Gun Violence

[honorentheos]

Firearm ownership is one of the issues that is difficult for me to gauge where I fall since the public conversations on both sides take place far from where I at least think I am. Having grown up around them, getting my blue card in Utah as part of the right-of-passage it was where I grew up, and having served in the military my instinct is to view them like a tool that required a bit of training and care to use properly. And by properly I mean safely. But where does that view align in the discussion on 2nd amendment rights? The idea firearms ownership is a right on which the balance of democracy hangs is bizarre to me. I've share my view multiple times on the board about what I see as the fundamental ideal that made the US the grand experiment in human liberty it has been and it doesn't involve forcing someone to capitulate at gunpoint to anything. But neither do I see responsible ownership to be much of an issue.

That said, we clearly have a problem with both the use and beliefs behind firearms that is unique to the US, and it is at least partially due to the fetishizing of firearms and their association with radical individual liberty. That's a complicated discussion to have with people not interested in complicated topics. Kinda across the board, in my opinion.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

One of my right-wing friends on my morning walk is an older guy who I actually respect quite a bit once you get past politics, and his guns are his life. It's not that he shoots them very often, but somehow, his sense of identity is intertwined with his guns. He's a sportsman, not weekend militia man, and so his guns are an expensive side-by-side 12 and a few other hunting guns and six-shooters. Unlike ldsfaqs, he doesn't riddle deer with .223 rounds. Anytime there's a mass shooting in the news he's in a panic: he's sure they're coming after his guns. I explain to him that nobody is ever going to take his guns. But yeah, there's absolutely no concern over kids dying and so on. I can't remember the details, but there was something about the NRA moving headquarters from NY to Texas a few months ago, and that got a mention among my on-walk right-wingers. Even the right-wing lady who has a heart of gold and has no connection to guns expressed hushed support and prayers for the NRA's move.

I can’t get enough of your right-wing friend-stories. The funny thing is these people don’t actually bother me with regard to their gun fetish. I get there’s an internal paranoia that drives their gun mania, but I view them as generally responsible with their weapons and generally law abiding citizens.

The problem I have with our gun worship in this country is the fact that a good portion of guns are in the hands of complete and utter morons. Literally the day we moved a ‘backpack’ kid (basically a low level dealer working for the cartels) was shot nine times a few blocks from our former home. A few days later some house nearby was shot up with half a dozen rounds. So on and so forth. The stories are endless, and they’re commonplace across our Republic.

So. We’re stuck. We have gun fetishists who fantasize about ‘SHTF’ times and morons who use guns on a whim. *shrugs* Very few people seem to care about the tens of thousands who die every year from gun-related violence. I have the bad habit of viewing my fellow Americans, who don’t openly agitate for secession, as compatriots, so it breaks my soul to know they’re dying in droves. I try to not think about it too much because I’m honestly not sure what the solution is.

eta: Speaking of the devil:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50221083/ca ... police-say

tl;dc - Moron stealing a piece of garbage car decides to shoot the owner because going to prison for attempted murder is worth it. -_-

- Doc

[Gadianton]

Firearm ownership is one of the issues that is difficult for me to gauge where I fall since the public conversations on both sides take place far from where I at least think I am. Having grown up around them, getting my blue card in Utah as part of the right-of-passage it was where I grew up, and having served in the military my instinct is to view them like a tool that required a bit of training and care to use properly. And by properly I mean safely. But where does that view align in the discussion on 2nd amendment rights? The idea firearms ownership is a right on which the balance of democracy hangs is bizarre to me. I've share my view multiple times on the board about what I see as the fundamental ideal that made the US the grand experiment in human liberty it has been and it doesn't involve forcing someone to capitulate at gunpoint to anything. But neither do I see responsible ownership to be much of an issue.

That said, we clearly have a problem with both the use and beliefs behind firearms that is unique to the US, and it is at least partially due to the fetishizing of firearms and their association with radical individual liberty. That's a complicated discussion to have with people not interested in complicated topics. Kinda across the board, in my opinion.

I had that card and took hunters safety. I didn't do military service. I bought a few guns with my paper route and lawn-cutting money. It's a phase I grew out of. just a few years ago I went can shooting in the desert with my largely right-wing co-workers. So the last gun that I've shot is a .50 cal. It all seems so normal.

Any right-winger who fears a government gun roundup is just admitting to themselves that the days of guns as protecting individuals from government are over --- how can the government force it's well-armed citizens to give up their guns?

The 2nd amendment thing I guess is a big deal, but honestly, among my right-wing friends, I don't hear a lot of appeal to the 2nd amendment or their guns as a token of their liberty. There is a huge hobby factor and really, guns as toys is similar to muscle cars as toys, or even golf clubs. People can get into gun stats, gun performance, just like they get into how fast a car goes zero to sixty, and there's as many gun hobby magazines as there are car magazines. It's just that with guns, there's this huge, overshadowing externality involved, which is something the founding fathers doubtfully could have anticipated.

[honorentheos]

I had that card and took hunters safety. I didn't do military service. I bought a few guns with my paper route and lawn-cutting money. It's a phase I grew out of. just a few years ago I went can shooting in the desert with my largely right-wing co-workers. So the last gun that I've shot is a .50 cal. It all seems so normal.

Any right-winger who fears a government gun roundup is just admitting to themselves that the days of guns as protecting individuals from government are over --- how can the government force it's well-armed citizens to give up their guns?

The 2nd amendment thing I guess is a big deal, but honestly, among my right-wing friends, I don't hear a lot of appeal to the 2nd amendment or their guns as a token of their liberty. There is a huge hobby factor and really, guns as toys is similar to muscle cars as toys, or even golf clubs. People can get into gun stats, gun performance, just like they get into how fast a car goes zero to sixty, and there's as many gun hobby magazines as there are car magazines. It's just that with guns, there's this huge, overshadowing externality involved, which is something the founding fathers doubtfully could have anticipated.

This captures what I find slightly bewildering about the gun control debate. I look at it and see common ground for gun enthusiasts and hobbyists who, with different motives, would seem to share lots of space with people who aren't gun owners themselves but just want to see common sense gun laws enacted. Stripped of it's history, it seems like believing middle ground could be found here that benefited everyone would be the easiest sell imaginable. Yet, it's straight up war and fear-mongering at it's most extreme.

I don't get it.

[Gunnar]

I can't help getting the impression that to some hard right conservatives, what the 2nd Amendment really means is the right to shoot or threaten to shoot anyone who doesn't share one's own hard right or white nationalist political convictions. Take Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, who seems to advocate exercising her "2nd Amendment right" against anyone coming to her door advocating vaccination against covid-19 or (probably) any political view (especially progressive or liberal) with which she disagrees.

[Atlanticmike]

I had that card and took hunters safety. I didn't do military service. I bought a few guns with my paper route and lawn-cutting money. It's a phase I grew out of. just a few years ago I went can shooting in the desert with my largely right-wing co-workers. So the last gun that I've shot is a .50 cal. It all seems so normal.

Any right-winger who fears a government gun roundup is just admitting to themselves that the days of guns as protecting individuals from government are over --- how can the government force it's well-armed citizens to give up their guns?

The 2nd amendment thing I guess is a big deal, but honestly, among my right-wing friends, I don't hear a lot of appeal to the 2nd amendment or their guns as a token of their liberty. There is a huge hobby factor and really, guns as toys is similar to muscle cars as toys, or even golf clubs. People can get into gun stats, gun performance, just like they get into how fast a car goes zero to sixty, and there's as many gun hobby magazines as there are car magazines. It's just that with guns, there's this huge, overshadowing externality involved, which is something the founding fathers doubtfully could have anticipated.

This captures what I find slightly bewildering about the gun control debate. I look at it and see common ground for gun enthusiasts and hobbyists who, with different motives, would seem to share lots of space with people who aren't gun owners themselves but just want to see common sense gun laws enacted. Stripped of it's history, it seems like believing middle ground could be found here that benefited everyone would be the easiest sell imaginable. Yet, it's straight up war and fear-mongering at it's most extreme.

I don't get it.

I probably have more guns than the Virginia national guard. My whole family shoots. I bought a press so I could press in and remove ak47 barrels on the guns I build. I could build an AR with my eyes closed. With all that said, I can't shoot worth a damn . My wife and kids can out shoot me with no problem. So if you guys want to ask a gun nut any questions here's your opportunity.

[Gunnar]

I have rarely fired a gun, and have never owned one (or wanted to). When I was in the USAF, though, I was periodically required to familiarize and refamiliarize myself with and fire M-16 rifles, and I can't honestly say that got no enjoyment from doing so. I apparently have some aptitude for it, because every time I did, I qualified for the USAF marksmanship ribbon. I got some measure of satisfaction from that. I guess the M-16 must be particularly easy to aim and shoot, though, because I didn't do quite as well the one time I was given an M-1 Garand rifle (or was it an M-2 carbine, I'm not sure I remember which) to fire instead of an M-16.

[Atlanticmike]

Firearm ownership is one of the issues that is difficult for me to gauge where I fall since the public conversations on both sides take place far from where I at least think I am. Having grown up around them, getting my blue card in Utah as part of the right-of-passage it was where I grew up, and having served in the military my instinct is to view them like a tool that required a bit of training and care to use properly. And by properly I mean safely. But where does that view align in the discussion on 2nd amendment rights? The idea firearms ownership is a right on which the balance of democracy hangs is bizarre to me. I've share my view multiple times on the board about what I see as the fundamental ideal that made the US the grand experiment in human liberty it has been and it doesn't involve forcing someone to capitulate at gunpoint to anything. But neither do I see responsible ownership to be much of an issue.

That said, we clearly have a problem with both the use and beliefs behind firearms that is unique to the US, and it is at least partially due to the fetishizing of firearms and their association with radical individual liberty. That's a complicated discussion to have with people not interested in complicated topics. Kinda across the board, in my opinion.

I had that card and took hunters safety. I didn't do military service. I bought a few guns with my paper route and lawn-cutting money. It's a phase I grew out of. just a few years ago I went can shooting in the desert with my largely right-wing co-workers. So the last gun that I've shot is a .50 cal. It all seems so normal.

Any right-winger who fears a government gun roundup is just admitting to themselves that the days of guns as protecting individuals from government are over --- how can the government force it's well-armed citizens to give up their guns?

The 2nd amendment thing I guess is a big deal, but honestly, among my right-wing friends, I don't hear a lot of appeal to the 2nd amendment or their guns as a token of their liberty. There is a huge hobby factor and really, guns as toys is similar to muscle cars as toys, or even golf clubs. People can get into gun stats, gun performance, just like they get into how fast a car goes zero to sixty, and there's as many gun hobby magazines as there are car magazines. It's just that with guns, there's this huge, overshadowing externality involved, which is something the founding fathers doubtfully could have anticipated.

I went can shooting in the desert with my largely right-wing co-workers. So the last gun that I've shot is a .50 cal

I had a good laugh reading this Gadianton. You're tellin me you went can shooting with a .50 cal ? You're one tuff dude!

Here's what Patrick Henry said ""Guard with jealous attention to the public Liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that Jewel. Unfortunately nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.""
1778


Noah Webster,. ""Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."". 1787

[Gadianton]

I can't help getting the impression that to some hard right conservatives, what the 2nd Amendment really means is the right to shoot or threaten to shoot anyone who doesn't share one's own hard right or white nationalist political convictions. Take Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, who seems to advocate exercising her "2nd Amendment right" against anyone coming to her door advocating vaccination against covid-19 or (probably) any political view (especially progressive or liberal) with which she disagrees.

That's a tough one. On the one hand, I'm perfectly fine with her not getting vaccinated. Go Delta! I'll bet she pulled an Ajax and got vaccinated though.

[Gadianton]

Platitudes about freedom can be used to justify anything.

Gun rights advocacy on grounds of freedom seems so circular. I get saying you need a gun to hunt, to protect yourself, or to have fun in the desert trying to hit an empty gas can from half a mile away with .50 cal. But that we need to own guns to preserve the freedom to own guns? That's how it comes across. But I think there is a deeper deeper drive, one that parallels free speech practice along the lines that we need to engage in the most gutter-worthy or inaccurate speech we can think of in order to uphold our right to free speech. The best way to establish that we have liberty, is to maintain the liberty at an extraordinary high cost to others. In other words, the high cost to others is the very proof of liberty. Allowing school shootings when granting that we do have the power to stop them proves our love for liberty. It's better proof than going to war to fight for our country. Every country, good or bad, goes to war to fight for its survival or to expand its perimeter. It takes a really special country to allow children to die as proof that like God, we cannot interfere with the agency of man.

There are a few other disconnects that make the subject tricky. People who are into guns for the most part aren't intending to hurt anyone. It's the externality associated with guns, and it's not an immediate one. Drinking and driving isn't done with the intent to hurt anybody, but guns are a degree removed form that because your guns may very well never impose the slightest negative thing upon any other person or even be very risky, and that's probably true for 97% of gun owners. It's just that, the vast proliferation of guns and ease of ownership to satiate perfectly respectable citizens means an army of criminals armed to the teeth across the entire continent.

Believe me, I get that a lone guy raised on a farm in Montana cannot conceive of why he shouldn't be allowed to own 137 guns. A friend in Colorado claims 300. Well, it's just the reality that factories outputting at a scale that would make such ownership remotely conceivable means that truckloads are going into bad hands. And really, unless ownership is more or less unrestricted, those few Montana types are out in the cold because they rely on the production scale in order to be able to afford the quantity and variety.