|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Mostly the shooters die, and there is then a lot of retrospective theorising.
I thought folk might be interested in this.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Thanks, Doublethink.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Having read this about the shooter, my reaction is basically "what a pathetic piece of shit".
Meanwhile, here in Australia we've had a 15-year-old boy kill one person before being killed himself. The whole thing is freaking bizarre. He targeted a police station but his victim was actually a civilian IT worker, and a Buddhist of Chinese origin to boot. But the kid? Iraqi-Kurdish, born in Iran (so apparently a refugee). There's no way a person of Kurdish background should be sympathising with the radical Islamists such as ISIS.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Go read the jlg threads in limbo.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, here in Australia we've had a 15-year-old boy kill one person before being killed himself. The whole thing is freaking bizarre. He targeted a police station but his victim was actually a civilian IT worker, and a Buddhist of Chinese origin to boot. But the kid? Iraqi-Kurdish, born in Iran (so apparently a refugee). There's no way a person of Kurdish background should be sympathising with the radical Islamists such as ISIS.
ISIS aren't the only nutjobs in the world. It's quite possible this boy was suffering from the trauma of life before fleeing and the journey, in a foreign country and culture. That's enough to push quite a few people over the edge. Just because that person's from a largely Muslim country doesn't mean he's therefore sympathetic to ISIS. Another victim of the fuck up world we've created, intent on making others victims as he goes down.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Go read the jlg threads in limbo.
Ouch. And yes.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes, that is why regulation matters. People who commit spree killings are not typical career criminals with the illegal support network and contacts that implies.
These shootings happen regularly, when was the last time you heard of one of these spree killers having a history of acting with others to commit crimes ? These are not usually people who go round and threaten people if they owe money, or steal cars to order.
These are people who struggle to connect with others and feel thwarted and persecuted in their lives. They are often odd enough to attract bullying in communal contexts that worsens the problem - and that may ultimately focus their anger on a particular target.
Another thing is: it is hard to think of a spree shooter that wasn't a young man.
The problem with the rugged individual/ top of the heap image we use to sell men stuff is that we are ultimately selling loneliness and isolation. Community requires things like compromise, cooperation, attention to the needs of others-- none of which are things a "tough guy" does. So, when a young man is bullied and isolated from his peers, we have this societally provided self soothing tool. A security blanket with the legend," You don't need anyone, you are a lone wolf maverick."
So, when a young is having trouble simply just being with people, he doesn't even have the vocabulary to ask for help with this. We teach them there is something wrong with needing people.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
A coming together of three things. A discussion, thanks to the leader of the Labour Party, of the MAD doctrine. A spree shooter, again. And an attack on a hospital, which may, or may not, have held a few Taliban, but definitely doctors on sabbatical from their home hospitals and patients resulting from the recent attack on their city.
There was a man who took on Piers Morgan replayed on the radio this morning, about how essential it was for Americans to have the right to bear guns. Shrieking out, and he claimed to be the sane one. Today
[ 03. October 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
That was not, I hope you realise, intended as a general criticism of Americans. I know perfectly well that the majority do not have a devotion to weaponry.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Just to hit a few of the fallacies and inaccuracies on the prior pages:
- The claims that the shooter posted threats on 4chan are questionable at best. via Gawker
- There were people carrying weapons on campus. Didn't stop anything. via Think Progress
- Extension of the 2nd Amendment to be a personal rather than collective right only happened in the last decade.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
It may be too late to worry about Duelling Banjos being associated with unpleasant thoughts.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
saysay
No need to converse. As orfeo says, studies have been made. The gun lobby has always put lot of effort into attempts to refute them.
The Philadelphia study.
A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection.
If you want to change minds, you have to engage arguments. But the left in the US insists on trying to control the conversation.
quote:
But if that is too heavy or thought to be too selective, there is also this argument.
The Protection Paradox.
"The more people who own guns for self protection, the more shootings there will be."
"The widespread ownership of protective weapons increases the risks for everyone".
Well, it would seem to be a tautological argument that the more guns there are, and the more people who own them, the more shootings there will be. Again, doesn't necessarily change minds about whether or not that's more acceptable than the alternative.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So states could indeed, at least in principle, regulate to restrict access to guns by the mentally ill. Have any tried to do so?
Only all of them.
As with most things the US government does, it seems to have made things a pain in the ass for law-abiding citizens, while not keeping the guns away from persons prohibited.
And to me Baltimore suggests that creating a huge criminal underclass of people prohibited from owning handguns doesn't do a lot to reduce the actual violence.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The NRA has spent a lot of time and money into persuading people in the boondocks who own hunting rifles and the like that gun controls will affect them. That is bollocks. The problem is guns, especially handguns, in towns.
When we British talk about gun controls it's worth remembering that people can still own shotguns and more besides. My b-i-l used to have a hunting rifle for pest control in his job as a gamekeeper. Some of his kills ended up on the table too, very nice .
The difference is that certificates are issued by the police and they need to see good reason to issue a certificate. There are over half a million licensed shotguns and over 150,000 licensed firearms (which includes higher-powered air-rifles). Certificates for handguns are very tightly restricted now, and mostly restricted to muzzle loaders and historic guns. A few prominent politicians (notably in Northern Ireland) have in the past been allowed handguns as personal protection weapons but that's about it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Could it be that urban gun owners don't know what they are talking about? Even with regard to their own guns??
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The NRA has spent a lot of time and money into persuading people in the boondocks who own hunting rifles and the like that gun controls will affect them. That is bollocks. The problem is guns, especially handguns, in towns.
Unfortunately, it's not just the NRA, it's quotes like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
The right in this country uses gun control the way the left uses abortion: any restriction (no matter how seemingly sensible) becomes an excuse to whip up paranoia that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards confiscating and eliminating all guns or outlawing abortion.
shrug It's the rhetorical atmosphere people seem to want.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous. I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
OK then. Ban them in cities, apart from shooting clubs.
quote:
But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous.
Don't try to read my mind. You do this way too often and you expect others to read yours too. but that is another problem which is entirely yours.
quote:
I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
It would be a damn sight better if they didn't get into a "conflict" at all. Don't you people do anger management? All guns do is raise the stakes from a fat lip to a funeral.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re city vs. rural:
The Ruby Ridge incident (Wikipedia) is one reason rural folk worry about the gov't taking their guns. Law enforcement officers did a spectacularly horrendous job--including shooting and killing a woman with a baby in her arms.
I just skimmed through the article. I'd forgotten a lot. But there's also a lot that wasn't in the original news coverage. If you mix the siege on the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX; the total disconnect between intelligence agencies before 9/11; and all the bungling and callousness in the Feds' handling of Hurricane Katrina; then focus that on one farm in Idaho...well, the Feds pretty much poured a super-tanker of gasoline on the militia movement. And disgusted and scared the heck out of all sorts of other people.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
common sense
This phrase comes up a lot. It seems to have a very different meaning over there.
For example: I'm sitting in a coffee shop, someone comes in carrying a gun. Common sense dictates that get the hell out of there as quickly as possible, and as soon as I'm safe, call the police.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Doc Tor--
Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.
I don't know what the current situation is; but, several years go, there was a big thing in Northern California about that. IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them. That was a local law, IIRC.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Dave W--
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
It may be too late to worry about Duelling Banjos being associated with unpleasant thoughts.
I've made a point of avoiding that movie, and I didn't read the article, due to extremely disturbing things I've heard about it. You just gave me another reason not to see it.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
The latest stats I've seen say that only 20% of US citizens live in rural areas. Sure there are degrees of urbanisation, from small town to major city. But here is a link to some recent data. An average population density in urban areas of over 2,000 people per square mile; that's high enough for the exposure to risk argument to have some force.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--
Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.
I don't know what the current situation is; but, several years go, there was a big thing in Northern California about that. IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them. That was a local law, IIRC.
If I'm in a US coffee shop, and a non-police officer comes in carrying a gun, I'm going to leave. Immediately. If I'm in a restaurant, and I'm half-way through my meal, likewise.
I want to say "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" but that doesn't quite meet the nuance I'm looking for. It's your law makers I need to address.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--
Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.
So why wear it? As a freaking fashion accessory?
I could ask more questions about the kind of people who wear this kind of bling, but I'd also add that the most dangerous gun on earth is an unloaded gun. The guy who taught me to shoot started with that and the Darwin Awards mention a fair few incidents featuring "unloaded" guns.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The right in this country uses gun control the way the left uses abortion: any restriction (no matter how seemingly sensible) becomes an excuse to whip up paranoia that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards confiscating and eliminating all guns or outlawing abortion.
shrug It's the rhetorical atmosphere people seem to want.
This is spot on. The difference IMO is that both sides seek the same end with regard to events like Thursday.
No one wants to see what happened in Oregon.
Pro abortion activists don't have any problem with a million+ abortions each year, and more is fine too.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I want to say "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" but that doesn't quite meet the nuance I'm looking for. It's your law makers I need to address.
What we need is campaign finance reform and reform of voting regulations. If we could vastly reduce the amount of money it takes to reach elected office, we could have lawmakers who would have to respond to voters' wishes rather than the wishes of those who pay for the campaigns. And if we had automatic voter registration and better regulations guaranteeing access to voting, conservatives would start losing a lot more elections and we'd get better gun laws. Not to mention a host of other societal benefits.
Posts: 24451 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Too long term. No, denigration and hooting is the solution. Politicians can be shamed into acting rightly.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
quote:
OK then. Ban them in cities, apart from shooting clubs.
They did for a long time in a lot of cities. All it meant was that the criminals had guns but the law-abiding citizens didn't. Eventually the Supreme Court overturned DC's handgun ban as unconstitutional.
quote:
quote:
But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous.
Don't try to read my mind. You do this way too often and you expect others to read yours too. but that is another problem which is entirely yours.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Are you Soror Magna? That was a response to her.
quote:
quote:
I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
It would be a damn sight better if they didn't get into a "conflict" at all. Don't you people do anger management? All guns do is raise the stakes from a fat lip to a funeral.
No, they don't teach us anger management. They teach us The Game. And that you can't escape playing the Game. (That's what I was saying about our culture being sick).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
saysay,
I'll agree with you about our culture being sick. I doubt we'll agree on the cure though.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Too long term. No, denigration and hooting is the solution. Politicians can be shamed into acting rightly.
Bullshit. Alabama is closing the driver's license bureaus in 8 of the 10 counties with the highest concentration of black people and requiring that people show a picture ID to vote. Officials in Oregon are talking about how this is a time to mourn, not a time to discuss gun laws. Politicians are not in general motivated by shame - it doesn't get them re-elected.
Posts: 24451 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Private shame, they can shuck. Public ignominy is what is called for. Like that guy who bought the rights to a drug and then raised the prices by a thousand percent. They need to be publicly hung out to dry, with rotten fruit and the odd dead fish.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
common sense
This phrase comes up a lot. It seems to have a very different meaning over there.
For example: I'm sitting in a coffee shop, someone comes in carrying a gun. Common sense dictates that get the hell out of there as quickly as possible, and as soon as I'm safe, call the police.
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?
I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.
Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern. The person could in fact be a police officer or any of another million types of security officer (ours are not always in uniform). Most people will not actually own a holster unless they have an open carry permit, so you're likely just going to annoy the police who have to make sure everything checks out (and that's if you're not in more danger of a trigger-happy cop showing up than the citizen with the gun).
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
The latest stats I've seen say that only 20% of US citizens live in rural areas. Sure there are degrees of urbanisation, from small town to major city. But here is a link to some recent data. An average population density in urban areas of over 2,000 people per square mile; that's high enough for the exposure to risk argument to have some force.
As far as I know there are no solid numbers mapping legal gun owners to location. IME part of the breakdown in communication in a lot of gun control debates comes from the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
Do'h. I quoted the second part 'cos I was going to respond to that as well.
Put me down as someone who "has never and would never fire a gun". That doesn't mean I don't think no one ever should. As I said, I've a friend (OK, technically husband of a friend) who used to shoot clay pigeons. With sensible precautions (ie: lots of space without anyone the otherside of where the pigeons are) perfectly safe activity. A former colleague was from Texas, a farm boy who regularly (ie: about once a month) got out the gun in the night because some varmit was annoying the livestock (I'm not sure if he ever fired at anything, except tin cans to show he was a good enough shot before his dad let him have a gun unsupervised, I got the impression that the light coming on and the dog were enough to scare the varmit off). Hunting (whether deer, grouse or whatever) is an important part of the Scottish rural economy (indeed, now we don't have any natural predators, someone has to keep deer numbers in check). These are all, IMO, perfectly reasonable reasons to have a gun, or possibly two. With the exception of seeing off some varmit in the chickens, I don't see any reason for people to keep guns readily accessible at home or carry them with them. The guy I knew with two shotguns for shooting clay pigeons had them locked in a strong box in the attic, with the ammo in a locked cupboard elsewhere in the house - which didn't stop someone breaking in with the power tools needed to get at them, one of which was later used in a crime (which, incidentally, in the UK meant he lost his license).
"Gun control advocates" are just that, in favour of gun control not an absolute ban on all guns.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Which is a fucking large part of the problem.
Seriously, how is it that you think murderers get access to guns so readily in the US? It's because no-one thinks it's particularly remarkable that someone is walking around with guns, collecting more and more guns, talking about guns, expressing interest in guns, expressing interest in shootings even.
That's one of the reasons this keeps happening in your country far more than in other countries. Because in other countries, if someone's exhibiting that behaviour there's a far higher chance that other people are going to be worried and at the very least raise a concern with the authorities or other people.
It's not a normal sight. It's a freaking bizarre sight. I don't care if you're in a rural community, it's simply not true that people need to walk around with a gun on them. A farmer doesn't need his gun when he's in the local store or cafe, he needs it on his own property. No-one needs a dozen or more guns, they probably need about 3 maximum depending on the how much variety there is in the things they actually need to shoot.
The fact that you've normalised the sight of people with guns is not a good thing, it's a terrible thing. Not being concerned that someone is in possession of a deadly weapon is demented.
[ 03. October 2015, 23:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?
I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.
Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:
What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?
You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just to make sure, saysay. You actually concede that the majority of US citizens live in urban areas but now that doesn't matter because they spend time in rural areas? On weekend breaks and vacations presumably. Which means they spend some three quarters of their time in areas of relatively high population density where the majority of citizens own guns.
Doesn't that kind of undermine your rubbishing of the Philidelphia study which provided evidence that gun ownership did not provide the levels of protection generally believed? The point that you disputed so strongly that it wasn't worth conversing about?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'm sure everyone in America, on both sides of the debate knows already, but there was more stringent gun control in some frontier towns in the Wild West than there is now. Link here.
Maybe people were less trustworthy then, but somehow I doubt it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
Most of the gun owners I know are either city people with illegal guns for use in criminal activity, or rural gun owners with legal guns for legitimate uses. Legitimate uses include:
1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat. When I was a kid it wasn't unusual to see people walking around with a rifle in case they happened upon something that might be good to eat. Greater enforcement of various hunting seasons has cut down on that a lot.
2) Protection from coyote, wolves, bears, rattlesnakes, copperheads, etc. This is mostly why the people I know who frequently carry guns carry them. Shooting bears and coyote is rare (they tend more towards the you-leave-us-alone-we'll-leave-you-alone attitude). Shooting snakes happens more often than you might think. Holstered handguns are easier to carry around in case of emergency than long guns.
3) Protection from other people. The fact of the matter is that there are some evil people in the world. Yes, it is highly unlikely that one of them is just going to happen to pick your property or house to pursue their criminal activity. But if they do and you're in a rural area, if you or one of your neighbors doesn't have a gun, other help is frequently going to be a long time coming.
Once when I was staying with family in West Virginia, a townie shot a cop and ran to the mountain we lived on. We immediately got calls from the neighbors informing us of what was going on and asking if we had enough guns and ammo (we did). Eventually almost every cop in the state arrived but it took a while. Did the guy actually try to break in such that we needed the guns? No. The incident is not going to show up in statistics of home invasions or other crimes that were successfully stopped by the use of a gun. That people who live in cities can't even seem to comprehend why we would want a gun in a situation like that tends to be a barrier to real conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you've normalised the sight of people with guns is not a good thing, it's a terrible thing. Not being concerned that someone is in possession of a deadly weapon is demented.
You're reading the situation backwards. We haven't normalised the sight; in parts of the US it has simply never become abnormal because our natural predators have never disappeared. In other parts, people see law enforcement officers too frequently to get upset by the sight of a holstered gun.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:
What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.
(I just live here).
quote:
You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
With the current stats, I think you might be in more danger of being murdered by someone wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government. But we're special like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just to make sure, saysay. You actually concede that the majority of US citizens live in urban areas but now that doesn't matter because they spend time in rural areas? On weekend breaks and vacations presumably. Which means they spend some three quarters of their time in areas of relatively high population density where the majority of citizens own guns.
That bears no resemblance to what I am saying. Again, as far as I know there are no actual numbers mapping legal gun owners to locations, but most of the legal gun owners I have known have lived in rural areas, where the risk/ reward ratio for owning a gun is completely different than it is in a densely populated urban area. Those who haven't lived there have spent significant amounts of time there and generally kept their weapons there.
quote:
Doesn't that kind of undermine your rubbishing of the Philidelphia study which provided evidence that gun ownership did not provide the levels of protection generally believed? The point that you disputed so strongly that it wasn't worth conversing about?
It's the game. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Most people I know don't seem to have the belief that you think they do, that a gun is necessarily going to keep you from getting shot when you are facing another person with a gun (although it does happen). Rather, that a gun may prove useful protection against a person or predator who does not have a gun (which, given the penalties for using a gun in the commission of another crime, a lot of criminals don't have).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Egeria
Shipmate
# 4517
|
Posted
I'm with Alan. Would never own a gun--never dreamed of it.
And saysay's full of shit as usual. The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal. And if I were in a coffee house or other public place and some civilian came in with a gun, I would leave immediately and would call the police.
Crap about "civil war" was one of the bullshit justifications wackos used to arm themselves in the seventies, when idiot assholes were running around predicting a) a communist invasion or revolution, b) a military coup, c) civil war or d) just a total societal breakdown. I still occasionally read nonsense about how we were teetering on the brink of civil war. And I think those paranoid fantasies have contributed to the incidence of gun-related deaths we see today.
One of my coworkers was shot to death on busy street in 1981. The murderer was a sixteen-year-old. How did he get that gun? Quite possibly from his older accomplice; maybe that useless asshole bought it legally. Or maybe the murderer stole it; he'd already been convicted of burglary twice (and immediately after being released from his second stay with the California Youth Authority, he raped a twelve-year-old girl). When a lot of dumbass citizens own handguns "for protection," it's that much easier for a criminal to get his hands on one.
And a family member, not yet thirty, lost his life when an argument got out of control in a house where there was a perfectly legal collection of historic (and unfortunately functioning) guns. What about that man's two little boys? He was trying to get custody of them because his ex's new boyfriend was not only dumb as a post, he was physically abusive. The death condemned those boys to grow up with a stupid mother and a stupid, violent stepfather. What about his parents' heartbreak and the pain that washed over the entire extended family? What about the man who actually pulled the trigger--not a criminal or a violent loser, just an ordinary decent guy who was provoked into losing his temper and had the means at hand to do such an awful thing before he'd had time to think.
Consider then a basketball team with thirteen players. Of those young women, three had lost members of their immediate families to guns. One woman's father had been mistaken for an armed robber by a trigger-happy police officer. One woman's father, a community leader and anti-violence activist, had been murdered outside the gymnasium where his daughter's high school team was playing. One woman's brother was killed while attending a party (possibly a mistaken identity shooting--I don't know if anyone was ever arrested in that one).
It's pretty simple. Fewer handguns around, fewer fatalities. To say that well, a really determined sociopath will find weapons anyway, so it's useless to frame new regulations, is on a par with leaving your house unlocked on the grounds that a really determined burglar will find his way in. And there's no reason at all for any civilian anywhere to be able to get his hands on an assault weapon. To say that "stuff happens"--that's typical for a stupid, corrupt, callous idiot (ie a Republican).
--------------------
"Sound bodies lined / with a sound mind / do here pursue with might / grace, honor, praise, delight."--Rabelais
Posts: 314 | From: Berkeley, CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal. And if I were in a coffee house or other public place and some civilian came in with a gun, I would leave immediately. . . .
It's very upsetting. Here in Bigotland . . . oops, I mean Arizona . . . you do see people carrying guns in various places. I give them as wide a berth as I can. Some shops have "no guns allowed" policies. I stopped shopping at a certain supermarket chain because they refused to implement such a policy.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I think it is deliberate menacing. I think the message sent by flamboyant open carry is "If we don't get our way, we will use them."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
saysay's full of shit as usual.
Must be a month with a vowel.
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
... The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal ...
Where I grew up, the sight of a police officer with a gun wasn't normal either; when I moved to Northern Ireland, where the police quite justifiably carry guns, I found it more than somewhat alarming.
The idea of civilians carrying guns into supermarkets and coffee-shops as a matter of course is completely anathema to me - what the hell do they need them for?
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
... The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal ...
Where I grew up, the sight of a police officer with a gun wasn't normal either; when I moved to Northern Ireland, where the police quite justifiably carry guns, I found it more than somewhat alarming.
The idea of civilians carrying guns into supermarkets and coffee-shops as a matter of course is completely anathema to me - what the hell do they need them for?
To protect themselves against librulls and mooslims and illegal immygrunts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
