The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

xxp bill and ted seem like pretty cool guys, doubt they'd take a trip through time to support gun rights. "no dude ... that's not excellent." "wait ted, there's something ... that's not excellent?" "no bill ... not this time."

guys I just got this stuff in from california ... forgot the name but I think part of it might be 'blueberry...'? anyway ... *passes out*

can inherency be inherent

isn't the only truly dangerous thing...life itself

without life, there is no danger

without danger, there are no guns

and another poster pointed out how he doesn't see them as inherently dangerous

and you agreed

without guns, there is no life

without life, there are no guns

with guns, there is life

Excuse me for speaking for him, but I think Tombot was trying to throw gun people a bone. All guns suck, but ok if you realllly need a firearm, you can have these certain varieties of them as I can somewhat see a legit non-murder use for them.

And that's stupid, and bad policy. Which was my point. You've banned lots of things that cause little harm, but kept other things that cause somewhat more harm - and if you want to get into arguments about barrel length, let me offer you a secret people have known for ~150 years: all it takes to convert a "duck shotgun" to a "hide it under your coat shotgun" is a hacksaw. That's not true of semi-automatic rifles.

with danger, there are no guns

without life, there are no danger guns

with life guns, there is danger

guns danger, life without

if life is dangerous and guns are dangerous...is life really a gun?

we should pass a law requiring that the name of guns be changed to 'life gun,' to show how important and indispensable life guns are to living

life guns, giver of life

REMINDER: in the history of man, a life gun has never ever senselessly taken away a human being's life.

Yes it's bad policy, because the good policy would never become law because of gun dipshits. The less guns the better, and restricting access to certain guns on ANY basis that would make it through the barricades the gun lobby has put up is Step #1. I don't care what harm they actually do, and that other things cause more harm. It's a symbolic ("guns are bad, this law shows many people think this") and pragmatic ("you nuts won't give much ground on this, so this is the weak half-measure we're left with") act. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Fuck stats, fuck "bad policy". It's the Obamacare of gun laws.

It's the Obamacare of gun laws.

My sentiment exactly. Or, the anti-La Pierre of gun thinking. Yes, whatever strengthened gun control legislation could possibly be enacted will undoubtedly be imperfect, but start somewhere. Now.

The less guns the better, and restricting access to certain guns on ANY basis that would make it through the barricades the gun lobby has put up is Step #1.

it's also worth pointing out that because of this, Goal #1 of the NRA et al. is to oppose any action that could possibly lead to restrictions on any gun, no matter what the situation or context. that's why you get ridiculous situations like the leader of NRA blaming Newtown on absolutely everything EXCEPT guns, and in fact trying to play offense by suggesting that we put more guns in public schools (in the hands of police officers). that's how big industry lobbies work, guns and otherwise. on environmental issues, the polluting lobbies are omnipresent, no matter how small the matter at hand. they will not give an inch on anything, even if it's some innocuous suggestion for a slight improvement to a bureaucratic process to make things easier for everyone. the core message is We Are Everywhere, Watching You and the result is that no one can possibly imagine taking significant action on anything because hell, if they're fighting this hard on this tiny issue, how could we possibly beat them on the most important stuff?

rambling, but all of which is to say that one of the reasons people get pissed here, milo, is that for all intents and purposes your positions end up sounding a lot like the NRA.

reminds me of bjorn lomborg. he gets publicity by trying to portray himself as a "skeptical environmentalist", and he takes a different approach than Big Oil, but in the end, he's fighting for the exact same outcomes that the big polluters desire

Milo do you even recognize the catch-22 you've constructed? Only a full ban and confiscation of guns would be effective (though you've said you wouldn't even support this...presumably because alcohol also kills people so it would be unfair??), would be "good policy". But that won't happen, therefore, anything you propose as an compromise I get to shoot down as being "stupid" "bad policy" "emotional" "ineffective".

One thing that seems to come up a lot is the idea that these aren't 'assault' weapons, or that they are functionally equivalent to smaller, less threatening weapons - they just happen to look like military weapons.

Which misses the point: how these guns look is very important to the issue. Manufacturers spend huge amounts of money advertising their products, depicting them as sexy, powerful objects, associating them with wider ideas like self-reliance, patriotism etc.

I would imagine that the cultural content of a specific gun type would affect how it is used. Given that there is no reason to make guns look like more powerful versions of themselves that certainly could be something to look at restricting. I don't know how the USA deals with tobacco advertising, but it's banned here, and I would think that a ban on gun adverts would be a (admittedly small) part of whatever changes come out of these considerations. Perhaps the 1st amendment creates problems with that, I don't know.

I would imagine that the cultural content of a specific gun type would affect how it is used.

Um, I suppose I mean that the ideas or associations that are attached to the gun would alter people's behaviour with it. Just like ideas advertised around cars effect how people use them. I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with a better way to express myself.

i think someone should take a survey of a few select survivalist compounds in montana to see what type of guns they prefer. I guess you could list out different uses for guns and see what each person prefers.

potential uses for guns:

[ ] protect against the tyranny of the federal government and that damn judge
[ ] fighting off waves of blacks and poor people who want to mooch off my hard labor when the obamapocalypse comes
[ ] shooting pieces of paper/flying discs/animals with poor fuzzy animal families who will likely mourn their deaths
[ ] giving a sense of personal power and purpose in an atomized, disconnected society
[ ] violent crimes
[ ] war
[ ] killing lots of people for some crazy ass reason
[ ] assassinating that damned n****** obama who wants to take away my freedoms
[ ] protect me and my loved ones from crimes that only exist in my paranoid brain. whoops, my son just shot his face off.

oh yeah, forgot to include suicide/murder suicide (bonus points for murdering pregnant girlfriend).

Basically the most benign and responsible cultural narratives surrounding and shaped by guns are still not that awesome. animal culling. I think that's it?

had an awful conversation with my [beloved family member] about gun violence and control on christmas eve eve. wound up with him angrily accusing me of being a lying idiot for advocating an aggressively anti-gun stance. the following night, after family christmas dinner, he argued that white people are the only ones who really suffer from racism in america today, which i mostly left alone, cuz where do you even go?

family: they fuck you up

note: i didn't bring either of these topics up

Um, I suppose I mean that the ideas or associations that are attached to the gun would alter people's behaviour with it. Just like ideas advertised around cars effect how people use them. I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with a better way to express myself.

― the so-called socialista (dowd), Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:27 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you mean culture creates reality? get outta town

the best way out of a tense gun control debate with family, I've found, is "Look, regardless about how you feel about citizens having guns, I think we can all agree that we'll need some sort of weapons for the upcoming *wave your hands in the air* Zombie Apocalypse" and then while everyone's laughing try to sneak away,

you mean culture creates reality? get outta town

Ha, yeah. I'm probably just having an inarticulate day. So does the US allow tobacco ads? Either way, if you have mandatory health warnings I suppose that's a precedent for restricting advertising.

I kind of think that's OTM though - I mean not zombies but the reasons behind the rise of Zombie Culture - the whole right-wing thing is that times of ease and plenty and the benevolent government are fake and eventually everything's going to be a resource race of people who are Like You vs people who are Not Like You and your fancy rights (or unconstitutional extension of rights to those Not Like You) will go right out the window. And tbh a lot of the news suggests that this might be getting closer (environemental upheaval, near or far fuel shortages), but in ways that aren't straightforwardly processed by your beliefs, so they leak around the edges into lolzombies and don't take our guns.

Bash sorry things getting tangled - these are the reasons for Zombie Culture, they apply to most people obviously, but particularly with the survivalist right and their love for guns (and lack of desire for the government to do anything about it (and to an extent lack of a desire for anyone to do anything about it as it will involve Shit Getting Real and they have a PhD in Real-ity)).

The US allows tobacco ads, yes.

Um, I suppose I mean that the ideas or associations that are attached to the gun would alter people's behaviour with it.

he's just an odd shaped piece of organic material

he's dangerous in the same way you're dangerous: perpetuates and defends gun culture

believe me if i took one of these fantasy courses, everyone's insurance premiums should go up.

Great Gun Control! ILX, Debate!

The Buckeye Firearms Foundation will be providing free firearms training to teachers and school administrative staff. This announcement following the devastating shooting that left 27 dead at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT in December.

As of Wednesday, the Armed Teacher Training Program has attracted more than 600 applicants from several states including Ohio, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

"We knew this would be popular, but the response has exceeded out expectations," said Jim Irvine, Chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. "People doubted if we would fill the first class. That happened in hours. This is something many in our schools have been asking about for a long time."

While the state of Ohio generally prohibits firearms at school, the law includes a provision that allows teachers and staff to carry firearms if approved by the school board.

The Armed Teacher Training Program is completely voluntary.

"No one will be forced to be armed if they choose not to. The strategy is the same as ordinary concealed carry. No one will ever know who is or is not armed. Those who seek to do harm in schools should be met with armed resistance, even before law enforcement shows up. Over time, schools will no longer be considered easy, risk-free targets."

the

Over time, schools will no longer be considered easy, risk-free targets.

News story of 2022:

As more and more would-be mass murderers who target schools are finding out these days, it is less easy than it used to be a few years back, when anyone could walk into a school and kill a few dozen children before dying themselves. Last year, for the first time since 1973, the average number of dead children per school attack fell below 5, an important psychological threshold, says NRA president Dick Tracy III, who credits the fall to the growing numbers of fully armed and body-armored teachers. "This is a triumph of our No Teacher Left Unarmed gun policy," a beaming Tracy said.

meanwhile in kentucky...

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1484956/kentucky%20xmas.png

a man was shot and killed one block from our house on Monday night. We live in what is considered to be a quiet and very safe residential neighborhood and in fact moved in the spring in order to get to a slightly safer area. : /

A quote for the ages:

"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history."

okay what the hell

Have a feeling the guy just heard about slavery the other day when he saw Django Unchained.

i think he's mixing up his black civil rights leaders

just a bit