The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

If only Randy Weaver had had a gun

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

I'm glad this lady had an assault rifle and was able to defend herself. Oh wait it was a revolver? Nevermind.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nra-app-practice-range-86174.html?hp=f3

ahaha. my crappy local FOX affiliate (WNYC) just reported on an attempted burglary of a home on that was on that interactive gun owners map. the entire story was on how criminals can use that map to find homes with guns, and at the end of the story they say, "it's too early to know if the criminals actually used the map in choosing this residence." what the hell is that.

sounds like local news

The gun map (two counties in NY): http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

The commenters at NPR enter the debate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748/n-y-website-posts-map-of-people-with-gun-permits-draws-criticism

xxp local news with a fox attitude, i.e, right-wing fear mongering paranoia. i miss the days when fox attitude meant al bundy flushing a toilet to wild hooting and hollering.

Gawker also released a list: http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-assholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city

I'm still not sure which part I feel more creeped out by: that someone can just release all this information publically, or that I'm surrounded by LOADS of people with handguns who I was blissfully ignoring until now.

it's weird because I thought one strand of the gun rights movement was that owning a gun increases your personal safety since criminals will know not to fuck with you, so why wouldn't you want criminals to know your address? after all they'd know you have a gun and wouldn't come rob u rite??

someone can just release all this information publically,

This information is already public. Just because you have to look for it doesn't mean you can't find it.

xp: They might come and steal your guns.

I'm not with the NRA, but I'm definitely with the privacy advocates. Publishing these names is not journalism.

sure it is

Michelle Malkin and other conservative bloggers have published names and addresses, using publicly available records. And just shrugged it off when people got harassed.

Charming.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_harassed_for_it/

Jesus. I realize there's a conspiracy theory for everything, but these people are a special kind of horrible.

wow. i'm speechless. some people are dangerously unhinged. and they're armed.

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

Jesus. I realize there's a conspiracy theory for everything, but these people are a special kind of horrible.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Otm. I was genuinely shocked to read this stuff today. Shouldn't have been, I know, but ... people can still surprise me, I guess.

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

― mookieproof, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:44 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My God. It's completely one thing to oppose gun control (also the completely RONG opinion, but hey, I'm trying to meet halfway)...another to insult the survivors by essentially saying "the weapon that killed your kids should still be legal and we're going to give one away as part of our pro-gun promotion".

This gets passed off as Patriotism in 2013, folks.

I'm not with the NRA, but I'm definitely with the privacy advocates. Publishing these names is not journalism.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:23 AM (9 hours ago)

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

― mookieproof, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:44 PM (7 hours ago)

i'm gonna enter this just so i can put it toward my retirement

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:21 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That they are made public and that they are being published. A lot of personal information on private citizens is made available. Publishing that information takes it one step further. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about a right-wing blog publishing personal info: http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house

On a related note, this privacy advocate is publishing public records that contain social security #s: https://acluva.org/5594/state-may-not-stop-privacy-advocate-from-publishing-records-found-on-government-websites/

Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

Today’s ruling reaffirms a June 2009 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that the law, commonly referred to as the “anti-B.J. law,” violated Ostergren’s First Amendment rights. Payne ruled that Ostergren had the right to post the Social Security Numbers of Virginia legislators, Virginia Executive Officers and Clerks of Court whenever the numbers were obtained from a government website accessible to the public.

Is it just me or is the most obviously stupid argument ever made in the history of American politics:

The group released a a tough TV ad that calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having daughters with armed guards while he expresses skepticism at the NRA’s call for armed police in every American public school.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2013/01/nra-obama-ad-01-15-13-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra-unleashes-hounds.php?ref=fpa

The NRA ad is titled, "Protection For Obama's Kids, Gun-Free Zones For Ours?"

Fair share of security? WTF does that actually mean?

obama wants to take your guns so he can use them for his own security and be even more safe, when he is already so safe

Pope-mobiles for the masses!

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:21 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That they are made public and that they are being published. A lot of personal information on private citizens is made available. Publishing that information takes it one step further. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about a right-wing blog publishing personal info: http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house
On a related note, this privacy advocate is publishing public records that contain social security #s: https://acluva.org/5594/state-may-not-stop-privacy-advocate-from-publishing-records-found-on-government-websites/
Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

Today’s ruling reaffirms a June 2009 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that the law, commonly referred to as the “anti-B.J. law,” violated Ostergren’s First Amendment rights. Payne ruled that Ostergren had the right to post the Social Security Numbers of Virginia legislators, Virginia Executive Officers and Clerks of Court whenever the numbers were obtained from a government website accessible to the public.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:46 PM (Yesterday)

yeah i mean i'm not sure publishing the list of gun owners has any value, but you think it should be illegal?

it could be useful for people buying houses etc

not saying that it's good that this is public, but someone should cross reference that with sex offender databases.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

Wow, who knew John Howard would be good for something

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html

"killed by weird cultists"

yeah i mean i'm not sure publishing the list of gun owners has any value, but you think it should be illegal?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If the information is available to the public, why should it be illegal for it to be published? I'm critical of the act, and I'm skeptical of of the reasons behind publishing this information, and in the format it was published. But I certainly don't think it should be illegal to publish information that's publicly available, unless there is a pattern of harassment, for example, but then were not making publishing information illegal, we're making harassment illegal.

I just think that the act of publishing the names and addresses of private citizens should be weighed very carefully and be of some value beyond, "I can do this. Fuck you, people who disagree with me."

I'm agnostic about whether the names and addresses of people who apply for a background checks should be publicly available. I assume that you are made aware of that when you apply. I haven't followed the arguments for making this information available to the general public. I just lean toward preserving privacy.

I just think that the act of publishing the names and addresses of private citizens should be weighed very carefully and be of some value beyond, "I can do this. Fuck you, people who disagree with me."

These are the kinds of discussions we hold often in our student newsroom. If it's legal, is it ethical? Etc.

xxp: that's a great phrase.

Poppy Bush is a squish, what does he know

another shooting, this time at Lone Star College in Houston.

Have there been more school shootings in the last few months, or is the "normal" level (ugh) of gun violence at schools just getting more national media attention than usual?

Forgot to link to the story:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8963781

it's probably a certain % the copycat effect and a certain % increased media attention

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html

i think this might be the saddest interview i've ever seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLLfZZateY

all he can do is return to his son and the things he did, it's ineloquent and fragile

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County has issued a radio message suggesting that residents consider how to protect themselves from crime, including, perhaps, firearm training. “With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option,” the sheriff said in the recording, one installment in the periodic public service messages he issues. “You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back,” he said, later suggesting that residents consider taking a certified course in firearm safety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/wisconsin-sheriff-makes-a-pitch-for-gun-training.html

CA Dems go HAM on gun control

the latest bookforum had an interesting review of Gun Guys, Dan Baum (albeit a review filled with unnecessary quotes). laborious manual transcription excerpt:

The real story of Gun Guys, though, is that of social class. Baum sees his fellow liberals' pursuit of gun control as an evasion of bigger truths concerning social and economic inequality. In sizing up the liberal penchant for equating violent crime with the simple circulation of firearms, Baum asks, "How much more convenient was it to ignore the totality of the lives lived by young black urban men - the group most likely to die by gunfire." But as Baum notes, black perpetrators and victims of gun violence aren't the ones who make gun control impossible. That group would be "the partially educated, rural, middle-aged guys in the bulge of the gun-guy demographic who hadn't seen a real wage increase since 1978." These are the men who rail against the media even though it's mostly on their side, who loathe politicians although they almost uniformly do the gun lobby's bidding, who respond to the real crises of their lives - lost jobs, lost houses, and the broken families that so often follow, "the cloud of indignities" that mark life in the downwardly mobile middle class - with the purchase of an AR-15 and the solidarity of the shooting range.

Sad? Yes. But crazy, no. There's a "scaffold of logic" around the obsession with guns in this subculture, Baum writes. "When community is no longer an option, individual sovereignty becomes an illusion of last resort. Is the media to blame? Sure. And the banks, too, "free trade" and the evisceration of American manufacturing, the collapse of labor and the rise of the big-box stores that replace mom-and-pop gun shops, which had stocked their cases with beautiful eccentricities of "deeply grained woods" and steel "knurled with an eye to artistry." By contrast, Walmarts now teem with "vast ranks of coal-black plastic," ugly Glocks, and absurdist AR-15s, the weaponistic equivalent of a Big Mac - cheap, deadly, and weirdly satisfying.

It's that last bit that explains why we have guns. Not because of their simple availability or lethality - but because there is a pleasure in the rituals of gun ownership and the act of discharging weapons and the stories we tell about them."

Sounds about right, coinciding with the rise of rightwing religious culture. Future shock and late-period capitalism has pretty much given us several annoying decades to try and survive thru.

the collapse of labor and the rise of the big-box stores that replace mom-and-pop gun shops, which had stocked their cases with beautiful eccentricities of "deeply grained woods" and steel "knurled with an eye to artistry." By contrast, Walmarts now teem with "vast ranks of coal-black plastic," ugly Glocks, and absurdist AR-15s, the weaponistic equivalent of a Big Mac - cheap, deadly, and weirdly satisfying.

This is horrible and stupid. Most gun stores are still "mom-and-pop" shops; Wal-Mart, when it does sell guns, doesn't sell handguns and has only recently sold AR-15s. Their mainstay is still hunting rifles. Big outdoor chains that do sell guns are more than happy to sell you wood and steel hunting rifles and shotguns (which make up over half the inventory of every Cabela's/Bass Pro/Gander Mtn/Academy I've been to) and revolvers in addition to modern plastic guns.
The 1911 - now 102 years old - is a top seller and at any of these places you'll find a half dozen (or two dozen, in some places) variations on the model.
We have Glocks and AR-15s because the technology exists to have them now, they're lighter, simpler and less maintenance intensive.