The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Snowygerry]

At least they are high up, so the children can't get at them

 

[Farm Boy]

Kinda curious where the lighters, cigarettes, and ammo are.

 

[Snowygerry]

And the porn...

 

[Farm Boy]

The deer head is pretty sweet.

Porn usually in a different room, with that one its the seeing, not the touching, that is objected too. There still a lot of porn rooms left? That seems to have gone specialized, the internet replacing the general store sort of availability.

 

[Kyriakos]

What's wrong with duck guns? Hunting equipment is the thing people constantly say they're fine with. Also, store is probably both pretty general in somewhere pretty small if this is its mix of product. Cabellas this is not. It seems pretty busy, and if it wasn't safe, blue flannel man probably wouldn't have brought his daughter.

Given the reactions, in going to guess you're getting class based response, mostly.

I am not a gun enthusiast, but the guns to the left (and distance) seem to be more heavy duty (?)

 

[Farm Boy]

Looks like a mix of shotguns and hunting rifles to me, but happy to be corrected. Bigger guns usually more hunty. Smaller guns, more for people. AK-47s are tiny compared to most 12 gauge shotguns. Pistols smaller yet, extremely limited hunting usefulness.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The irony (probably more like dishonesty) here is that if the government was really engaged in some sort of dystopian thoughtcrime policy to disarm and/or lock-up "threats"... ostensibly the potential, gun-wielding violent killers, before they potentially commit a shooting... Megan Kelly and those who share her line of thinking, would be the first ones complaining about government oppression, overreach and anti-gun/2A conspiracies, because the ones getting "locked-up" would be, at least in part, their gun-loving, gun-owning supporters.

Right, conformity is a conservative value, consistency is not. I imagine Kelly would experience no cognitive dissonance there, but she would find someone who was born male wearing a dress to be intolerable.

Also, does Megyn Kelly really want me to have "a greater willingness to lock people up who are deemed to be threats"? Gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates should be rushing to cut her mic and clap their hands over her mouth. For me, someone owning or buying a gun who's unable to demonstrate a clear need for it is a "red flag." You want to know who I deem to be threats, Megyn? Do you really? People who have a gun without a good reason for it are on the list. Now, Megyn, do you really want me to be more willing to lock up people I deem to be a threat? Go ahead and take a minute to think about it, if you need to.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What's wrong with duck guns? Hunting equipment is the thing people constantly say they're fine with. Also, store is probably both pretty general in somewhere pretty small if this is its mix of product. Cabellas this is not. It seems pretty busy, and if it wasn't safe, blue flannel man probably wouldn't have brought his daughter.

Given the reactions, in going to guess you're getting class based response, mostly.

Absolutely nothing wrong with duck guns. Like I said, that image is as American as apple pie... and you're right that in a small town in a remote area, its pretty standard to encounter small, convenience store sized shops and/or truck stops that sell just about everything, from milk to firearms to lettuce to portable generators to decorative hunting knives to pre-made sandwiches to liquor to beautiful craft silver jewelry with turquoise stones... all in the same shop. Traveling cross country, to the South or to the Midwest I've seen stores like this all over the place, heck I've stopped to eat and bought jewelry for my wife in a place like this...

Its still funny as hell to see long-guns lined up right above the cinnamon Fireball-liquor...

 

[Farm Boy]

the cinnamon Fireball-liquor

...the shame. The shame. Still probably way less of a headache than that Wild Turkey.

 

[Sommerswerd]

...the shame. The shame. Still probably way less of a headache than that Wild Turkey.

Yeah Wild Turkey is a guaranteed hangover

Speaking of which... I wonder what the hunting gun of choice is for wild turkeys?

 

[Farm Boy]

Haven't seen one of those in a while, now that I think about it.

 

[Arwon]

And this was in the NYT today. Normalization of gun violence is well underway

A Gun-Filled America Is a World of Fear and Alienation​

Another week, another shooting.
This one was in Allen, Texas — a city about 25 miles north of Dallas — where a gunman killed at least eight people and injured at least seven others before he was killed by a police officer. He used, as is standard these days, an AR-15-style rifle. Some of the victims were children.

The frequency of mass shootings in the United States means there is a ritual, of sorts, associated with each occurrence. Republican politicians offer “thoughts and prayers,” Democratic politicians condemn those offering only “thoughts and prayers,” and their respective allies in the media trade barbs over gun control. On Twitter, Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News anchor, took part in the ritual with a series of tweets castigating gun control proponents for focusing on, well, gun control. “Serious q for gun control advocates: you’ve failed to effect change,” she said. “Pls face it. You can’t do it, thx to the 2A. We’re all well aware you don’t like that fact, but fact it is. What’s next? Must we just stay here sad, concerned, lamenting? Could we possibly talk OTHER SOLUTIONS?”
Kelly argues that instead of focusing our attention on the proliferation of high-powered rifles, we should try these “other solutions” that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and minimize destruction from mass shootings when they do occur: “Mental health interventions (smthg real, not the BS we now do), greater willingness to lock ppl up (w/protocols in place for civil libs) who are deemed to be threats, fortification of soft targets, coordination of media response to not lionize shooters, etc.”

Apparently, the debate over gun control is over — “it’s done,” Kelly says — and so the only thing left to do is shape our society in a way that leaves life compatible with the mass proliferation of firearms. You might say that I’m picking on Kelly, whose most noteworthy contribution to American political discourse was her forceful argument that Santa Claus, the fictional avatar of Christmas, is white. But even if Kelly isn’t especially relevant, she is prominent, noteworthy and emblematic of conservative rhetoric in the wake of mass shootings. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, to give another example, also jumped immediately to mental health and mental illness in the wake of the slaughter in Allen. “One thing we can observe very easily is that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of anger and violence that’s taking place in America,” Abbott, a Republican, said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday. “And what Texas is doing, in a big-time way, we’re working to address that anger and violence by going to its root cause, which is addressing the mental health crisis behind it.”

After another recent shooting — the attack at a private Christian school in Nashville that killed three adults and three children — Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, announced a plan to help place armed police officers at every school in Tennessee. “We have an obligation, I have an obligation, to do what I can and work together with leaders across this community to address people’s concerns and to protect our kids in whatever way we can,” he said. Experts on mental health and mental illness have said, repeatedly, that it is inaccurate to assert or imply that these issues are primarily responsible for the rise of mass shootings in the United States. And in a 2018 report on mass shooters from 2000 to 2013, the F.B.I. pushed back on the idea that mental illness causes mass shootings: “Absent specific evidence, careful consideration should be given to social and contextual factors that might interact with any mental health issue before concluding that an active shooting was ‘caused’ by mental illness. In short, declarations that all active shooters must simply be mentally ill are misleading and unhelpful.”

There’s been less said about the similarly prevalent idea that we could prevent mass shootings by, in Kelly’s words, hardening the “soft targets” of American life. Not only is this as wrongheaded as the rhetoric concerning mental health and mass shootings, but it also works to normalize a disturbing vision for American society. What is a “soft target”? It is a school or a mall or a church or a gym. It is a library, a movie theater, a grocery store or anywhere people gather to live their lives. What would it mean to “harden” those targets, most of which have already been targeted at one point or another? It would mean additional police officers and armed security; metal detectors and reinforced doors designed to bar entry; heightened scrutiny for visitors; and even mandatory checks for identification.
To harden our soft targets is, in other words, to turn the entire country into an airport security line. And far from a free society, this hardened America would be a continental version of Baghdad’s Green Zone, each checkpoint or guard a visible reminder that we’ve organized our entire lives around the prospect of instant death by lethal violence. We’re already halfway there. It is normal, at many synagogues and Jewish community centers, to have armed security guards. It is normal, at many schools, to have metal detectors. It is normal to drill young children for when a shooter appears — to train first and second and third graders to run and hide or play dead.

And of course, there are those who already live in a garrison state of sorts. For some Americans, it is a garrison of their own making: gated communities manned by armed guards. For others, it is more akin to a surveillance state, one of constant police presence and contact. Either way, it is a world of fear and alienation, where people live in a state of heightened awareness, even anxiety. It is not a world of trust or hope or solidarity or any of the values we need to make democracy work as a way of life, much less a system of government.

Which might be the point for conservatives who want that world — who want, in a sense, that “polite society.” Because what will survive are hierarchy and force and the power to make others bend to your will. And if they refuse? If they insist on their right to live free of fear?

Well, that’s what the guns are for.

One point missed - some of those guardians of the "hardened society", the panicky half trained security guards, the violent and prejudiced police, the freelance individuals carrying weapons everywhere because threats are everywhere man.. they're going to shoot people too.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe SCOTUS is nervous

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-assault-weapons-bans-in-illinois/index.html

 

[Samson]

Maybe SCOTUS is nervous

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-assault-weapons-bans-in-illinois/index.html

The Supreme Court refused to block a local and state ban on assault weapon sales in Illinois, rejecting an emergency request from gun rights advocates and a gun store.

A vote count was not disclosed and the court did not explain its action.

Does that mean they did not take the case, or that they took the case and denied the motion?

 

[JollyRoger]

Porn usually in a different room,

Liquor in the front, poker in the rear

 

[Birdjaguar]

Does that mean they did not take the case, or that they took the case and denied the motion?

Hard to say. Shadow docket? Rulings without arguments or explanation knowing who voted or why.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Does that mean they did not take the case, or that they took the case and denied the motion?

Neither. The case is currently before the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs in the case asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary injunction against the city ordinance, pending the appeals court's ruling, which the federal district court and the appeals court had already declined to do.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

presumably other guns could be sold without the busineses going under, so, probably not the "emergency" the plaintiffs were hoping for.

*unrelated*
contrast this with another instance where a gun store in a city (well, the last gun store) was forced to close because all gun sales had to be video taped. why simply taking picture wasn't sufficient I don't know...

https://www.npr.org/2015/10/27/451202615/san-franciscos-last-gun-shop-calls-it-quits

 

[EgonSpengler]

presumably other guns could be sold without the busineses going under, so, probably not the "emergency" the plaintiffs were hoping for.

Based on the brief article posted above, the plaintiffs request for an injunction seemed to be premised entirely on their claim that the ordinance violates the 2nd Amendment. Who knows, maybe they'd have had more luck claiming that it critically impacts their businesses.


Dad Joke Alert: It just occurred to me that it's an ordnance ordinance.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Serbians hand in guns and question culture of violence after two shootings​

Shock and horror might have been Serbians' first reaction to two mass shootings in as many days earlier this month. But outrage swiftly followed.
Tens of thousands of people attended two protests in the capital, Belgrade, with smaller rallies in other cities around the country.
They marched under the banner "Serbia Against Violence" and called for an end to what they viewed as a culture of violence which led to the shootings at a school in Belgrade and, the next day, around Mladenovac, south of Serbia's capital.
More protests will follow - and the government seems rattled. Senior figures have been talking down the numbers involved, as well as making plans for a "solidarity" rally of their own.

But there is one issue which both protesters and authorities seem to agree on: gun control.
"There is no pro-gun lobby in Serbia," says Bojan Elek, the deputy director of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy and an expert on firearms issues in the country.

"There is a national association of gun owners - but nothing close to what they're doing in the US with the National Rifle Association (NRA)."
In the wake of the shootings, President Aleksandar Vucic swiftly announced what he called a "general disarmament" of the country. He declared a month-long amnesty for illegally-held weapons, with a warning of harsh consequences for anyone who held on to guns without a permit.
The president also has legally-held weapons in his sights. Mr Vucic has announced a moratorium on new weapons permits and a review of current gun licences.
All this would appear to be quite an undertaking in a country where the number of guns in circulation is, apparently, alarmingly high. In 2018, the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey ranked Serbia third in the world for the number of weapons in private hands, with 39 guns per 100 people.

he public and political reaction to such a disarmament programme in the country which tops the list, the United States, can be imagined. In Serbia, says Bojan Elek, it has been a different matter.
The amnesty has been mostly positively accepted, he says, and by the second day of the amnesty, more guns and ammunition had been handed over than in the previous three amnesties put together.

"The number of illegal guns is definitely being reduced - even some weapons from World War II have been handed in. But we haven't got a credible figure of how many there were to start with, so it's hard to say how many are remaining."
Given the government's swift action to reduce the number of weapons in circulation and the lack of widespread objections to their proposals, the question is: why are tens of thousands of people still motivated to hit the streets in protest?

• Two in two days: The shootings that shook Serbia
• Mass shootings in US now top 200 this year
• He counts US shootings. He no longer remembers names

Political analyst Bosko Jaksic agrees that the weapons amnesty is not the bone of contention.
"The only thing which Vucic organised promptly was gun control. This is organised well and it works - so why should the demonstrators ask for such a measure when it already exists?"
Instead, the protesters are looking beyond the weapons and towards what they view as the root causes of the shootings.
The specifics include demands for the resignation of two senior government officials and the revocation of the licences of two pro-government broadcasters. But overall, protesters say they are most concerned about a culture of both rhetorical and physical violence which they believe has grown since the Serbian Progressive Party took power in 2012.

"We are surrounded by violence - in the public domain, political communication, parliament and television shows," says Belgrade resident, Aleks. "The culture of civilised conversation is completely lost."
Another protester, Milos, feels much the same way.
"The tragic events were a culmination of the violent methods - not necessarily physical - that they're practising in the media," he says.

Neither of these particular protesters believe that Serbia is in danger of emulating the levels of gun violence seen in the US.
"That narrative is mainly coming from government officials who are blaming 'Western values'," says Aleks. "What we're seeing has nothing to do with Western values, but values imposed on us by our own government."
Bojan Elek takes a slightly broader view.
"There is definitely some fear about emulating the US," he says. "But the government is riding this fear and trying to introduce problematic measures, like reducing the age of criminal responsibility to 12 and allowing police to enter homes without court orders."
The protesters' demands have yet to be met. But the pro-government broadcaster Pink TV has announced the cancellation of a controversial reality programme which has long been on the receiving end of criticism for its tacit approval of verbal and occasionally physical violence.
Meanwhile, President Vucic has talked down the significance of the protests - accusing opposition parties of using a national tragedy for their own benefit. That has not, however, stopped him from announcing his own rally at the end of this month, with a special meeting of the Progressive Party the following day.
"President Vucic has shown he's afraid of the street - of people gathering in Belgrade and other cities," says Bosko Jaksic.
"These meetings are polarising. Why not just go on TV instead of paying millions to transport and feed people you bring to Belgrade? It's a manifestation of glory instead of solidarity, not unifying but further dividing Serbia."
And that may be what brings more people on to the streets of Belgrade in the coming days and weeks.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65597622