The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Manfred Belheim]

No, it doesn't have any basis in law that I am aware of. I am merely giving my own logic on why I feel people who carry guns in public, then do nothing to stop a mass shooter are cowards.

As to why I object to them not doing anything: I believe everyone has their role and I believe everyone should do their best to live up to the responsibilities of that role. And as I said, I believe that if you carry a firearm, you are part of the militia and one of the responsibilities of that role is to protect others from harm by either taking the life of the person causing harm or by potentially laying down your life.

Yes but you have to agree that they have no responsibility or duty to see themselves as part of the militia, they're just exercising their legal right to carry a firearm. If they choose that that's just for their own protection, and in some circumstances simply running away affords them a better protection, then it's entirely sensible for them to do the latter. And is entirely in keeping with the law and with their own assessment of their moral responsibilities. And yes you can argue from a subjective perspective that you think they should be adopting a wider moral responsibility, but as someone who has previously stated that no-one has any such moral responsibility to anyone but their own family, and indeed have a duty to remain alive to look after and protect them, then you have to be able to see how this stance really seems contradictory.

So if someone takes on the role of the militia by carrying a gun, then they fail to carry out the responsibilities of that role, it makes me wonder why they took on that role in the first place. They either didn't understand their role, or they are cowards and neither one of those options says anything good about their character.

But they didn't did they. They would have done if they were you, but they're not you and there's no reason they should be adopting this position that apparently has no basis in law.

 

[Lexicus]

The Russians

Really? Literally almost anything to avoid admitting how rotten the foundations are here eh?

But they are traitors because they work with the Russians to kill as many Americans as possible

Seriously, why is it so hard to accept that this is an American problem that has almost nothing to do with Russia? Liberals blaming Russia for America's problems is going to turn out to be a serious American problem if liberals ever get back into power (unlikely because "Russia did it!" is not an election-winning argument), because it suggests that you have no idea how to solve America's problems.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

That's interesting. I never actually considered that over 20% of this is basically the cost of being the western order's muscle. Ah well, here's to hoping that actually declines. I like pipes and dreaming now and again.

Things are going to get interesting. Did India actually just militarily full-annex Kashmir by ignoring its constitution today?

Preferably there are other pathways to this than the previous path of "strip rights away from mentally ill or those on no-fly list." Those were both crappy ways to go about this, and as much as I find the constitution lacking, wanton disregard is probably not a real good way to achieve this. I'm not even asking for anything more than a prominent platform for it right now. Like bare minimum stuff. We can't even get hardly any presidential candidates to talk about what it'll actually take to reduce gun violence, and many of them claim they want to.

 

[Lexicus]

I still find it weird that US white supremacy has managed to a continent full of Catholic former European colonies who speak Spanish into a scary alien non-white other.

That part of the world has plenty of its own white supremacy.

It's like how Australia used to treat Italians and Greeks as scary racial enemies.

We used to do that too!

 

[Marla_Singer]

Candidates have suggested abolishing the 2nd Amendment, and quite recently too. You never hear much about it because as soon as they suggest it, they get laughed out of the room and shouted down. Then you never really hear from them again as suggesting such a radical change effectively ends their political career. And rightfully so if you ask me.

Could you find any argument which is not absolutely theorical, having no practical use whatsoever, in order to think so?

In France, gun control was abolished during the French Revolution because the right to hunt used to be limited to the aristocracy and was eventually granted to everyone. During more than 150 years, there was no gun control in France, exactly like in the US. However, after the liberation in 1945, there was a tremendous amount of guns in circulation in the country, particularly among resistant groups which were quite reluctant to drop those. It's at that time that a gun control policy was established in the country. All gun holders were asked to bring their gun at the prefecture so that the trigger would be welded to become unusable. Only hunt rifles could be kept but they required a hunt license, the situation remains the same today (with another exception for shooting sports). It's true that the argument that it was undemocratic was particularly poor in 1945 considering the country just had a real, not fantasized, experience of tyranny.

In the US, the constitutional right to bear arm has been granted for other reasons. It's important to note that it's been also pushed by Southern Congressmen such as Patrick Henry in order to ensure that militias in Southern states would keep their right to bear arms. At the time the militias in the South consisted mostly in slave patrols, and the risk of insurrections that was the most feared was about slave insurrections. Southern states had no trust in the federal government to effectively protect them against those. I'm not saying this is the only reason for the 2nd amendment, but there's no doubt it was then a matter of concerns.

Anyway, in an enlightened democracy, the constitution isn't meant to be considered a magical gift which should be untouched like a religious revelation. The constitution is man-made, and as everything which is man-made it can always be improved.

 

[rah]

Think ERA. And that one should have been a no-brainer.

 

[Estebonrober]

Obama has responded to the incidents over the weekend. I think the other presidents still alive should respond as well. I get that it’s not welcome by some but I think it’s important for civility in tough tines reasons. Idk.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ma-calls-for-action-after-el-paso-and-dayton/

 

[Estebonrober]

That part of the world has plenty of its own white supremacy.



We used to do that too!

Isn’t it fun when we can share things! ./s

 

[yung.carl.jung]

To everybody; how can we stop these slaughters?

by not tactily supporting genocidal maniacs and calling out the hate speech which fuels the fire, perhaps?

 

[rah]

calling out the hate speech which fuels the fire, perhaps?

Lots of people have done that in the last few days. Do you have any real expectation that it will make a difference?
I think we need some actual sensible national gun control laws. (and supreme court justices that won't strike them down)

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Lots of people have done that in the last few days. Do you have any real expectation that it will make a difference?
I think we need some actual sensible national gun control laws. (and supreme court justices that won't strike them down)

not the people that matter, no. the people that matter keep supporting hate speech, matter of fact they keep spreading it. you would never, ever, ever, see Donald admit that he tacitly approved of white-nationalist crime when he said "there's good people on both sides". same goes for any other major repub. it's always the same people doing the calling out and it's always the same people ignoring it, really.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That's why I don't carry a gun in public.

The purpose of allowing people to carry guns in the first place was so everyone could make up "the militia". Part of a militia's duty is to protect their community. By that thinking, if you decide to carry a firearm, you are declaring yourself to be part of the militia, and thus the protection of your community becomes your duty.

If you don't want that duty, then don't carry a gun in public.

Two things leap to my mind.

First is the never-ending debate about the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment. iirc, Antonin Scalia wrote and/or spoke about his interpretation of that clause as being just an example of why the people ought to have the right to bear arms, and that self-defense was at least as important, even though the Amendment doesn't mention it (and "unenumerated rights" are a vital part of the Constitution - the right to privacy is the most commonly-accepted unenumerated right). I think this was in the context of the Washington DC handgun law, which the Court struck down. I can't remember if he wrote that opinion or I'm just remembering what he said about it later.

Second, another aspect of the militia clause - it doesn't come up very often, and I don't know if this has reached the Supreme Court - is the difference between a militia and vigilantes. The militia, as I understand it, is an organized group called up by a magistrate or a governor, possibly by a sheriff or a mayor or a military authority. The guys who claimed they were "self-deploying" to politically-tense events raised the question of whether a genuine militia can even do that. By contrast, I think the KKK were determined to be vigilantes and not a militia when they decided to take justice into their own hands and lynch Black men they'd deemed criminals. There are laws for "citizen arrests", but I don't think you're allowed to kill just because you think that's the thing to do. That deprives your victim of their right to due process, in addition to depriving them of their life.

So, anyway, food for thought.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Oh, another thing, let's not pretend everybody here is stupid: "Friendly fire" does happen, both for soldiers and police. During the pursuit of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, two things happened. One, uniformed police officers "self-deployed" from all over the place, breaching the chain of command and compromising the channels of communication, and two, they shot a fellow police officer so seriously that he almost died. (He was scooped up by an ambulance - which was only standing by because the local police were attempting to mount a controlled, organized operation - and taken to the nearest hospital even though it didn't have a trauma center, because he was bleeding so badly the medics thought he wouldn't live long enough to reach an actual E.R. He did survive, although I remember the doctor later saying that he'd lost his entire volume of blood before they got his injuries under control, and that the medics had made the right call in not going for the trauma center that was further away.) iirc, the after-action report published by the Commonwealth gently criticized all of the police officers who "self-deployed" outside of their jurisdictions for compromising the coordinated efforts of the local police department. I specifically remember one incident, where the bombing suspects were speeding down a residential street in a stolen car, and officers on both sides of the street were firing as the car sped past. When I was in elementary school, we jokingly called this a "[Racist meme] firing squad", where the riflemen stand in a circle around the victim. No one was hit by the fusillade of bullets, including the bombing suspects (for anyone who believes in God, I suppose that was as good a time as any to invoke "special providence", that nobody was even injured by the bullets that were flying every which way in a crowded residential neighborhood).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Being armed doesn't mean anything if you aren't willing to use it. Again, it goes back to the point that a gun isn't going to shoot anyone by itself. It takes a conscious action from a human being to make that gun do anything, whether that be murdering people or stopping someone from murdering people.

So those people with guns who just ran away and did nothing to stop the shooter are disgusting cowards. If you are going to walk around in public armed, then you are implicitly making a statement that you are taking it upon yourself to protect the lives of others. Clearly these armed people in El Paso weren't willing to do that, and as such should not have been walking around in public armed.

As pro-gun as I am, one thing I hate about my fellow gun owners is too many of them just see their guns as a fashion/political statement. There is a duty that comes with gun ownership that far too many gun owners aren't willing to accept.

I appreciate this post because it illustrates my point that the meme 'we need more good guys with guns to shoot the bad guys with guns' is ridiculous and unworkable. It's such a stupid concept on the face of it but a good marketing tool for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

We teach six year olds to do the latter nowadays.

We do not teach six year olds to suicide charge gunmen. We teach them to hide in place or run. They do train teachers in various ways to deal with active shooters. My wife had to go to an assembly at a school in Missouri where a cop fired blanks at various points inside the school so that the teachers could learn what gunshots in schools sound like. She also spent a lot of time working out how she'd get the kids out of her classroom, instructing them where they were to run to if she was incapacitated and how she could most effectively shield them with her body.

Maybe it's just me but I'd prefer teachers spending more time on lesson plans than working out how to heroically sacrifice themselves.

Edit:
And as if on queue, the LA school district is doing active shooter training drills with cops firing off blanks around school campuses and maneuvering to take down fake gunmen. When the story first popped up I thought it was a real attack for a moment. :-/

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Being armed doesn't mean anything if you aren't willing to use it. Again, it goes back to the point that a gun isn't going to shoot anyone by itself. It takes a conscious action from a human being to make that gun do anything, whether that be murdering people or stopping someone from murdering people.

unless you accidentally shoot a gun while cleaning it, or a kid gets it into its hands, or someone is drugged up, or drunk, or severely mentally ill, or acting on impulse, or one of the other hundreds of reasons why people do things without consciously thinking about them first.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

unless you accidentally shoot a gun while cleaning it, or a kid gets it into its hands, or someone is drugged up, or drunk, or severely mentally ill, or acting on impulse, or one of the other hundreds of reasons why people do things without consciously thinking about them first.

Poor safety practice by adults or children doesn't mean they aren't conscious.

Or is this an extension of the other thread where these examples are p-zombies ?

I'm not sure where it would fall if someone managed to sleep-shoot themselves or someone else though. That would be an interesting debate.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well nvm. Trump in classic moron form turned an opportune moment to bring together into divisive bullfeathers. Leave it to him to out himself as spreading divisive rhetoric. Obama didn’t name names.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...ump-attacks-obama-shootings-statement-1448922

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Poor safety practice by adults or children doesn't mean they aren't conscious.

Or is this an extension of the other thread where these examples are p-zombies ?

I'm not sure where it would fall if someone managed to sleep-shoot themselves or someone else though. That would be an interesting debate.

extreme cases of sleep walking, dementia, delusion, psychedelics.. there are many scenarios in which people experience reality completely different than others do, and there are also many scenarios in which we act kind of instinctively instead of consciously. and in all thoses cases, guns are a liability, moreso than any other dangerous object like knives.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So people around the U.S. are exhibiting symptoms of PTSD now:

Deadline, 6 Aug 2019 - "'To Kill a Mockingbird' performance ends abruptly after panic caused by sounds mistaken for gunshots"

Tonight’s performance of To Kill a Mockingbird on Broadway ended abruptly after backfire sounds heard on the street were mistaken for gunshots. A witness told Deadline that audience members panicked and started running down the aisles or ducking for cover, and cast members left the stage during the show’s final scene.

A source on the scene at the Shubert Theatre told Deadline the incident happened just before 10 p.m. ET and was exacerbated by frightened pedestrians dashing from the street into the lobby and nearby Sardi’s restaurant. Other theaters along 44th Street and 45th Street apparently also experienced disturbances, but that could not be immediately confirmed.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

there's many things to get PTSD from in America.. public shootings, orange men, concentration camps and valley girl accents