Tony_Tarantula on 22/1/2018 at 23:10
Two points:
A: America doesn't exactly have the best history with confiscation/banning efforts. The first notable attempt was prohibition which resulted in the emergence of sprawling organized crime networks, handed the mafia control of major port cities, and was largely ineffective. The second attempt was the "War on drugs" which turned multiple latin american countries into failed Narco states and war zones, ushered in an era of unchecked police brutality and abuse, led to the era of militarized and violent thugs being "cops", and once again was almost completely ineffective at actually stopping guns.
The most likely outcome of actual hard bans is that we make gun smugglers rich. It's already much easier to get your hands on things like grenade launchers and machine guns with a felony conviction than without (because the people that sell them won't speak to you unless you're a felon).
B: There's one huge unspoken problem: The American government's own gun running and arms dealing operations results in a huge flow of arms back onto American streets. Forget fast and furious because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to providing various insurgent and rebel groups weapons all the way back to the Reagan era with Iran Contra being the most famous such event but by no means the most recent nor the most significant.
Quote:
ffox's chart says it all; the fact that there's a problem is undeniable. To me, in a situation like this, the responsible thing would be to man up and work towards changing this culture. But all we get is bitching and moaning.
Then start by boycotting Hollywood movies that glamorize violence and degeneracy. You won't get cultural change until the current media establishment collapses entirely.
heywood on 22/1/2018 at 23:36
Quote Posted by N'Al
Did xStevieNx post those misleading stats deliberately or cause she didn't know any better, is the question. For lack of anything to the contrary I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Still, it does illustrate something that I just don't get in this matter:
There hardly ever seem to be any self-proclaimed responsible gun owners putting forward actual policy suggestions on how to tackle this problem (catbarf is a refreshing exception). Instead, it's always all about false equivalences and "It's not me, it's all the other guys!"
ffox's chart says it all; the fact that there's a problem is
undeniable. To me, in a situation like this, the
responsible thing would be to man up and work towards changing this culture. But all we get is bitching and moaning.
I own a handful of guns, but none of them are for personal protection and I don't carry even though I'm legally allowed to. So when the discussion turns to what you need or don't need for personal protection, I usually don't have much to contribute. I have participated in discussions about gun control from a wider perspective, but I usually find these discussions tend to become bipolar and non-constructive. I think there is a silent majority of gun owners in the US who tend to avoid debating the topic online because of the way the discussions typically go.
Here are a few pet peeves that dampen my enthusiasm for joining these discussions:
When considering gun control measures, it's counter-productive to start by offering an opinion about what you think a gun owner needs or what you think the justifiable purposes for owning a gun are. Because gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected civil right in the US, it is not the responsibility of gun owners to convince others why they need certain types of arms. It is the responsibility of gun control advocates to justify gun control measures based on the public safety benefit.
I think it's a waste of time to continue debating the rate of gun deaths in the US vs. other countries. Everybody knows the US has a higher rate of gun deaths than other developed countries. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation between the number of guns in the US per capita and the number of gun deaths per capita. It is pointless for gun owners to argue that they aren't connected. It is also a pointless fantasy to suggest that the US could model gun control on what other countries do.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that having civilians carry while they go about their daily business will stop crime. There are a small number of anecdotal stories around, but nothing that will put a dent in crime rates. Carrying a gun does not make you a cop. No matter how much range time you have and how well practiced you are, you're not trained in law enforcement.
And my #1 pet peeve: there's way too much focus on mass shootings. Discussions usually spring up following a mass shooting and/or center on weapons used by mass shooters. The problem I have with this is that mass shootings are relatively rare and are responsible for a very tiny percentage of US gun deaths. Assuming the goal of gun control is to reduce gun deaths, we should be focusing on the leading causes of gun deaths and the guns and circumstances involved. Most gun deaths are suicides. Most gun homicides happen in inner cities and are connected to gangs and the drug market. Most shootings are done with lower capacity handguns.
N'Al on 23/1/2018 at 06:31
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Then start by boycotting Hollywood movies that glamorize violence and degeneracy. You won't get cultural change until the current media establishment collapses entirely.
So your response to this is to stop watching movies. I’m glad you’ve got your priorities straight.
Quote Posted by heywood
I think it's a waste of time to continue debating the rate of gun deaths in the US vs. other countries. Everybody knows the US has a higher rate of gun deaths than other developed countries. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation between the number of guns in the US per capita and the number of gun deaths per capita. It is pointless for gun owners to argue that they aren't connected.
I absolutely agree. Yet that does still seem to happen far too often.
Or, at the very least, an attempt at relativisation of the numbers (again, usually through the use of spurious statistics or false equivalences).
Quote Posted by heywood
It is also a pointless fantasy to suggest that the US could model gun control on what other countries do.
What makes you say that? Because it’s a constitutional issue?
heywood on 23/1/2018 at 12:14
Mostly because of the cultural differences regarding gun ownership.
Although the US has become more socially democratic over its history, especially through the Progressive Era and Great Depression.WWII era, there is still an element of "frontier spirit". Individual liberty and self-reliance are very important to most Americans, and owning a gun is an expression of that.
Another big cultural difference is that most Americans distrust the state. Aside from the cold war, I think it's always been that way. There is certainly the hope that if the government starts to turn towards real authoritarianism, a well armed citizenry will make them think twice before bringing down the jack boots on us.
Renzatic on 23/1/2018 at 23:56
As recent events have shown, if our government were to make a more authoritarian turn, it'd likely happen after some great catastrophe, and would have fairly wide support from certain segments of the voting public.
The best defense against this isn't guns, because, honestly, if it came right down to the worst case scenario imaginable, how much damage could the militias do against the US military were it ever loosed upon them and us? The best defense against it is an educated populace who can recognize when the shit's hitting the fan.
Pyrian on 24/1/2018 at 01:30
Seems to me that the gun nuts and the authoritarians get along just fine.
catbarf on 24/1/2018 at 02:18
Quote Posted by Renzatic
As recent events have shown, if our government were to make a more authoritarian turn, it'd likely happen after some great catastrophe, and would have fairly wide support from certain segments of the voting public.
The best defense against this isn't guns, because, honestly, if it came right down to the worst case scenario imaginable, how much damage could the militias do against the US military were it ever loosed upon them and us? The best defense against it is an educated populace who can recognize when the shit's hitting the fan.
Yeah, I think recent events have shown that the demographic that clings to their guns is pretty okay with authoritarianism if it suits them.
That said, if we want to put on our total hypothetical speculation caps, I don't think the 'a bunch of rednecks could never beat the US military' thing is really valid. There's an article I remember reading- I can dig it up if you'd like, it's kind of tangential to this thread- that basically argued that the point of civilian armament isn't to win through direct force of arms, but to escalate the costs of government action. Sending riot cops to pacify unarmed protesters is politically easy, but sending in the military to open fire on armed protesters will make worldwide news and spur further opposition. The goal isn't to duke it out with US Army regulars so much as to get things to the point where the regulars are defecting of their own accord and the international community intervenes. The premise has some historical basis. I mean, a bunch of goat herders with no chance of ever winning a knock-down drag-out fight successfully influenced our policy in a way beneficial to their goals.
At this point I think it's really all academic, though.
N'Al on 24/1/2018 at 06:32
Quote Posted by heywood
Mostly because of the cultural differences regarding gun ownership.
I’m sorry, heywood, that sounds like a cop out to me. Culture should not be a crutch to justify accepting the status quo.
Starker on 24/1/2018 at 07:26
Quote Posted by Renzatic
As recent events have shown, if our government were to make a more authoritarian turn, it'd likely happen after some great catastrophe, and would have fairly wide support from certain segments of the voting public.
What do you mean,
if? It has been happening for well over a decade now. And like the Snowden leaks show, people are overwhelmingly okay with it or at least apathetic enough to not raise a fuss. Not to mention things like the Guantanamo, the use of torture and extrajudicial killings. If it was a movie, you'd be Bond villains.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Sending riot cops to pacify unarmed protesters is politically easy, but sending in the military to open fire on armed protesters will make worldwide news and spur further opposition.
Not as much as sending in the military to open fire on unarmed protesters would. Kent State was a huge deal. If the protesters are armed, at least the state has some justification.