The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[IglooDame]

Ok Este, which is it. Were there no cops or the the FBI pre-police the event? The way I'm reading it, you're finding it a problem that there weren't enough police. And that it's a problem when police are there because Nazis would have made Richmond descend into violence and fascism, the police wouldn't have rounded up the Nazis if they were there, but they already rounded up the Nazis before they were there.

Been at a lot of random events where lots of people have guns. Big sporting clay shoots. Good high school sport, that. They aren't normal events because of a primal fear for life maintain manners, they're normal events because they're normal events.

Funny, I regularly attend events of 100+ people where literally every person there has a pistol on one hip, and several (usually high-capacity) magazines on the other hip.

Sidenote, there's a safety briefing at the start of each event, and they note that if there is any sort of firearm-related injury, do not call 911 and report "someone has been shot", as it will bring in police with guns drawn (and the image of them arriving and being casually surrounded by dozens of armed bystanders - most of whom are considerably better marksmen than the average cop - would be comical if it were not so serious); rather refer to it as a "training injury", and the local dispatcher and PD will assuredly understand.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Except as IglooDude pointed out this logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the reason you want to take guns away has nothing to do with "reducing gun violence"?

I'm interested to hear what you see as his "real" reason? If its something along the lines of "partisanship", then OK that's pretty straightforward, but if its something else I'm at a loss.

 

[Estebonrober]

Ok Este, which is it. Were there no cops or the the FBI pre-police the event? The way I'm reading it, you're finding it a problem that there weren't enough police. And that it's a problem when police are there because Nazis would have made Richmond descend into violence and fascism, the police wouldn't have rounded up the Nazis if they were there, but they already rounded up the Nazis before they were there.

Been at a lot of random events where lots of people have guns. Big sporting clay shoots. Good high school sport, that. They aren't normal events because of a primal fear for life maintain manners, they're normal events because they're normal events.

Yea I apologize for the confusion of points here.

1) There were likely no cops because if they showed up and showed any problems with the protest they were seriously outgunned and sometimes the best course of action is no action

2) that should be the same for a black lives matter protest by default

3) I am happy the FBI rounded up the nazis before they showed up here and possibly caused antifa to showed which would have changed the nature of this protest considerably

4) I understand gun owners get to gather in numbers all the time I run every other day down a trail on that run I hear target practice every nice weather saturday, sometimes in large groups

5) I'm not anti gun per se as anti-stupid guns for stupid reasons, most of this stuff is hobbyist/enthusiast stuff and that just not a good enough reason for Sandy Hook. We don't let cars on the highways without certain safety standards either (an example the gun rights people loves to use).

I hope that clears up my positions some.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think the licensed carry people represent a real threat. Oh, one offs obviously. But it's the deliberate flow of cheap and easy illegal guns that are a true social issue. I still think that proactively funding mental health research is your best defense for the 2nd Amendment. That's where all the political traction is.

People dying in the streets cuz of criminals no longer gets any attention. A schizophrenic with a gun does.

 

[Commodore]

In that she is correct.

No, she's not. Police presence is determined by the projected threat of violence. Black Lives Matter has a history of violent protest, so they get the riot squad at their events. Gun rights advocates don't have a history of violent protest, so they get only a token police presence.

I'm interested to hear what you see as his "real" reason? If its something along the lines of "partisanship", then OK that's pretty straightforward, but if its something else I'm at a loss.

I don't know what his real reason is. I just know it's not the reduction of gun violence or the preservation of lives like he claims. If it were, he wouldn't continually harp on the "guns are the problem" line despite the points raised that show guns aren't the problem.

If his reason is partisanship, that would be a pretty dumb reason. The idea that gun owners are all rural conservatives doesn't really hold up according to polling data. Gun owners are extremely diverse both demographically and politically.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, she's not. Police presence is determined by the projected threat of violence. Black Lives Matter has a history of violent protest, so they get the riot squad at their events. Gun rights advocates don't have a history of violent protest, so they get only a token police presence.



I don't know what his real reason is. I just know it's not the reduction of gun violence or the preservation of lives like he claims. If it were, he wouldn't continually harp on the "guns are the problem" line despite the points raised that show guns aren't the problem.

If his reason is partisanship, that would be a pretty dumb reason. The idea that gun owners are all rural conservatives doesn't really hold up according to polling data. Gun owners are extremely diverse both demographically and politically.

Yes being in the STL area I can tell you this is a lie. The national guard was called and surrounded the BLM rallies during daylight hours when nothing ever happened until night time. So you're just lying and something tells me you are aware of the lie.

Also the projected threat of violence considering the rhetoric leading up to this gun rally was nothing short of insurrection and disposal of the state government. So. . .wth.

Also if guns are not the problem then why is this nation the only one with the problem. Its so basic.

 

[Farm Boy]

Alright. So your projected threat of violence regarding this rally I never heard about till after it was over triggered the FBI to pre-police the event, or it did not?

Gun rights rallies have the advantage of usually getting permits and operating inside the law. Protests that operate outside the law, regardless of general threat to the public, and and are open about the possession of firearms being part of the message? Those don't seem to get a pass when a body is generated. Political opponents and all.

Edit:whoops

 

[Estebonrober]

Alright. So your projected threat of violence regarding this rally I never heard about till after it was over triggered the FBI to pre-police the event, or it did not?

Gun rights rallies have the advantage of usually getting permits and operating inside the law. Protests that operate outside the law, regardless of general threat to the public, and and are open about the possession of firearms being part of the message? Those don't seem to get a pass when a body is generated. Political opponents and all.

Yes it did seem to cause the FBI to act, I mean if this was a Black Panther rally with the firearms in this manner, even with permits do you think the government would have been so compliant? I mean this rally is a good demonstration in the systemic part of the racism we talk about here still going on.

I can't parse your second sentence. I get the lack of permit thing although obviously that has its own problems since protests do not actually require permits by law. I understand the excuse by law enforcement though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bah, edit'd. I missed a swap on where I put the negative.

I don't know if the FBI prepping for an event, taking action even, is necessarily what I would label as "compliant" the way it seems to imply.

 

[Estebonrober]

Bah, edit'd. I missed a swap on where I put the negative.

I don't know if the FBI prepping for an event, taking action even, is necessarily what I would label as "compliant" the way it seems to imply.

I'm not accusing them of being compliant with nazis, I'm accusing them of being antagonistic to BLM type movements like they are nazis which is "problematic".

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if BLM protests aren't treated well enough then BLM protests aren't treated well enough. That seems to operate on firm enough footing as its own point, albeit somewhat eccentrically placed.

 

[Commodore]

Also if guns are not the problem then why is this nation the only one with the problem. Its so basic

We aren't the only nation with the problem though. The problem, of course being violent crime in general. The dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd comes in the limiting of the issue to gun violence alone.

 

[Estebonrober]

We aren't the only nation with the problem though. The problem, of course being violent crime in general. The dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd comes in the limiting of the issue to gun violence alone.

no no no violent crime and violent crime with guns are two different beasts.gun violence dramatically increases violent deaths

 

[Commodore]

no no no violent crime and violent crime with guns are two different beasts.gun violence dramatically increases violent deaths

But doesn't have any impact one way or the other on violent crime in general. The point being that if you address the real causes of violent crime, then the rate of gun violence will fall along with all other types of violent crimes. The same cannot be said if you just banned guns. So again, guns are not the problem.

 

[Estebonrober]

But doesn't have any impact one way or the other on violent crime in general. The point being that if you address the real causes of violent crime, then the rate of gun violence will fall along with all other types of violent crimes. The same cannot be said if you just banned guns. So again, guns are not the problem.

Its like talking to a wall, guns are why we have gun deaths. They don't have 40k knife deaths in europe or anything.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, they are, if you think that gun crime results in worse outcomes than comparable violent crimes. I mean, if one nation has more deaths due to similar violent crime rates, we then look to see what's the causal factor. If it's guns that cause it to be 'worse', then it's guns.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Also if guns are not the problem then why is this nation the only one with the problem. Its so basic.

It's not the only one with the problem.

 

[Commodore]

Its like talking to a wall, guns are why we have gun deaths

No, they aren't. Here's where I'm going to throw out the ole "I've never seen a gun get up on its own and shoot someone" line.

The problem is people shooting other people. To address that, you don't take guns away, you address what is making people want to shoot other people. That way, not only do you reduced gun deaths, but all violent crime so when someone doesn't have a gun to shoot someone, they don't just go find another way to enact violence upon someone else.

It's not the only one with the problem.

I didn't write the post you quoted.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is people shooting other people. To address that, you don't take guns away, you address what is making people want to shoot other people.

Making it harder for criminals to get guns =/= taking away guns. I know it seems like that, but the insistence on making guns cheap and easy to get is part of the problem.
You're right, changing socioeconomic factors in order to reduce gun violence is also a tool in the toolkit. But you have to look at places that are successful and see what works.
But cheap and easy guns really is part of the problem. It's just the way it works.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, they aren't. Here's where I'm going to throw out the ole "I've never seen a gun get up on its own and shoot someone" line.

The problem is people shooting other people. To address that, you don't take guns away, you address what is making people want to shoot other people. That way, not only do you reduced gun deaths, but all violent crime so when someone doesn't have a gun to shoot someone, they don't just go find another way to enact violence upon someone else.



I didn't write the post you quoted.

We do fine historically and internationally speaking on violent crime rates, they are more deadly because of guns. You want to convince people not to commit violent crime fine, but this is a stupid argument. Clearly people don't follow your moral compass very well. I wish they did.