -- it's my good faith attempt at a detailed critique of American culture related to guns. Here it is again, and I hope you'll respond to it and tell me what you disagree with, and what you find in it that's incompatible with reasonable discussion:
I don't see anything to respond to. First, I don't much care what entertainment media latches on to. Second, violence in entertainment happens in many other countries. You think the media has celebrated violence. The media has also condemned violence. I'm sure both are true in some cases, and not in others. It's not really specific enough to respond to - just vague generalities. It reads kinda horoscopey. I don't necessarily disagree or agree, and it's not what motivated my initial response on this portion of the topic.
  #196  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:13 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But the Second Amendment back then was just as much a part of the Constitution as it is now. What you're saying is that even with the Second Amendment in place, promoters of gun-rights culture aren't going to get gun laws that make them happy unless they have a particular interpretation of the Second Amendment active in the courts. If the courts change their interpretation of the Second Amendment again, you're going to be complaining about what you consider excessive restrictions on gun rights again.
The 2nd amendment was part of the constitution, but it didn't apply at all to California pre-McDonald. I'm not sure if you're familiar with how incorporation doctrine works. Saying the 2nd was part of the constitution doesn't really make sense in this context.

You're right, if the interpretations change, then advocacy will continue. So what? That's the case with basically every single thing. Right now in CA, I still can't get a CCW. So you're right that it is about tradeoffs. Until I can get a CCW, I'm willing to blow up all the boxes (figuratively).
  #197  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Critique it all day long, fine with me. I'll continue to critique your critique when it is critiqueable. You're really asking who are those that think differently? Everyone that doesn't agree with you, by definition. Being a member of a group doesn't give a free pass to make baseless criticisms of that group.
You said I was "Characterizing people who think differently than [me] in such a negative way". I still don't understand who these people are. I didn't critique gun owners, or gun-rights advocates, or conservatives, or any group that was based on an issue or way of thinking -- I critiqued American culture. How is that "characterizing people who think differently than [me] in a negative way"? Which group of people who think differently than me did I criticize?

And you really think talking about violence in American culture is "baseless criticisms"?

Quote:
I don't see anything to respond to. First, I don't much care what entertainment media latches on to. Second, violence in entertainment happens in many other countries. You think the media has celebrated violence. The media has also condemned violence. I'm sure both are true in some cases, and not in others. It's not really specific enough to respond to - just vague generalities. It reads kinda horoscopey. I don't necessarily disagree or agree, and it's not what motivated my initial response on this portion of the topic.
This just makes me sad. I'm trying to make a good faith effort at discussion, and I'm pointing out why I think gun control is mostly a fool's errand at this time. Do you really think American culture has nothing to do with mass shootings in America, or gun violence in America in general? Is it not reasonable to talk about culture at all?

It makes me sad that you focus on a tiny phrase "celebrated and mythologize" and ignore the detailed and (attempting to be) thoughtful critique of the culture, as well as incorrectly characterize my statements as above. Reasonable discussion is possible on this, and I think I made a good faith effort at it. I know that you have in the past, but I don't think you're giving it much effort here, which is a shame.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-13-2019 at 05:17 PM.
  #198  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
Uggh. Sometimes discussion doesn't even seem worth it. Hopefully at least we can agree that it's reasonable to talk about American culture when discussing the prevalence of shootings and mass shootings in particular.
  #199  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:26 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,865
I think it's undeniably true that American popular culture has romanticized violence and particularly gun violence, in many different forms. But that existed in the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s, especially the latter which saw a profusion of action movies featuring violence at a level that had been unprecedented before. But there weren't constant mass shootings then as there are now.
  #200  
Old 05-13-2019, 05:28 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Saying the 2nd was part of the constitution doesn't really make sense in this context.
Yes, it does. It was the Court's interpretation of the 2nd (with respect to the 14th) in McDonald that overrode the gun control laws in California and elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
You're right, if the interpretations change, then advocacy will continue. So what? That's the case with basically every single thing. Right now in CA, I still can't get a CCW. So you're right that it is about tradeoffs. Until I can get a CCW, I'm willing to blow up all the boxes (figuratively).
That's not about tradeoffs: it's about power and dominance. I personally don't have a problem with you as a responsible gun owner carrying a weapon, but I have a big problem with your being entitled by an outdated constitutional clause to treat your wishes about weapon-carrying as a fundamental inalienable right.

Once we abolish that right, then we can talk honestly about tradeoffs. At present, promoters of gun-rights culture have no incentive to pay any attention to anyone who doesn't support their agenda, much less negotiate tradeoffs with them.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017