The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Commodore]

Which, uh, is completely irrelevant to your sweeping statements on leftists, and doesn't actually make all of leftist thought Marxist. Please try again.

It's not irrelevant at all. The core of leftist thought, ostensibly, is a pro-proletariat agenda. Gun control flies in the face of that since denying the people access to the means with which to defend themselves from the elite. So no matter what brand of leftist thinking one subscribes to, support for gun control is a hypocrisy.

Which is fine. If you want to be a hypocrite, be a hypocrite. I think it was Hemmingway that either wrote or said something to the effect that there is absolutely nothing wrong with hypocrisy and it is actually unreasonable to expect a person to be 100% ideologically consistent 100% of the time. I generally agree with that sentiment. All I ask is that people at least acknowledge their hypocrisy.

 

[Gorbles]

You think gun control flies in the face of that, however you can have both sensible gun law and people owning guns in order to defend themselves. Like quite a lot of countries that let you buy guns, where gun crime isn't anywhere near the thing as it is in the US.

It's a gotcha, and a poor attempt at that. It also has very little to do with Marxism, unless you're going to start bringing up actual Marxist writings on the application of semi-automatic rifles. See, the thing about "leftists" (generalising massively as a group, unfortunately) is that we don't pretend some piece of paper written 400 years ago is sacred. When something new is introduced to our world, the healthy reaction would be to examine how this changes or invalidates old things we assumed to be true. Semi-automatic rifles, for example, or even modern firearms in general, completely supercede anyone's impressions of guns from a century ago or more. Nevermind four centuries ago or more.

The actual problem is that you're equating gun control with banning guns forever. Which is why you think you're onto something with this hypocrisy you're talking about here.

 

[Commodore]

You think gun control flies in the face of that, however you can have both sensible gun law and people owning guns in order to defend themselves.

Except your "sensible gun laws" effectively put the entire supply of firearms under government control. And who controls the government? The same billionaires I see a lot of people who are for control complaining about. If you implement things like national gun registry and red flag laws, both of which have been touted as "sensible gun laws", then the government can use those to take your guns from you whenever they want. That doesn't sound like a very pro-proletariat stance to me.

See, the thing about "leftists" (generalising massively as a group, unfortunately) is that we don't pretend some piece of paper written 400 years ago is sacred.

Nobody says the Constitution is sacred. The rights contained within it however, are sacred. And I don't know about you, but when some wealthy politician gets on TV and starts talking about changing our rights, I get highly suspicious of their motivations.

 

[Gorbles]

You're making a lot of assumptions about these theoretical gun laws that we don't know the specifics of, in order to support a negative conclusion. This is known as scaremongering. I'm not saying it would be easy, or even realistically doable, but the notion of supporting people having firearms isn't incompatible with leftist theory.

We could debate about good gun control all day long. I was responding to the forced equivalence of leftist theory with hypocrisy due to "something something Marx".

Also, obligatory lol at "nobody says the Constitution is sacred, but what it says and how it applies to reality is sacred". Most people would understand that these are functionally the same thing, except the people who use the appeal to the divine to protect it from change.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except your "sensible gun laws" effectively put the entire supply of firearms under government control. And who controls the government? The same billionaires I see a lot of people who are for control complaining about. If you implement things like national gun registry and red flag laws, both of which have been touted as "sensible gun laws", then the government can use those to take your guns from you whenever they want. That doesn't sound like a very pro-proletariat stance to me.



Nobody says the Constitution is sacred. The rights contained within it however, are sacred. And I don't know about you, but when some wealthy politician gets on TV and starts talking about changing our rights, I get highly suspicious of their motivations.

A lot if Americans here are Republicans. They get over here and are kinda amazed. Our cops don't care guns, the March 15 shooter used 30 round magazines.

Healthcare costs the government about 1/3rd the US price and you can get private health insurance as well which also is cheap by us standards.

My friends friend's father came here with cancer Republican, ex US army spent Vietnam war in Panama. Old cancer hard to migrate here but NZ wife and reasonably well off.

He paid full price here (not an NZ citizen) it was still cheaper than the US, and I think he has shifted to voting left. His wife is a CEO and votes right (Democrats in US terms),.

The Aussie shooter came here to do it as the Aussie government banned MSSA in 1996. In the USA they regulated full autos 1984 and priced them out of the range of the average American.

Gun control won't make a difference short term in 20 years time though with the next generation if they can't buy an AR 15 they can't use it to shoot up a school.

Don't want to get mauled to death by wildlife an exceedingly rate event use your gun money to buy meat or go vegetarian. You don't need a gun you like it but you're not going to die without it.

Other people will die though, but there is also risk at your kids schools. Think we had two kids shot at a school in the 1920s.

Throw in accidental shootings via kids finding dad's gun and playing with it own ing a gun increases your danger levels.

Guns are fun I enjoy target shooting but I don't need to own one in day to day life.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And when it comes to weaponry, military definitions are certainly more valid than politically motivated civilian definitions.

Even when discussion civilian weaponry, owned and operated by civilians according to civilian law?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nobody says the Constitution is sacred. The rights contained within it however, are sacred.

You might have to explain the difference there.

 

[Commodore]

You don't need a gun you like it but you're not going to die without it.

The standard response to this is "it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs". The point being that you don't need to have a reason to exercise any of your rights.

Guns are fun I enjoy target shooting but I don't need to own one in day to day life

And that's certainly your choice. That's the cool thing about rights, you are the one who gets to decide when, how, and if you want to exercise them. The not so cool thing about them is that it's also up to you to exercise your rights responsibly.

Having the government make these kinds of choices for us is harmful to a democratic society for a number of reasons. Not least of which being that it erodes the idea of personal responsibility and civic duty. When the government is making choices about what rights you have and how you exercise them, you no longer are a participant in the system, no matter how many elections you vote in.

Even when discussion civilian weaponry, owned and operated by civilians according to civilian law?

Yes. Because military definitions aren't politically motivated, making them more...honest.

You might have to explain the difference there.

It was a poke at the implication Gorbles made that those who respect the Constitution are just worshipping a piece of paper. We are not worshipping a piece of paper, we just believe very strongly in the ideas written on that paper.

Gorbles was trying to minimize the importance of those ideas simply because those ideas are politically inconvenient to his vision of what the US should be.

 

[Zardnaar]

The standard response to this is "it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs". The point being that you don't need to have a reason to exercise any of your rights.



And that's certainly your choice. That's the cool thing about rights, you are the one who gets to decide when, how, and if you want to exercise them. The not so cool thing about them is that it's also up to you to exercise your rights responsibly.

Having the government make these kinds of choices for us is harmful to a democratic society for a number of reasons. Not least of which being that it erodes the idea of personal responsibility and civic duty. When the government is making choices about what rights you have and how you exercise them, you no longer are a participant in the system, no matter how many elections you vote in.



Yes. Because military definitions aren't politically motivated, making them more...honest.



It was a poke at the implication Gorbles made that those who respect the Constitution are just worshipping a piece of paper. We are not worshipping a piece of paper, we just believe very strongly in the ideas written on that paper.

Gorbles was trying to minimize the importance of those ideas simply because those ideas are politically inconvenient to his vision of what the US should be.

And if they change the constitution?

 

[Commodore]

And if they change the constitution?

Like I said, we believe in the ideas, not the document.

 

[Lexicus]

Now I'm not necessarily in favor of all these changes, but they're all pretty hard to argue against unless you take a hardliner position. I'm honestly torn these days, between actual regulation like the above, or status quo because, "any attempt to disarm the proletariat must be frustrated, by force if necessary." How important that emphasis actually is in the modern day seems questionable though.

A gun is already more likely to kill someone in the household that owns it than an assailant. Do you think that fact changes if you replace "assailant" with "cop"?

Also frankly I'm willing to trade a few people being killed by wild animals for all the kids dying in schools

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes. Because military definitions aren't politically motivated, making them more...honest.

Possibly in some cases, but in the case of defining what "high" capacity means, which is a relative term, it should probably be defined relative to the situation you're applying it to in some way. Which in this case is potentially having to take a couple of shots at a bear or a home intruder, not gunning down a squad of armed insurgents.

 

[cardgame]

I'm glad you quoted this. It shows that any leftist who supports gun control is a raging hypocrite.

I suspect the support for it among Democrats in the US comes from their perception that the vast majority of gun owners are conservatives, so it's not so much that they want to disarm the people as much as it is they want to disarm their political opponents. Of course there are gun owners across the entire political spectrum, which is why there is so much resistance to gun control, not because of some vast NRA conspiracy to bribe politicians.

First off, Karl Marx is not The Word Of God, we're allowed to disagree. Second, democrats aren't leftists so you really missed the mark there, by a lot.

 

[EgonSpengler]

A selection of results from a FOX News poll conducted August 11-13 of 1,013 people. I've written the questions and percentages verbatim, but I've plucked 6 response groups out of the much larger data set. I've also written the response groups out as, for example, "Republican voters", where the data set simply says "Rep."

35. Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Republican voters in favor: 89%
Republican voters against: 8%
Democrat voters in favor: 92%
Democrat voters against: 6%
Independent voters in favor: 87%
Independent voters against: 7%

36. Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Republican voters in favor: 46%
Republican voters against: 46%
Democrat voters in favor: 86%
Democrat voters against: 10%
Independent voters in favor: 58%
Independent voters against: 28%

37. Allowing police to temporarily take guns away from people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Republican voters in favor: 75%
Republican voters against: 19%
Democrat voters in favor: 88%
Democrat voters against: 7%
Independent voters in favor: 72%
Independent voters against: 15%

---

I don't know if I like question #37. I think it's trying to gauge opinion of the so-called "Red Flag" laws, but as I understand these laws, the person reported doesn't need to have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others, but merely suspected of it by someone who knows them. If this question was never meant to be about "Red Flag" laws, I'd be curious to see the responses to a question that is.

Incidentally, I've heard that, in the states that have tried one of these systems, the overwhelming majority of these citizen "red flag" alerts have been related to people who are suicidal, rather than homicidal. It's likely that these laws won't impact these mass shootings very much, but if these media-frenzy events lead to a reduction in suicides, even if it's by accident, then maybe it was worth it.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Suicide Mortality by State for 2017 (age-adjusted rates per 100,000; nation-wide the age-adjusted rate is 14.0; and I don't know what 'age-adjusted' means):

1. Montana 28.9
2. Alaska 27
3. Wyoming 26.9
4. New Mexico 23.3
5. Idaho 23.2
6. Utah 22.7
7. S. Dakota 22.5
8. W. Virginia 21.1
9. Arkansas 20.8
10. Nevada & Colorado 20.3

BearingArms.com, What's the gun ownership rate in your state? (percentage of population; results of a 2015 survey of 4,000 people by the journal Injury Prevention; national 'average' is 29.1% - I don't know if that's the mean or the median; and I'm not familiar with this website or that journal, so I can't vouch for either):

1. Alaska 61.7%
2. Arkansas 57.9%
3. Idaho 56.9%
4. W. Virginia 54.2%
5. Wyoming 53.8%
6. Montana 52.3%
7. New Mexico 49.9%
8. Alabama 48.9%
9. N. Dakota 47.9%
10. Hawaii 45.1%

I'd love to see these data compared in some kind of graphic, ideally with all 50 states. I don't have that kind of time, though. (The sites I linked do have data on all 50 states, I just don't feel like typing all that.)

 

[Arwon]

It's not irrelevant at all. The core of leftist thought, ostensibly, is a pro-proletariat agenda. Gun control flies in the face of that since denying the people access to the means with which to defend themselves from the elite. So no matter what brand of leftist thinking one subscribes to, support for gun control is a hypocrisy.

Which is fine. If you want to be a hypocrite, be a hypocrite. I think it was Hemmingway that either wrote or said something to the effect that there is absolutely nothing wrong with hypocrisy and it is actually unreasonable to expect a person to be 100% ideologically consistent 100% of the time. I generally agree with that sentiment. All I ask is that people at least acknowledge their hypocrisy.

This is actually easy: the unions and political parties stockpile all the weapons they need for the revolution and they can hand them out as needed when the time comes. No need for private individual retail sales to be unregulated, massified uprisings are not an individualist affair.

 

[El_Machinae]

.I suspect the support for it among Democrats in the US comes from their perception that the vast majority of gun owners are conservatives, so it's not so much that they want to disarm the people as much as it is they want to disarm their political opponents.

I see. Well, I guess assuming duplicitous motives makes it much easier to not have an honest conversation about mass shootings, massive numbers of guns flooding into the hands of violent criminals, violent suicide, and the concomitant arming of the police state.

It takes a lot of entitlement to think that you deserve 30 rounds magazines while camping if the cost of such things is merely larger bloodbaths of school children. If pressed, I'd reply "learn to wilderness, dude"

 

[Farm Boy]

Assumptions.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Since this is a thread about guns and not just gun control... Some years ago, I was watching some kind of documentary about the small arms used by U.S. military. I remember them talking about the US Army sidearm, and how a pistol was useful for going into buildings, because of its size and maneuverability. You can use a pistol in one hand, allowing you to open a door or push an adversary; its small size makes it easier to use in close quarters, when you're going through a doorway or across a room that has furniture or other barriers. So I was thinking about the home defense issue. Isn't a good pistol a better choice than a long gun? Something else a home owner might have to consider would be the round's penetration through walls. You wouldn't want a weapon with such high muzzle velocity that missed shots travel through a wall and potentially hit a neighbor or family member, would you? Obviously, if you live in a rural area, your neighbor might be a mile away, but where I live, the buildings are about 6-10 feet apart on the sides; in the front and the back, maybe 30-50 feet.

 

[Broken_Erika]

A selection of results from a FOX News poll conducted August 11-13 of 1,013 people. I've written the questions and percentages verbatim, but I've plucked 6 response groups out of the much larger data set. I've also written the response groups out as, for example, "Republican voters", where the data set simply says "Rep."

35. Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Republican voters in favor: 89%
Republican voters against: 8%
Democrat voters in favor: 92%
Democrat voters against: 6%
Independent voters in favor: 87%
Independent voters against: 7%

36. Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Republican voters in favor: 46%
Republican voters against: 46%
Democrat voters in favor: 86%
Democrat voters against: 10%
Independent voters in favor: 58%
Independent voters against: 28%

37. Allowing police to temporarily take guns away from people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others: Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence?

Republican voters in favor: 75%
Republican voters against: 19%
Democrat voters in favor: 88%
Democrat voters against: 7%
Independent voters in favor: 72%
Independent voters against: 15%

---

I don't know if I like question #37. I think it's trying to gauge opinion of the so-called "Red Flag" laws, but as I understand these laws, the person reported doesn't need to have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others, but merely suspected of it by someone who knows them. If this question was never meant to be about "Red Flag" laws, I'd be curious to see the responses to a question that is.

Incidentally, I've heard that, in the states that have tried one of these systems, the overwhelming majority of these citizen "red flag" alerts have been related to people who are suicidal, rather than homicidal. It's likely that these laws won't impact these mass shootings very much, but if these media-frenzy events lead to a reduction in suicides, even if it's by accident, then maybe it was worth it.

Indisputable proof that FOX News has been infiltrated by Liberal Extremists and Communist Provocateurs!