The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

gbx, the 'banning and confiscating' left needs to exist to serve the purpose that the wacko bloc does to the right-wing. 'we need to be reasonable' ignores the fact that the left has been entirely too reasonable on this particular issue.

― iatee, Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:18 PM (2 hours ago)

don't know if anyone else has pointed this out but i just want to put this in my favorites tab or something to use the next time i or alfred or aero gets into it with iatee on the regular politics thread!

I think the existence of the far left on an issue strengthens the dems bargaining power it's just the far left simply doesnt exist w/ real voting power on many issues

and 'being really angry' doesn't make more people like you exist

unless you have angry sex

i'll post here what i posted in the Newtown thread:

Shouldn't this debate be a national referendum?

Today in Guthrie, OK a 3 year old got a hold of a gun and shot himself in the head. So after all the media bombardment regarding guns, someone didn't think to put their gun where a toddler couldn't get it.

Shouldn't this debate be a national referendum?

You want to make guns harder to get, work on it at the state level and in the courts.

state and local laws are kinda worthless when you can buy guns in a different state/district and bring them in

but Texas is so big

state and local laws are kinda worthless when you can buy guns in a different state/district and bring them in

I had to do a Ctrl-F to check to see if I still agree with what I've said in the past. Yup. I do.

me either

this is as good a time as any for people to read stevens' dissent in heller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

so so so so so so so many people, including liberals, just credulously absorb as fact the conventional wisdom that the second amendment gives people the absolute right to privately own guns and that the history of jurisprudence on the issue supports that. it's a much bigger problem than people being mean to 'liberal gun owners' (lol)

I'm not talking about being "mean" to liberal gun owners, I'm talking about basic coalition building

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/12613/large/TMW2012-12-19colorKOS.png?1355584910

more gun shops than grocery stores, McDonald's

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12

it's not actually true, only more than supermarkets ie grocery stores w/ 2m+ in sales

assuming the figure includes big box chains that sell guns as well

If a big box sells guns, it is a gun store. (shrugs)

yeah i don't really disagree

bump

you needn't

you shan't

Out of curiosity I looked at the Walmart site. Found this nifty gun:

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/79/86/81/44/0079868144115_180X180.jpg

Which it outright delineates as" for use in law enforcement, military operations, the sporting field and competitive shooting."

Notice the order there.

should have added "and shoplifters"

New York State Common Retirement Fund reconsidering how much of its http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-backlash-prompts-gun-investment-overhaul-032547862--sector.html50 billion it invests in gun manufacturers, Smith & Wesson stocks drop 10%

I'm not entirely clear as to the causality of those two sentences, but a 10% drop may well explain any new eagerness to find solutions by its spokesmen ie the NRA.

Haha thanks there auto-convert - the figure is $150 billion.

Already interesting feature on "Fresh Air" focusing on the proliferation of assault weapons in American society. I guess guns like the AR-15 were designed c. Vietnam, following studies that revealed most soliders were not using their guns for accuracy but to simply spray bullets randomly in burst all over the place at short to medium range. Now moving on to the flaws of the '94 semi-auto assault weapon ban, and how/why Bushmaster flourished post ban...

Interesting, Hunting has apparently been on the decline, which has emphasized the marketing of so-called "tactical" rifles that mimic military design.

"Tactical" is just a marketing term in macho-world, correct? Otherwise, meaningless.

"tactless" doesn't have the same ring to it

meaningless, for sure. it's mil-speak, so it has that battlefiled aura, but there isn't a firearm in the world that couldn't be called "tactical".

New York State Common Retirement Fund reconsidering how much of its http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-backlash-prompts-gun-investment-overhaul-032547862--sector.html50 billion it invests in gun manufacturers, Smith & Wesson stocks drop 10%
I'm not entirely clear as to the causality of those two sentences, but a 10% drop may well explain any new eagerness to find solutions by its spokesmen ie the NRA.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Institutional investors probably make up a large percentage of the holders of gun stocks. If they're increasingly going to be considering dumping their holdings, that's going to drive down the stock a lot. Selloffs cause price drops, and, somewhat circularly, rumors of big selloffs cause big selloffs.

Yeah, "tactical" is just a word to sub for "assault."

I'm more bothered by the implications of "tactical" as a marketing term than I am by the specs of the weapons actually.

Tactical marketing.

I mean I'm more bothered that there's an significant-sized demographic who sees "tactical" use as an important feature.

I mean I'm more bothered that there's an significant-sized demographic who sees "tactical" use as an important feature.

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:11 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

not sure its an important feature to them as much as a cool sounding buzzword, which is equally troubling

I mean it definitely seems to feed some fantasy beyond just protecting your home against rapists or w/e

well i think it feeds the fantasy of home protection, but like home protection done in the most awesome badass way SEAL team 6 way possible. you're not some pussy reaching weakly for a .38 and hoping to fend off an invader, you're an ~operator~ who is neutralizing the threat before it even knows what happened, and then maybe i dunno sneaking up on the invader's buddies waiting in the driveway, might just say fuck it and go take out their leader

so yeah, it is basically fulfilling some desire to be more than a mere "self-defender"---it's giving you license to dream of societal collapse, and empowers you to believe that when the End Comes you'll be among the privileged and powerful

imo

while obv they don't account for much actual gun violence, the post-apocalyptic fantasies of preppers are o_O to the max, esp when tied to their not-so-subtle attempts to immanentize the eschaton

Josh, pretty much everything you wrote is somewhat wrong. Will explain when I'm not on my phone.

Those fantasies are just another form of racism dressed up in paranoid narcissism. It is the ultimate selfishness to think the world is ending in a way and at a time that is all. about. you.

How much extra insurance costs do people have to pay when they own guns? Because that's one area where there could be big/prohibitive charges for owning weaponry of any kind.

bated

xp

Cool, waiting for Milo's correction. Just relaying what I heard on the radio, which I assumed was true/accurate, as I do everything I hear or see or read.

the insurance question is a good one. looking quickly i see some people are urging mandatory gun insurance.

Absolutely. Anything to better regulate the militia, riiiiiight?

Also would create a new (and necessary) market for insurance companies and maybe distract them from trying to fuck up health care.

I don't think you have to be an extreme nut or prepper to have some fantasies or enjoy some macho or military talk around guns.