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.
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.
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.
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.
Pre-McDonald California is a good indicator of what happens without a robust 2nd amendment. No thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.