Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-12-2019, 05:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think a lot of it comes down to just fundamental different world views. At some point people of your persuasion will throw up their hands and say what's the point. You seem to take it as obvious your point of view, and it is incredulous that anyone could think differently.



Whereas on Friday I talked to a co-worker whose kids go to the school where the shooting took place. He thinks there should be armed guards at every ingress and egress point. That wouldn't necessarily be my tact, but I do think it's worth while understanding that reasonable people can disagree.
Magiver doesn't appear to be willing to admit that guns make it easier to kill people, or that certain guns are more effective at various things than others. Maybe that's a "world view" issue, but it makes discussion much harder.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #102  
Old 05-12-2019, 06:07 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Magiver doesn't appear to be willing to admit that guns make it easier to kill people, or that certain guns are more effective at various things than others. Maybe that's a "world view" issue, but it makes discussion much harder.
And it's also plainly dishonest.
  #103  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:35 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,515
The racial element is irrelevant, the fact is that what he's talking about is street crime and it does bring the homicide rate way up compared to other countries like Canada. And it is socioeconomic, not racial. But yeah, it's true that America's murder rate is driven up by these crimes.

That's separate from school shootings and mass shootings though. The fact of the matter is that we do have mass shootings at an alarming rate. It seems as if there's one every week, or close to it. Maybe not all of them have a high death toll; they still usually wind up injuring other people, and they're also frequently hate crimes targeted at minorities. They dominate the news cycle, they collectively bring down the country's morale and contribute to people feeling less safe.

What's the solution? I don't know. Many people would say that it's to ban guns, and unlike some of the posters who have argued that mass murder would still be committed with weapons other than guns, I doubt it would be anywhere near the same rate. So banning guns WOULD in my opinion be one possible solution. I just don't think that solution is politically very feasible at the current time, and I also think there may be other things that can be done in the absence of it, to address the shootings.

My reason for thinking so, is that the America of the 70s, 80s, and 90s had the same guns, but nowhere NEAR the level of mass shootings that occurs today. Something has changed, but it doesn't seem to be the guns. Yeah, "assault weapons" are more common but pistols have been around forever and they're used in these mass shootings also. Shotguns have also been around forever and they could do horrific damage to a crowded room at close range, but nobody was using them to commit spree shootings decades ago. Something cultural has changed...related to the internet, most likely, the notion of instant fame and notoriety, and the fact that it's more enduring because it's documented online instead of becoming TV-news ephemera. More wayward boys who, instead of being involved in group activities like sports or clubs, spend most of their time alone, could be another cause of it. (It's far easier to spend time alone on the internet, today, than it was before it existed, I'm guessing?)
  #104  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:35 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It's irrelevant to school shootings, and certainly Columbine. Are you claiming most school shootings are done by black students at mostly black schools?
I disagree. You talk about Canada as if it is culturally the same as the US. It is not. You make assumptions that demographics are insulated in the US. They are not.
  #105  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:39 AM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Magiver doesn't appear to be willing to admit that guns make it easier to kill people, or that certain guns are more effective at various things than others. Maybe that's a "world view" issue, but it makes discussion much harder.
You don't seem to be willing to understand that it was easier to kill someone when I was going to school. We could carry knives to school. We had gun clubs.

Yet you attribute the desire to murder to the gun and not the person. You're missing the cause of the event and blaming the tool. It's important to understand this because removing the gun doesn't remove the cause of the event and a gun is a replaceable tool.
  #106  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:48 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think a lot of it comes down to just fundamental different world views. At some point people of your persuasion will throw up their hands and say what's the point. You seem to take it as obvious your point of view, and it is incredulous that anyone could think differently.

Whereas on Friday I talked to a co-worker whose kids go to the school where the shooting took place. He thinks there should be armed guards at every ingress and egress point. That wouldn't necessarily be my tact, but I do think it's worth while understanding that reasonable people can disagree.
There are over 132,000 public schools in the K-12 range in the U.S. So your co-worker's solution would involve between 500,000 and 1,000,000 armed guards. Certainly a nation as rich as this one can afford to pay that many armed guards; the trouble is finding that many with sufficient stability and patience that they don't wind up turning their guns on the 50th student who sasses them.

I would add that this was the POV of a parent. The reason why people of my persuasion aren't going to eventually 'throw up our hands and say what's the point' is that a generation of students has had to undergo being terrrorized by periodic active-shooter drills. And they're asking why it's so important to preserve gun rights that it's worth the cost of having had to routinely bring them face-to-face with the possibility that a shooter might be loose in their school and that they might be on the receiving end of a bullet.

They're still going to be asking this as they move into the age range where they become reliable voters. You're making this shit real to them, whether their school ever has an active shooter or not.
  #107  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You don't seem to be willing to understand that it was easier to kill someone when I was going to school. We could carry knives to school. We had gun clubs.



Yet you attribute the desire to murder to the gun and not the person. You're missing the cause of the event and blaming the tool. It's important to understand this because removing the gun doesn't remove the cause of the event and a gun is a replaceable tool.
None of this actually respond to anything I've said. More straw men. Sad, really. I think I'm writing pretty clearly, but you're just sliding in whatever you want to argue against, which has nothing to do with what I actually said.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #108  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:53 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
You don't seem to be willing to understand that it was easier to kill someone when I was going to school. We could carry knives to school. We had gun clubs.

Yet you attribute the desire to murder to the gun and not the person. You're missing the cause of the event and blaming the tool. It's important to understand this because removing the gun doesn't remove the cause of the event and a gun is a replaceable tool.
When I was going to school, assault rifles weren't a thing. People had handguns and hunting rifles, but the sorts of guns that are suitable for killing a shitload of people in just a few minutes were a rarity.

It's always been pretty easy to kill one or two people you knew, or random people, if you really wanted to do it. The difference between then and now is how easy it is to kill large numbers of people in a short time.
  #109  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:00 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Easier? Do you think theses shootings are about efficiency? These are fantasies played out. The guns are for their excitement and your benefit. thanks to powerful home computers it's life imitating art.


Again, all of this was for their entertainment. If efficiency was their goal it would have been far worse but probably less entertaining. Take away the gun and something else would have been substituted to meet their needs.

Children have always had the capacity to kill. I carried a boy scout knife to school from the 3rd grade on. I made a foot long knife in shop class in high school. The rural schools had gun clubs. I learned to shoot at school (after hours).
Wrong on the second question. On separate occasions, three different cops and a security expert told me the aim of almost all school shooters is a high kill count. While it's possible for a shooter to destroy the lock, it takes time, which means fewer victims, so shooters would almost certainly move on. I kept my classroom door locked at all times for that reason.
  #110  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:47 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I disagree. You talk about Canada as if it is culturally the same as the US. It is not. You make assumptions that demographics are insulated in the US. They are not.
Maybe the aspects of your culture that are different from Canada's are exactly what makes you unable to responsibly use your guns. So if you care about reducing violence, change your culture or lose your guns, obviously.

Or just shrug at the violence level, send "thoughts and prayers" or something comparably useless and carry on.
  #111  
Old 05-12-2019, 01:00 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
When I was going to school, assault rifles weren't a thing. People had handguns and hunting rifles, but the sorts of guns that are suitable for killing a shitload of people in just a few minutes were a rarity.

It's always been pretty easy to kill one or two people you knew, or random people, if you really wanted to do it. The difference between then and now is how easy it is to kill large numbers of people in a short time.
Unless you're pushing 100 years old or so, your anecdote really doesn't hold a lot of water in the bigger US picture. There was a time in the US where unfettered access to true assault rifles, not the neutered semi auto rifles available today, was commonplace. Check this scene from the movie The Highwaymen to see what depression era gun shops looked like. Full auto guns, short barreled shotguns, all sorts of mayhem causing items, available to the general public without forms, background checks, waiting periods, etc. Yet, school shootings did not exist and only "gangsters" and the like caused problems.

Today's semi auto rifles and pistols haven't really changed much in quite some time. Detachable magazines, collapsible stocks, all that nonsense has been commercially available for a couple of generations. It's only in the last 30 years or so has the concept of school shootings become a thing. My point is, it certainly is not the firearms that are driving the trend. They have always been here in one shape or another. The pro gun side tries to make this distinction, but the other side has shown time and time again, that they really don't give a shit. Not singling you out or anything.
  #112  
Old 05-12-2019, 02:18 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think a lot of it comes down to just fundamental different world views. At some point people of your persuasion will throw up their hands and say what's the point. You seem to take it as obvious your point of view, and it is incredulous that anyone could think differently.

Whereas on Friday I talked to a co-worker whose kids go to the school where the shooting took place. He thinks there should be armed guards at every ingress and egress point. That wouldn't necessarily be my tact, but I do think it's worth while understanding that reasonable people can disagree.
At this point, armed security guards in schools are not a bad idea at all. Schools in my area already have that in place. Often, there are police officers on duty during school hours. Their cars are parked in plain view to serve as a warning to would be school shooters.

I'm for much stricter restrictions on gun ownership and I don't disagree with your co-worker because this is what it's come to. Schools have now become policed areas precisely because access to guns is so readily available to the average individual living in the US.

And yes, I am incredulous that gun rights advocates can't/don't/won't see the obvious problem. So who exactly is being unreasonable?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #113  
Old 05-12-2019, 03:40 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Unless you're pushing 100 years old or so, your anecdote really doesn't hold a lot of water in the bigger US picture. There was a time in the US where unfettered access to true assault rifles, not the neutered semi auto rifles available today, was commonplace. Check this scene from the movie The Highwaymen to see what depression era gun shops looked like. Full auto guns, short barreled shotguns, all sorts of mayhem causing items, available to the general public without forms, background checks, waiting periods, etc. Yet, school shootings did not exist and only "gangsters" and the like caused problems.
Yes, I'm aware that there was an era where fully automatic weapons were available. Not sure of your point.
Quote:
Today's semi auto rifles and pistols haven't really changed much in quite some time. Detachable magazines, collapsible stocks, all that nonsense has been commercially available for a couple of generations. It's only in the last 30 years or so has the concept of school shootings become a thing. My point is, it certainly is not the firearms that are driving the trend. They have always been here in one shape or another. The pro gun side tries to make this distinction, but the other side has shown time and time again, that they really don't give a shit. Not singling you out or anything.
Maybe all that shit was available, but for whatever reason, it wasn't a thing.

Tell me, how many of those things were sold back in, say, 1966 when Charles Whitman went on his (sniper rifle) rampage, versus how many have been sold annually over the past 15 years since the assault rifle ban ended?
  #114  
Old 05-12-2019, 04:01 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
At this point, armed security guards in schools are not a bad idea at all. Schools in my area already have that in place. Often, there are police officers on duty during school hours. Their cars are parked in plain view to serve as a warning to would be school shooters.

I'm for much stricter restrictions on gun ownership and I don't disagree with your co-worker because this is what it's come to. Schools have now become policed areas precisely because access to guns is so readily available to the average individual living in the US.

And yes, I am incredulous that gun rights advocates can't/don't/won't see the obvious problem. So who exactly is being unreasonable?
My bold. Looking at gun laws in the US, what do you think has changed in the last 30-40 years? At the Federal level, the purchase process has remained more or less the same since the Gun Control Act of 1968. This established the FFL dealer system, the form 4473, multiple bans on "non sporting" firearms and many other restrictions that are still in place.

Since then, additional import bans have been implemented, mandatory NICS background checks from FFL dealers were added, more firearms were either banned outright or moved from the ability to be purchased by the general public.

Your assertion is that guns are more readily available now. Mine is that if anything, guns were far more easy to obtain with little to no Federal or State interference when school shootings simply did not happen. In your opinion what is the obvious problem that I, as a gun rights advocate, am missing?

To be specific, looking at the incident that inspired this thread, the shooters obtained three handguns and a rifle. They were stolen from the locked case of the older of the two shooter's parents. Details are still a bit sketchy but lets go with that.

To do so, multiple state and Federal laws were broken including illegal possession, illegal concealment as they hid the guns in a guitar case, and of course multiple incidents of attempted murder, etc. There were plenty of laws and restrictions in place to stop exactly what happened yet two individuals flaunted those laws and proceeded to kill one and wound another 7 or 8. You are all for tighter restrictions on gun ownership, but these shooters had absolutely NO rights to own, possess or use the firearms that they employed. The obvious problem that I see is that these two waived a middle finger to the laws on the books and decided to cause mayhem regardless of the cost to the victims. Again, what am I missing?
  #115  
Old 05-12-2019, 04:36 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yes, I'm aware that there was an era where fully automatic weapons were available. Not sure of your point. Maybe all that shit was available, but for whatever reason, it wasn't a thing.
Exactly. All of that hardware with little or no restrictions for possession or ownership but it wasn't a thing. Why is that? What changed? I simply don't know.

Quote:
Tell me, how many of those things were sold back in, say, 1966 when Charles Whitman went on his (sniper rifle) rampage, versus how many have been sold annually over the past 15 years since the assault rifle ban ended?
Due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the true assault rifle sales were significantly curtailed, and in many states essentially banned. Whitman used a couple semi auto rifles one of which would be considered an assault weapon today by some, along with another .22 semi auto, a hunting rifle and a shotgun.

Regarding assault rifles, a ban never existed nor did it expire. In 1986 any new sales of NFA assault rifles were banned for civilians and a registry was created for civilian ownership that tracks the transfers or destruction of the firearms that have been registered.

If you want to talk about the assault "weapon" (AW) ban that was implemented in 1994, it is impossible to tell because unless you think there is a material difference in a semi auto rifle equipped with a flash hider that makes it an AW and that same weapon without a flash hider does not make it an AW nothing was ever banned, no production or sales ever stopped other than for specific cosmetic configurations.

During the ban years (94-2004) I was able to buy any semi auto rifle I wanted as long as it met a few non functional limits imposed by the legislation or if it was built prior to 1994. As the ban expired in 2004, those cosmetic restrictions were removed and production and sales continued as had been for the previous 10 years.

Regarding sales since 2004? It's hard to say. I've read that there are 15-20 million semi auto guns in circulation today that would qualify as AWs. And for the record, all shotguns and rifles combined, not just the semi auto rifles that could qualify under any number of definition of an AW, are used in less than 700 deaths annually on average.
  #116  
Old 05-12-2019, 06:42 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
My point is, it certainly is not the firearms that are driving the trend. They have always been here in one shape or another. The pro gun side tries to make this distinction, but the other side has shown time and time again, that they really don't give a shit.
This is a ridiculously specious argument. In order for tragic gun violence to happen, two factors are required. One is the ready availability of guns. The other is the human factor: societal stresses, anger, hate, fear, jealousy, the quest for revenge, and so on. The sort of thing that is, always has been, and always will be part of the human condition, though the degree of it varies from person to person and from one historical time period to another. As Rebecca Peters, a former Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence, once said: "If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often. This has to be treated as a public health emergency."

As a society we do what we can about the human factor, but much of it is essentially impossible to predict and manage. Whereas gun control is a well-bounded and manageable objective, and as all other civilized nations have discovered, an extremely important one. This fact should be self-evident to everyone, but the pro-gun side has shown time and time again that they really don't give a shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
... There were plenty of laws and restrictions in place to stop exactly what happened yet two individuals flaunted those laws and proceeded to kill one and wound another 7 or 8. You are all for tighter restrictions on gun ownership, but these shooters had absolutely NO rights to own, possess or use the firearms that they employed. The obvious problem that I see is that these two waived a middle finger to the laws on the books and decided to cause mayhem regardless of the cost to the victims. Again, what am I missing?
You're missing the fact that, unlike other nations, the US is totally awash in guns. They're everywhere. They're so incredibly ubiquitous that people are leaving them lying around, forgetting them and even losing them. Kids are finding them and shooting each other. The US has a goddam gun epidemic. In such a situation, it's hardly surprising that anybody and his dog can get a gun whether they're allowed to have one or not.

And, not to get all nitpicky or anything, but they didn't "flaunt" laws, they flouted them. And they didn't "waive" their middle finger at the laws, they may have "waved" it.
  #117  
Old 05-12-2019, 06:56 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Bullshit. We can ban handguns if we really wanted to. We won't, but we can. It's gotten beyond bizarre that this news is not surprising.
The Constitution sez otherwise.

And in fact, since the shooter apparently broke into a locked gun safe to get the guns, pretty much no gun law proposed in the USA would have prevented this.

According to several studies, the cause in the rise of school shootings is media attention. If we muzzled the media that would cut down drastically on school shootings.
  #118  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:04 PM
Superdude is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,375
I don't think it's too much to think that expanded background checks, a ban if you have an EPO within the last five years, and another assault weapons ban (waived upon approval from local law enforcement) aren't too much to ask for.

Of course, we'll get none of those, because the gun-worshipers are somehow convinced that they NEED access to military surplus-grade weapons to feel better about themselves and their precious little psyches. They seem to think that something called an "amendment" can't be altered, despite the name of it literally meaning to change or edit.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #119  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:04 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Killing people without a gun is harder than killing people with a gun. Killing multiple people is even harder. And certain guns are more effective at killing in different circumstances. That's one of the reasons why so many gun-owners want them for self-defense -- it's easier to kill a potential murderer/rapist with a gun than without one.

Do you dispute any of this? If not, then what's your point?
Not a single Democratic candidate is even suggesting the level of Gun control that would have prevented this shooting.
  #120  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:17 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
U...
.... It's only in the last 30 years or so has the concept of school shootings become a thing. ....
Yep, the media:


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...0.2007.00008.x
  #121  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:22 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yes, I'm aware that there was an era where fully automatic weapons were available. Not sure of your point. Maybe all that shit was available, but for whatever reason, it wasn't a thing.

Tell me, how many of those things were sold back in, say, 1966 when Charles Whitman went on his (sniper rifle) rampage, versus how many have been sold annually over the past 15 years since the assault rifle ban ended?
Almost no fully auto weapons have been sold.
  #122  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:23 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
...

Regarding assault rifles, a ban never existed nor did it expire. In 1986 any new sales of NFA assault rifles were banned for civilians and a registry was created for civilian ownership that tracks the transfers or destruction of the firearms that have been registered.

If you want to talk about the assault "weapon" (AW) ban that was implemented in 1994, it is impossible to tell because unless you think there is a material difference in a semi auto rifle equipped with a flash hider that makes it an AW and that same weapon without a flash hider does not make it an AW nothing was ever banned, no production or sales ever stopped other than for specific cosmetic configurations.

During the ban years (94-2004) I was able to buy any semi auto rifle I wanted as long as it met a few non functional limits imposed by the legislation or if it was built prior to 1994. As the ban expired in 2004, those cosmetic restrictions were removed and production and sales continued as had been for the previous 10 years.
...
Pretty much they have been banned in California.
  #123  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:26 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is a ridiculously specious argument. In order for tragic gun violence to happen, two factors are required. One is the ready availability of guns. The other is the human factor: societal stresses, anger, hate, fear, jealousy, the quest for revenge, and so on. ....
...
Sure, but that's a tautology. In order for tragic gun violence to happen,...there must be guns. But tragic violence can & will happen without guns.
  #124  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:30 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I don't think it's too much to think that expanded background checks, a ban if you have an EPO within the last five years, and another assault weapons ban (waived upon approval from local law enforcement) aren't too much to ask for.

Of course, we'll get none of those, because the gun-worshipers are somehow convinced that they NEED access to military surplus-grade weapons to feel better about themselves and their precious little psyches. They seem to think that something called an "amendment" can't be altered, despite the name of it literally meaning to change or edit.
EPO?

The "gun worshipers' are about 5% of the gun owning public. They have very little power. The other 75 Million gun owners in America are pretty much normal responsible people, many of whom are democrats.

And the only "military surplus-grade weapons " that were commonly sold were WW2 and prior bolt action rifles.

Sure the 2nd can be gotten rid of. Do you really want people messing around with the Bill of Rights? Very bad things could come out of it.
  #125  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:38 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I think a lot of it comes down to just fundamental different world views. At some point people of your persuasion will throw up their hands and say what's the point. You seem to take it as obvious your point of view, and it is incredulous that anyone could think differently.
Yes, reasonable people can disagree. One little problem, though: you have not given a reason that the disagreeing party (Magiver, per the post you were replying to) is in fact being reasonable. It doens't work the other way: disagreement does not always mean reasonable people.

This thread is, in fact, full of arguments showing that Magiver is not being reasonable. He's being unreasonable by even a pro-gun supporter's standards. He's disagreeing with the fact (not opinion) that guns can kill more people more quickly. He doesn't get why removing guns (if it could be done successfully) would stop school shootings.

What you are doing is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). The statement is that reasonable people can disagree. In other words, if people are reasonable, they are may disagree. This reverse does not hold: If people may disagree, then they are reasonable.*

Quote:
Whereas on Friday I talked to a co-worker whose kids go to the school where the shooting took place. He thinks there should be armed guards at every ingress and egress point. That wouldn't necessarily be my tact, but I do think it's worth while understanding that reasonable people can disagree.
And you run into the problem again. You haven't even argued that this guy's "tact" is a reasonable one. You've just assumed it as such.

In fact, the man's statement, while understandable, is not reasonable. Regardless of your opinion on gun control, there are not enough people to arm all schools to this degree. There aren't even enough to arm every school, period. The logistics don't work.

He is a distraught father reeling in anger at how unsafe our school children are. It's understandable that he may come up with some ideas that don't work. While we should not dismiss arguments simply because he is close to the situation, we should also not privilege his arguments.

In summation, you have not actually established any of the actual points you made. You haven't provided any evidence of people ignoring reasonable ideas because they disagree. You have not established that "people of your persuasion" actually have done anything wrong.

Last edited by BigT; 05-12-2019 at 07:41 PM.
  #126  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:44 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Unless you're pushing 100 years old or so, your anecdote really doesn't hold a lot of water in the bigger US picture. There was a time in the US where unfettered access to true assault rifles, not the neutered semi auto rifles available today, was commonplace. Check this scene from the movie The Highwaymen to see what depression era gun shops looked like. Full auto guns, short barreled shotguns, all sorts of mayhem causing items, available to the general public without forms, background checks, waiting periods, etc. Yet, school shootings did not exist and only "gangsters" and the like caused problems.

Today's semi auto rifles and pistols haven't really changed much in quite some time. Detachable magazines, collapsible stocks, all that nonsense has been commercially available for a couple of generations. It's only in the last 30 years or so has the concept of school shootings become a thing. My point is, it certainly is not the firearms that are driving the trend. They have always been here in one shape or another. The pro gun side tries to make this distinction, but the other side has shown time and time again, that they really don't give a shit. Not singling you out or anything.
That all may be very well true but it still does not negate the fact that getting rid of them is a solution to the problem. You get that right?
  #127  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:54 PM
Superdude is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
EPO?



The "gun worshipers' are about 5% of the gun owning public. They have very little power. The other 75 Million gun owners in America are pretty much normal responsible people, many of whom are democrats.



And the only "military surplus-grade weapons " that were commonly sold were WW2 and prior bolt action rifles.



Sure the 2nd can be gotten rid of. Do you really want people messing around with the Bill of Rights? Very bad things could come out of it.
I never said anything about getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. I support the right to bear arms, and there are guns in my house.

I was thinking more in terms of banning some sorts of weapons. We have restrictions on the 2nd Amendment anyway. You can't buy an ICBM for your home defense. Can't buy a tank to drive to work.

People act like that amendment is unalterable. I'm just pointing out that it's not.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #128  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:56 PM
Superdude is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,375
Sorry for double-post.

EPO = Emergency Protection Order. Essentially, a restraining order.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #129  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:05 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
EPO?

The "gun worshipers' are about 5% of the gun owning public.
If this is true, it is irrelevant. The term "gun worshipers" is a (admittedly derogatory) term for people who refuse any and all form of gun control, regardless of other concerns. They put gun rights above most other concerns, i.e. like an object of worship. This at the very least describes the NRA, given their stated positions. And the NRA does in fact only account for about 7% of the gun owning public.

Problem is, what matters isn't raw numbers, but political power. And the NRA has political power in this country, as they are aligned with the majority party of the US. Even when a minority, they have enough supporters in government to make passing any gun control laws very difficult, even if they are the laws that the majority of the public support.

If only 7% of gun owners are gun worshipers, as you claim, then this shouldn't be the case. That would mean 93% of people either don't care or actively are for some increase in gun control. That should be a slam dunk in Congress and get passed right way by even Trump. (It would make him look good, so he'd do it.)

When that happens, I'll accept that these "gun worshipers" are that heavily outnumbered. For now, I'll accept they aren't the majority, but I won't accept they aren't large enough to be preventing progress on this issue.

Last edited by BigT; 05-12-2019 at 08:07 PM.
  #130  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:41 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Whereas gun control is a well-bounded and manageable objective, and as all other civilized nations have discovered, an extremely important one.
I really wish people could have this conversation without classifying countries as "civilized", implying that other countries are uncivilized. It drives me up the wall. Different countries have different strengths and weaknesses, and struggle with different problems, but all of humanity is civilized, whether it's an urban city or small tribe in a rural area.
  #131  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:44 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The Constitution sez otherwise.

And in fact, since the shooter apparently broke into a locked gun safe to get the guns, pretty much no gun law proposed in the USA would have prevented this.

According to several studies, the cause in the rise of school shootings is media attention. If we muzzled the media that would cut down drastically on school shootings.
It turns out that's in the Constitution, too.
  #132  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:12 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
That all may be very well true but it still does not negate the fact that getting rid of them is a solution to the problem. You get that right?
Certainly. If you had a magic wand and could get rid of all the 300 millions guns in private hands in this nation by a wave, gun violence and school shootings would drastically decrease. Until people made more, which you can in any decent shop. But how much would violence and school killings decrease, after the initial shock?
  #133  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:15 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I never said anything about getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. I support the right to bear arms, and there are guns in my house.

I was thinking more in terms of banning some sorts of weapons. We have restrictions on the 2nd Amendment anyway. You can't buy an ICBM for your home defense. Can't buy a tank to drive to work.

People act like that amendment is unalterable. I'm just pointing out that it's not.
Sure. What would you like to ban?

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-12-2019 at 09:15 PM.
  #134  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:21 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But how much would violence and school killings decrease, after the initial shock?
Yes, that part is unknowable. I agree we can disagree on that point and still have an honest debate.
  #135  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:35 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
If this is true, it is irrelevant. The term "gun worshipers" is a (admittedly derogatory) term for people who refuse any and all form of gun control, regardless of other concerns. They put gun rights above most other concerns, i.e. like an object of worship. This at the very least describes the NRA, given their stated positions. And the NRA does in fact only account for about 7% of the gun owning public.

Problem is, what matters isn't raw numbers, but political power. And the NRA has political power in this country, as they are aligned with the majority party of the US. Even when a minority, they have enough supporters in government to make passing any gun control laws very difficult, even if they are the laws that the majority of the public support.

If only 7% of gun owners are gun worshipers, as you claim, then this shouldn't be the case. That would mean 93% of people either don't care or actively are for some increase in gun control. That should be a slam dunk in Congress and get passed right way by even Trump. (It would make him look good, so he'd do it.)

When that happens, I'll accept that these "gun worshipers" are that heavily outnumbered. For now, I'll accept they aren't the majority, but I won't accept they aren't large enough to be preventing progress on this issue.
The NRA is aligned with the GOP, whether or not that's the majority party is debatable. The NRA hasnt a tenth of the power peopel think it has.

No, it's means that 93% of gun owners dont want their guns banned. They are Ok with banning bump stocks are they have never used one, and never owned one. They can be brought in to ban "assault weapons" but the "gun grabbers" have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, trying all sorts of funny "slippery slope" tricks to ban THEIR guns. Like recently defining "assault weapons" as all semi-automatic weapons, despite that fact that somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of all guns in the USA are semi-autos including many deer rifles, duck shotguns, and home defense pistols. So, they have read that thing Niemöller:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

First they came for the Assault weapons, and i did not speak out, because I didn't own one......

See, there are some 70-100 million adults of voting age in the USA that own guns. Many are democrats, even. But when the "gun grabbers' pull crappy tricks like in CA:

The Assault weapons ban: You could keep them, if you registered them. Oh, but the Sheriffs office has run out of forms, so you can't register your gun? Ok, we will give you an extension- Psych! Nope, all those are now illegal and confiscated. Oh and when you die- your family can't sell that gun, the state conficastes it and destroys it, with no recompense.

Oh, it's not a 'assault weapon" if the magazine needs to be removed by a tool? Cool, we will just make guns with a magazine that removes with a very simple tool- such as a bullet. No, we will make that illegal too. Turn them in.

Microstamping? The CA two mark method is technologically impossible? Doesn't matter, we will now ban the sale of any new models of guns that dont have the impossible thing.

So those other, non "gun nut" non-NRA gun owners are suspicious of any gun law.
  #136  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:37 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It turns out that's in the Constitution, too.
Yeah, how about that.
  #137  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:20 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah, how about that.
So while you are trying to lecture people on one amendment, please don't bother suggesting solutions that run afoul of another, more important one.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #138  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:30 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
That all may be very well true but it still does not negate the fact that getting rid of them is a solution to the problem. You get that right?
And it's already been determined, via the courts that is not going to happen. You get that right?
  #139  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:36 PM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Guns do not enable you to defend yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I think most police officer's would disagree with you. They are quite effective in self defense.
Magiver, here in the UK, the beat police do not carry guns. That's over 100,000 police officers that disagree with you.

In addition, after a gunman killed schoolchildren and a teacher in Scotland in 1996, the UK banned handguns; no school shootings have taken place there since.
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
  #140  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:40 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So while you are trying to lecture people on one amendment, please don't bother suggesting solutions that run afoul of another, more important one.
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.
  #141  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:56 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
.
In addition, after a gunman killed schoolchildren and a teacher in Scotland in 1996, the UK banned handguns; no school shootings have taken place there since.
How many took place before? None

So the Uk had exactly one mass school shooting in the last century.

So altho technically you are right- that no mass school shooting have taken place after the Dunblane massacre, which started the push to ban handguns, none took place before that.

It's like the man who runs the noses of the lion outside the British Library- by doing so he keep lions out of the UK. Have there been any recent wild lion attacks in the UK? See? Ipso facto.

of course the Cumbria shootings took place afterwards, the guns bans didnt stop a dozen people from being gunned down. But they werent in a school.

And of course all the Killings in Ireland, even tho part of it is part of GB- aren't counted, you know.
  #142  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:58 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,449
N/M

Last edited by JXJohns; 05-12-2019 at 10:59 PM.
  #143  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:59 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
It is interesting how many people are willing to tear out part of the Bill of Rights because, well, they dont own guns, so let's get rid of them. Some posters here on the SDMB have claimed it's perfectly Ok to speak freely to the police during questioning since 'they were not guilty of any crimes"...

But yeah, who cares about the gun owners and their rights?'

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
"Niemöller
  #144  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:11 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
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?
  #145  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:20 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Magiver doesn't appear to be willing to admit that guns make it easier to kill people, or that certain guns are more effective at various things than others. Maybe that's a "world view" issue, but it makes discussion much harder.
Perhaps. I've long said that anything that makes firearms more useful for defense would make them useful for offense too. That's just part and parcel of the deal as they are a force multiplier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
As a society we do what we can about the human factor, but much of it is essentially impossible to predict and manage. Whereas gun control is a well-bounded and manageable objective, and as all other civilized nations have discovered, an extremely important one. This fact should be self-evident to everyone, but the pro-gun side has shown time and time again that they really don't give a shit.


You're missing the fact that, unlike other nations, the US is totally awash in guns. They're everywhere. They're so incredibly ubiquitous that people are leaving them lying around, forgetting them and even losing them. Kids are finding them and shooting each other. The US has a goddam gun epidemic. In such a situation, it's hardly surprising that anybody and his dog can get a gun whether they're allowed to have one or not.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I don't think it's too much to think that expanded background checks, a ban if you have an EPO within the last five years, and another assault weapons ban (waived upon approval from local law enforcement) aren't too much to ask for.

Of course, we'll get none of those, because the gun-worshipers are somehow convinced that they NEED access to military surplus-grade weapons to feel better about themselves and their precious little psyches. They seem to think that something called an "amendment" can't be altered, despite the name of it literally meaning to change or edit.
First - these aren't military surplus grade weapons. I know you may believe it to be so, but it's not. And what would your proposals do related to this incident? Will your proposal stop firearms from being stolen and used for nefarious purposes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And you run into the problem again. You haven't even argued that this guy's "tact" is a reasonable one. You've just assumed it as such.
I'm just going to respond to this part, because it applies to your whole post. I haven't assumed anything. I suggest you re-read my post that you are replying to based on the words that are there, rather than what you think is there. The rest of your post is also pretty far out there since it's based on nothing I've said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
That all may be very well true but it still does not negate the fact that getting rid of them is a solution to the problem. You get that right?
Sure. There are 300M+ firearms out there. Do you think those should be confiscated? I may have enough for my progeny for the next several hundred years. Should those be confiscated?
  #146  
Old 05-12-2019, 11:20 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
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.
  #147  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:05 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It is interesting how many people are willing to tear out part of the Bill of Rights because, well, they dont own guns, so let's get rid of them.
I don't think your description is accurate. For example, I personally don't have a problem with legal reasonably regulated gun ownership, but I support repealing the Second Amendment. I am not impressed by all the finger-wagging about potential slippery slopes to fascist tyranny, because I think that the Second Amendment is obsolete and purposeless in a modern society in ways that aren't true for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I don't want to get rid of guns (though I certainly think we should regulate them better): I want to get rid of the delusional paranoiacs who create "gun rights culture" in this country. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with people liking guns and liking to own and shoot guns, as long as they do so responsibly. But I think there's a whole lot wrong with self-described "patriots" constructing elaborate political-masturbatory fantasies about how their possession of guns means they are a bulwark against tyranny and an essential protector of the nation's fundamental liberties and so forth.

Defense-of-liberties-wise, they ain't shit, and any truly motivated tyrants could roll right over them whenever they chose. Their gun ownership is a hobby for their own enjoyment, and to a more limited extent a practical measure for personal self-defense against crime. And there's nothing wrong with that.

What is a problem is their reckless disregard of reasonable safety measures because such measures might interfere with their adored self-image of themselves and their guns as Crucial Defenders of Freedom and similar bullshit. The Second Amendment is what supports their dangerous and destructive delusions, so the Second Amendment should go. The guns themselves, or at least many of them, can stay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Deth
But yeah, who cares about the gun owners and their rights?'

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."Niemöller
This sort of self-glorifying victim-culture whining is exactly the kind of dangerously inflated pomposity I'm talking about. I personally care quite a lot about the rights of gun owners, but I think their currently recognized constitutional right to own firearms is ridiculously archaic and should be abolished. I remain completely skeptical about their self-serving doom-laden prophecies that fixing this old legacy bug in the Constitution will necessarily result in the removal of other rights that still actually serve a socially useful purpose.
  #148  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:34 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,476
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.
  #149  
Old 05-13-2019, 06:12 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Certainly. If you had a magic wand and could get rid of all the 300 millions guns in private hands in this nation by a wave, gun violence and school shootings would drastically decrease. Until people made more, which you can in any decent shop. But how much would violence and school killings decrease, after the initial shock?
Probably an enormous amount. Guns are very powerful weapons, an order of magnitude more powerful than any other weapon a person can get their hands on. They are lightweight, portable, ranged weapons that can kill with a single attack.

Will people still commit violence? Of course they will, they're people. They'll just commit that violence with far less powerful weapons.
  #150  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:10 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sure. There are 300M+ firearms out there. Do you think those should be confiscated? I may have enough for my progeny for the next several hundred years. Should those be confiscated?
No, there is no good short term solution that is acceptable to the American public or possible under the present constitution.
I also get that your particular guns are probably never going to be killing innocent humans and I think we should take that into account. Any solution would have to be a long term evolution over generations and should not be indiscriminate.
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 12:04 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017