The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

I don't need to justify my learning to shoot. Learning to shoot is normal. But to show why the question is off base, it does not matter if i was shooting cans, or targets, or varmints. All skills translate and can result in shooting people. It's never not something to remember, and avoid.

If marketing to young men who play video games is something that can be held against a manufacturer, specifically, then yes. It's a statement on who is high risk specifically. And we know who the problem is. It's like a cultural commitment to violence. This argument is not new because it flips a few actors and targets. This is either lex either not reading carefully or being fine with that type of logic informing governance.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No good can come from false causal attributions. At best, you can luck into avoiding tremendous harm.

Remington disagreed with you. They settled. I guess shooting up schools doesn't count as tremendous harm in your book.

 

[Farm Boy]

You lie.

 

[Lexicus]

If marketing to young men who play video games is something that can be held against a manufacturer, specifically, then yes. It's a statement on who is high risk specifically. And we know who the problem is. It's like a cultural commitment to violence. This argument is not new because it flips a few actors and targets. This is either lex either not reading carefully or being fine with that type of logic informing governance.

But again this is not what the story is saying. It is saying that Remington marketed guns to at-risk young men (boys really) through product placement in video games. It's not a statement that people who play violent video games are to be considered "high risk".

And FWIW, I play violent video games! With real guns in them! (though I suspect that may have more to do with the Pentagon than with gun manufacturer marketing).

 

[Farm Boy]

Ever thought a word as general as man has more than one meaning? That whatever you are shooting is whatever is in front of the barrel at any moment? Sometimes being a man means recognizing your power, individuality, and responsibility? There are plenty of forces at work telling boys, and others, that they are not powerful, they are broken. They are not individuals, they are part of a toxic culture. They are not responsible, they are at risk and must be controlled, or treated. But not with power or respect. Those are for different people. Qualified people.

Plenty of deaths of despair. Many more than homicides. Many many many more than mass shooting incidents. But let's just define those away as part of the problem with the same people. Eh?

 

[El_Machinae]

If people don't like the ugly kluges trying to 'fix' the stupidity of gun laws, then helping rebuild the 2A seems to be like a winning move. Like, view the stupid kluges as 'inevitable and only delayed if we fight them' and see rebuilding the 2A as 'the way to stop the slow drips of kluges'.

At work, we opened a wall to see why there were water stains and found a series of solo-cups taped together redirecting a leak to an emergency drain (previous tenant). So, we just fixed the plumbing properly and the wall. The series of ugly fixes that were previously used just didn't compare to a proper fix.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Is there actually a case about real-world violence being attributed to video games?

It's constantly mentioned in articles and television over the past 3 decades. Whether there's a lawsuit about it and how far it got, I don't know. My point is that it's a false attribution of cause, just like advertising about man cards leading to murder is a false attribution of cause.

Okay, well done, I regret bringing up the "man card" thing now. It's not about the "man card", it's about the AR-15.

Selling AR-15s is not illegal, though. The allegation was that there's some causal relation between the marketing specifically, and the mass murder, wasn't it?

The link they're drawing, if I understand the case correctly, is between weapons clearly intended for violence against people and violence against people.

The "intention" between weapons is not relevant. What matters is whether they're used in crime. Using an AR-15 vs people is warranted in self-defense, and it can also be used against non-people.

Long rifles are a tiny fraction of homicides, so this "sold for intention" rationale does not make sense. That implies all handgun sales are similarly liable, for instance, since those have even fewer non-person use cases. I'm not inclined to shred the 2nd amendment even as the government gets more authoritarian, or even when it isn't.

I'll have to think about that, but it's a moot point

No, it really isn't. He was criminally assaulted in a public place, and did not provoke that assault. I am not inclined to say people should take a beating in that context, rather than defend themselves.

He put himself in that situation, for starters.

Rape victims similarly put themselves in situations that make it easier to rape them, but that doesn't mean they should be blamed for being raped, or blamed if they actually manage to defend themselves. Victim blaming is bad, generally.

And I will hazard a guess that when confronted, he didn't attempt to extricate himself or do anything to de-escalate. I haven't read the trial transcripts, if they're available, so that's just a guess.

There was a long thread on the trial, which was public. But even in the criminal complaint against him, he did more than attempt to extricate himself. He ran, was chased, and only fired at point blank when the first person he shot grabbed at his gun (the person shot had burns on his hand, also consistent with witness testimony!). The other times he fired were a) while on the ground being beaten and b) when someone else pulled a gun on him while he was still on the ground.

The fact pattern given by the prosecution made taking that to trial pretty bonkers. They alleged self defense for him, then charged him anyway. If that wasn't self-defense, self defense wouldn't exist in America.

I guess shooting up schools doesn't count as tremendous harm in your book.

Remington did not shoot up a school. This is more false causal attribution.

 

[Farm Boy]

If people don't like the ugly kluges trying to 'fix' the stupidity of gun laws, then helping rebuild the 2A seems to be like a winning move. Like, view the stupid kluges as 'inevitable and only delayed if we fight them' and see rebuilding the 2A as 'the way to stop the slow drips of kluges'.

At work, we opened a wall to see why there were water stains and found a series of solo-cups taped together redirecting a leak to an emergency drain (previous tenant). So, we just fixed the plumbing properly and the wall. The series of ugly fixes that were previously used just didn't compare to a proper fix.

They will still be kludges. Then there will be a reason to take more. It's who they are. Our rather, what. Superiors, not kludges.

 

[El_Machinae]

You'll find that rebuilding legislation works a lot better than a series of step-wise precedents being fought one weird battle at a time. The 2nd Amendment is an an obsolete amendment, because it has almost nothing to do with the current make-up, except being the foundation of a hodge-podge of common law. It would be better to have a better foundation.

 

[Farm Boy]

It has 200 years of intense scrutiny under the law. It's better settled than the 4th by miles, as one stupid example. But the rich like reasons to take money and things from people. Battle on, oh Virtue.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, okay. Then I hope that there are more lawsuits that help trim down firearms access in the US. I'd prefer better laws, obviously, but the end-goal is fewer firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

 

[Farm Boy]

Which is finally when you, also, quit lying.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling.
The_J

 

[choxorn]

Rape victims similarly put themselves in situations that make it easier to rape them, but that doesn't mean they should be blamed for being raped, or blamed if they actually manage to defend themselves. Victim blaming is bad, generally.

That's a pretty crappy and disingenuous comparison. Kyle Rittenhouse was fully intending to get into a fight with someone, and there's videos of him days before the shooting where he's basically fantasizing about carrying out vigilante justice and wants to shoot people that he's assuming are looters or shoplifters or something along those lines. He wasn't just putting himself in a situation that made it "easier" to attack him, he was trying to get himself into an armed confrontation and actively wanted someone to attack him so he'd be justified in shooting them.

 

[Lexicus]

Plenty of deaths of despair. Many more than homicides. Many many many more than mass shooting incidents. But let's just define those away as part of the problem with the same people. Eh?

Idk what you're talking about. I've consistently said that the biggest part of the reason we need to disarm, as a society, is the number of gun suicides we have, exactly because that's the biggest number of deaths. Many of the people who are dead from suicide would be alive now if they had not had access to a gun to kill themselves. Guns succeed at a higher rate than basically any other method of suicide.

It's all the deaths that bother me. But, since you've evidently decided it's all about this:

But the rich like reasons to take money and things from people. Battle on, oh Virtue.

I don't see how productive discussion is possible.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's a pretty crappy and disingenuous comparison.

lol

Kyle Rittenhouse was fully intending to get into a fight with someone

That woman was fully intending to sleep with someone that night.

He wasn't just putting himself in a situation that made it "easier" to attack him, he was trying to get himself into an armed confrontation and actively wanted someone to attack him so he'd be justified in shooting them.

She didn't just put herself into a situation that made it "easier" to rape her, she was dressed provocatively and even provoked the man who raped her to do so by approaching him and talking to him first. She "obviously" was actively pursuing someone to attack her so she could pass it off as being unwilling later! We'll just disregard even physical signs of her resisting...why not!

-

I again reiterate that victim blaming is bad.

Such things are easy to say, especially when you disregard evidence. Like the other things Rittenhouse brought with him. Like the fact that he backed away, then ran away from his assailants. Like the fact that all of the people who got shot first approached him (not the other way around), then attacked him physically, even as he attempted to remove himself from the situation. But apparently, none of this matters according to quoted, and it's okay to victim blame him, despite that all of these came out as facts during the trial, and nearly all of them were alleged by the prosecution, in advance.

Using something he said days prior in a different context while sitting down and talking to a friend, then not acting on it --> similar to claiming that because the woman said she was looking to hook up to one of her friends a few days before, that she was intending/looking to be assaulted...asinine.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's constantly mentioned in articles and television over the past 3 decades. Whether there's a lawsuit about it and how far it got, I don't know. My point is that it's a false attribution of cause, just like advertising about man cards leading to murder is a false attribution of cause.

It doesn't seem like anybody has made either attribution. At least, not in the case against or settlement with Remington, that we've been discussing.

Selling AR-15s is not illegal, though. The allegation was that there's some causal relation between the marketing specifically, and the mass murder, wasn't it?

I am curious to have a look at the documents. As this was a settlement, the case never went ahead, but part of the settlement was that Remington make some things available.

Long rifles are a tiny fraction of homicides, so this "sold for intention" rationale does not make sense. That implies all handgun sales are similarly liable, for instance, since those have even fewer non-person use cases. I'm not inclined to shred the 2nd amendment even as the government gets more authoritarian, or even when it isn't.

Yes, handguns seem intended for the purpose of killing people. I am inclined to shred the 2nd Amendment, but I would settle for rewriting it.

No, it really isn't. He was criminally assaulted in a public place, and did not provoke that assault. I am not inclined to say people should take a beating in that context, rather than defend themselves.

I don't know if I'm inclined to say that, either, which is why I turn my attention to his role in creating the context in the first place.

Rape victims similarly put themselves in situations that make it easier to rape them, but that doesn't mean they should be blamed for being raped, or blamed if they actually manage to defend themselves. Victim blaming is bad, generally.

Sorry, but that's a monumentally bad analogy.

Rittenhouse lived in another state, he armed himself, and drove to the site of what he knew to be a volatile situation - in fact, he did it because it was a volatile situation, it wasn't just a case of bad timing. He went there to act as a vigilante. Was he inspired by those "self-deployed" militia dopes at the demonstrations on the East Coast a few years ago? In an article I read, Rittenhouse said he intended to act as a medic and protect private property. He was not law enforcement or a medic; he had no training or experience in law enforcement, the military, or medicine; and I don't believe he was invited by law enforcement or by the property owners. Ironically, one of the people he wounded actually was a paramedic.

There was a long thread on the trial, which was public. But even in the criminal complaint against him, he did more than attempt to extricate himself. He ran, was chased, and only fired at point blank when the first person he shot grabbed at his gun (the person shot had burns on his hand, also consistent with witness testimony!). The other times he fired were a) while on the ground being beaten and b) when someone else pulled a gun on him while he was still on the ground.

Cool, I'll have to look for that when I have some time. I'm curious about some of the details.

I remember reading that one of Rittenhouse's victims said that he drew his handgun because he thought Rittenhouse was an "active shooter." I wonder if that's the same guy, or somebody else. Regardless, it seems like this incident may have been an example of two boneheads with no badge, no uniform, and no training acting like vigilantes, each thinking that the other was a Bad Guy With a Gun Who Would Only Be Stopped by a Good Guy With a Gun. I can certainly imagine that if someone were shooting or brandishing a gun at me, and I was close enough, I would try to grab his gun in - wait for it - self-defense.

The fact pattern given by the prosecution made taking that to trial pretty bonkers. They alleged self defense for him, then charged him anyway. If that wasn't self-defense, self defense wouldn't exist in America.

Self-defense laws in America are questionable. The very idea that we empower every Tom, Dick and Harry to make the choice about when to shoot is, as you say, pretty bonkers. To wit,

Fox 26 Houston, 15 February 2022 - "Suspected gunman says shooting was self-defense, offers prayers for 9-year-old victim's family"

To be clear, the shooter in this incident didn't think the little girl was trying to kill him. He fired at a robber who'd just taken his wallet, and into the car of a family that was driving by. That's when the little girl was killed. Much like Rittenhouse, this guy was a moron who shouldn't have been within a hundred yards of a loaded gun. Unlike Rittenhouse, he's an adult moron. (And unlike Rittenhouse, he's Black, which is a whole other topic, but I couldn't help noticing.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It doesn't seem like anybody has made either attribution. At least, not in the case against or settlement with Remington, that we've been discussing.

You *must* have a causal attribution. If you don't have a causal attribution, you cannot claim damages. The Sandy Hook victims can't sue you, the state of Hawaii, Pakistan, or Bill Cosby for damages over the shooting. They can't sue any of those because they are not related to the incident. For them to be able to sue Remington, they must show that Remington was in some way responsible for what happened.

I don't understand Remington's motivations for capitulating here, it makes no sense to me. Maybe they did something beyond what I've seen, or knew things would come up in discovery that would be unfavorable. That's an enormous settlement, though, so it would have to be a heck of a secret.

Rittenhouse lived in another state

This was a common parrot talking point at the time, yes. It's a short drive from where he lived, it's where he worked, and he was closer than the majority of the rioters, including his assailants.

he armed himself, and drove to the site of what he knew to be a volatile situation

If there is a risk of being harmed, it is reasonable to bring a tool to defend yourself. Though he was armed at the site, rather than before.

He went there to act as a vigilante

Conjecture, AT BEST. It's not consistent with his actions at the riot. Again, if you really are interested in the facts of the case, check out the trial. Or even just the criminal complaint.

I remember reading that one of Rittenhouse's victims said that he drew his handgun because he thought Rittenhouse was an "active shooter." I wonder if that's the same guy, or somebody else.

Same guy. The big difference here is that Rittenhouse was repeatedly assaulted while attempting to escape. This guy approached, then drew a gun on the "active shooter" while the supposed "shooter" was being assaulted on the ground. He had no basis to go after him. In contrast, Rittenhouse didn't fire on anybody until he was assaulted, consistently, and consistently tried to leave the situation. And he managed to avoid hitting anybody but the targets assaulting him.

This kind of scenario is exactly where having a weapon for self defense is most sensible.

 

[Farm Boy]

Lex, I know it's the "deaths that bother you." Everyone is sort of OK with the society that feeds the despair, but they'd rather not hear about it. And they'd rather those people keep gigging for them. Yup, totally the guns that are the problem. Those suicides are not overdoses of lead.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which is finally when you, also, quit lying.

You are remarkably confident in your ability to discern lies.

Naw, I legit think rewriting the Amendment would be best. Like, sincerely.

The fact that the 2A helps put guns on my streets doesn't really affect my analysis. I like clean laws.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Conjecture, AT BEST. It's not consistent with his actions at the riot. Again, if you really are interested in the facts of the case, check out the trial. Or even just the criminal complaint.

Dude, it was a 10-second google search.

Rittenhouse, who lived across the state line in Antioch, Ill., testified that he intended to act as a medic and help protect private property.

I see that he was a lifeguard, so he might have had some basic First Aid training. That's about all slack I can cut him. Well, that and he was 17.

I also see now that he acquired the gun by way of a "straw purchase" - someone else bought the gun for him, because he wasn't legally old enough to get it himself. The more I read about this, the worse it looks to me.