The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies

interesting profile of marion hammer, an unquestionable shit stain of a human being but the driving force (and de facto author) behind so many of florida's controversial gun laws

speaking of shit stain

“If you take out New York and California, 8 percent of Americans have concealed carry permits"

- Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), on Meet the Press earlier today

wtf is this logic

yet, if republicans/NRA get their way, the concealed carry permits that are obtained in states that grant them will allow people to conceal carry in states that don't (like the minor states that don't really count, New York and California)

xp amazing how they always want to remove the two states where nearly 1/5 of Americans live.

Not remove them, take them out.

i imagine hes including the populations of states where youre allowed to put a gun in yr pocket if you want in those numbers too

Let’s take a look at the national tax revenue without those two states while we’re at it

Top trending article on the NRA’s site currently:
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/7/1/10-reasons-to-own-an-ar-15/

just folks

just finishing cv wedgwood's excellent little biography of cardinal richelieu, in whose life as a statesman she argues the first really famous exercise of monarchic power against recalcitrant nobles was his decision to finally take duelling seriously

it was apparently a scourge of the time, with literally thousands of young men (and occasionally women) (of usually noble familes) dying in them. often it wasn't what you imagine, i.e. two fops facing off with sabres or epees, but weird little small-scale gang battles, where the two duellists would bring along two or three "seconds" and each side would go at it. until one side was dead. various edicts had been tried in the past, each was met with contempt and flagrantly ignored, but richelieu was like "this time it's serious" and when a powerful count (who was also duke of luxembourg) flouted flouted it, richelieu had him put to death. the king, louis xiii, didn't want to kill him iirc but richelieu convinced him that if they let this go, nobody would take the king's word seriously in the future.

probably exactly the sort of thing nra members imagine in their fever dreams, left-wing message board posters summoning the memory of a french monarchist to support the idea of taking guns away, but i couldn't help being struck by the parallels, and how swift, authoritative, uncompromising leadership from the top was effective (though it would take decades to finally end duelling altogether)

continuing the parallels: duels were totemic of noble freedoms against top-down control from the king

here's the sacrifical lamb btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Montmorency-Bouteville

real talk, i do think the high school students are better with messaging than people who responded to past massacres. for real a couple years back the top anti-gun group around was called "Moms Demand Action" which i don't know i feel like their messaging is a bit questionable, i'm starting to feel that there may be some potential upsides to democratizing discourse control

gun control is wildly popular and liberals are all *extremely nerd voice* um excuse me im not going to take your gun i just want to implement some common sense solutions like allowing 17 instead of 18 bullets in a clip oh no thats not gonna work ok sorry ill go now

Meanwhile the NRA is like “we should reinstate duels; mandatory gun duels”

At the insistence of Louis XIII, a dinner of reconciliation was arranged in Brussels, but failed

i want to see this episode of the tv show btw

I need to read more Wedgwood.

This should go well.

The Lt. Governor of Georgia is threatening to use the state to punish private actors for political expression he finds distasteful pic.twitter.com/kxNwMV7Fgf

— T'Challah 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) February 26, 2018

man, he must really want to use his NRA card to get group discounts on Delta

such a blow to all the NRA card holders, their group discounts are disappearing left and right, it's a hard time for them

Cagle is the leading candidate to succeed the current governor. I'd love to see this stunt blow back on him. It will play well in the rural counties but maybe not as well as he imagines.

Based on the number and type of corporate ties being severed, the NRA had turned itself into AARP for gun owners, but with added anti-government paranoia.

LOL

https://waynelapierre.com/

I remember when I was a kid, my dad registered his name as a domain - he never intended to use it, but he said to me "you might as well, you don't want anyone else to get it"...I thought that was really stupid, but it turns out he was right and I was wrong

lol - however if someone else purchases a domain with your intellectual property or name somewhere in the URL and it is purchased purely for the purposes of turning a profit by selling it back to you at a greatly marked-up price, that's actually illegal in many cases.

(doesn't apply here, just warning anybody who is thinking of picking up www.tayordayne.com when it expires).

I owned www.fuckmichelebachmann.com for a year tho. oh what I'd give for the days when those were our enemies.

was thinking today that so much of the toxicity in american gun culture seems linked to the cult of the soldier-warrior, and wondered if something like compulsory military service would, in time, actually serve to undermine that mythos

like, if everyone had had a stint in the army or w/e, then they'd realize that The Troops aren't all heroic superpatriots who have mastered the way of the gun, but normal schmoes like anyone else.

not proposing this as a solution, btw, it just seems like america's infatuation with war and militarization is supported by the fact that very few people actually have any first-hand experience with it

gbx, I do think that the draftee armies of the past - by being a more representative cross-section - fostered a greater sense of commonality between the people fighting and the people at home. I don't know if compulsory service is the answer, but I agree that it isn't especially healthy for the armed forces and the general public to regard each other as fundamentally different kinds of people.

I've heard Max Brooks bring that up in a few interviews. Concerns about the creation of a warrior caste.

posted in the other thread, but I'm increasingly infuriated by the left's capacity for defeatism just as a powerful grassroots campaign gets rolling.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

not proposing this as a solution, btw, it just seems like america's infatuation with war and militarization is supported by the fact that very few people actually have any first-hand experience with it

― gbx, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:38 PM (thirty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i dont think its really abt the military, theyd just find another shiny object to project their gun lust upon, as evidenced by their opinion of the fbi dropping from esteemed law enforcement heroes to incompetent conspiracy schemers as soon as one thing upset them

lag∞n is right; this is tribal culture war shit again/still.

If there were no guns it would be the National Spear Association or whatever; just gotta underscore that there is an "us" and a "them" somehow to get the tasty libtears flowing.

not saying it's the ~only~ reason we're so crazy about guns/warriors, just that it's a lot easier to sell the image (in media, CoD, etc) when most ppl don't really understand that much of being in the military is profound boredom and doesn't involve gun kata and stuff. harder for that small segment of vets (and those that venerate them) to pull off that ludicrous oath keeper nonsense if literally everyone else, male and female, has had some exposure to what "being a soldier" entails

like i'm sure those guys exist in norway or israel or wherever else, but it's probably more acceptable to clown them in public because there isn't the shibboleth that We Must Respect The Troops

could also be totally wrong, never been to norway tbh

"Warfighter" makes my skin crawl.

The tribalism is what worries me about the idea of attacking the NRA and gun culture from a cultural respectability point - it becomes something like overt racism where your neo-Nazis and Klansmen were (until recently) forced to the very margins of society... but now you're talking about doing that with 300+ million guns.

it's worldwide but there's also that thing w/fetishizing things that are dirty and destructive, skulls and beer and smoke and all that. part of me thinks green energy and clean air and non-violence are nonstarters *not* because of "realists" talking about the economy or the need for defense, but because there's an intrinsic appeal to the former and a charisma that comes from engaging w/those things that doesn't exist in the latter. like things that are clean can be boring, non-violence isn't exciting. i know that sounds stupid but i actually think subconsciously (not even a bit consciously) that plays a not-small role.

^^ that makes me think of:

http://www.viridiandesign.org/manifesto.html

300M guns that are not evenly distributed across the segment of the population that does own guns. attacking "gun culture" from a respectability angle would probably work, since most "gun nut" types actually are more marginal than a media in love with the venerable warrior would suggest

copying and pasting from school shooting thread:

Thought experiment: If Trump came out full-throatedly in support of an assault weapons ban, how quickly would his base abandon him?

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:07 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:26 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i really hate giving any ground to the "if you don't know the difference between gun x and gun y then you can't tell me what I should do with my guns" crowd tbh. I don't give a fuck about the different kinds of guns, and assault sounds scary as hell. I'm fine to demonize them by whatever means will stick.

― Scam jam, thank you ma’am (Sparkle Motion), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:32 AM (fifty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xp - so, the term assaults your sensibility?

it is not so much meaningless as it is an emotional distinction that could not be transferred into legal language. a person who plans to assault a large group of people will not only select a semi-automatic weapon, but also one with a large capacity magazine, an appropriately large caliber, muzzle velocity, etc. A semi-automatic pistol with a limited magazine is just as semi-automatic as any other weapon, but would hardly be the first choice of a mass shooter.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:34 AM (fifty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And yet, a semi-automatic pistol with a limited magazine is what most would be heroes, be they police or armed teachers, would carry.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:36 AM (fifty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's almost as if calling guns like the AR an assault weapon highlights the difference between it and other semi-automatics. It exists only to kill in large numbers, quickly.

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:37 AM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xp true, but I'm cool with just banning "smaller" semi-autos as well, so I think we're better off sticking with "ban all semi-automatic weapons"

also, you're kind of wrong - the VA Tech shooting had very high casualties and was done w/handguns.

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:38 AM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(see the clip of Rubio accidentally getting a ton of applause for suggesting that very thing)

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:38 AM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

no

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:38 AM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's an important legal distinction, but plz continue to be willfully ignorant so you can make rhetorical points

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:40 AM (fifty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:40 AM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thank you

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:41 AM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:41 AM (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:41 AM (forty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't personally give a shit about this; that said, "assault weapons ban" is the popular term for a piece of U.S. legislation in place 1994-2004.

I've seen "assault-style weapon" a bunch lately. Which is adequate, if not perfect, because choosing the AR for your school-massacre needs is partly a style choice.

If looking badass is part of the appeal, maybe we should require them to be pink and sparkly and covered with faux-fur accents.

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:44 AM (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tend to fall on the "semi-auto" side, too, for the reasons tipsy outlined --- it actually encompasses more guns, and provides an easier delimiter. iirc wasn't leaning on cosmetic differences (eg pistol grips) how a lot of these loopholes were created in the first place? "ban all semi-automatic guns" is a stronger, bolder political statement than "age limits on assault rifles" imo

― gbx, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:45 AM (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^ yes

my issue here is that "assault weapon" (or even "assault-style") is a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese, and clear legal language will be needed going forward

and like omar says, really what we want here is a total semi-automatic ban (which is even more comprehensive)

I'd think all of you would be on board with this, honestly

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:49 AM (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"assault weapon" is a wonderfully succinct, evocative phrase that appeals to emotion and will connect with non-gun-owners (aka about 57 percent of the population). if you want to make that synonymous with "semi-automatic weapons" I don't see a problem. acts and laws get imprecise/"umbrella" names all the time, no?

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:51 AM (forty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the whole reason these cracks in the NRA facade are finally showing up is because of emotion. exploit it ruthlessly any way you can imo

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:53 AM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese

the problem here is that legalese doesn't translate well into political action, which is the first hurdle to cross. putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:53 AM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this defeatist fucking bullshit pisses me off:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

The headline is throwing in the towel just as the new anti-gun movement begins. Cillizza is an idiot.

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:55 AM (thirty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:40 PM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thank you

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM

All these points are correct, which reminds me that every shooting is different. The NRA is good at explaining the limits of action based on the most recent episode of violence. That's why I'm cool with repealing the Second Amendment.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:59 AM (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Cillizza is an idiot.

evergreen sentiment

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:01 AM (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Heard a new descriptor on NPR the other day -- "multi-casualty firearms."

― WilliamC, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:03 AM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so.....firearms

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:04 AM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

me, a goddamned genius expert: actually, "assault weapon" is a fake term invented by liberal media
you, a poster who can Google: pic.twitter.com/0sIjBCFcTB
— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

me, doubling down on being a fucking epic galaxy brain: I meant "assault rifle," it's an invention of the gun grabbers
you: pic.twitter.com/IoWzDZ15Gl
— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:05 AM (twenty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

this is more or less what I'm trying to get at. go with the terms that resonate with people, adapt as required later

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:06 AM (twenty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Obamacare isn't technically called that but people are plenty energized for and against

― oklahomie don't play that (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:20 AM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I regret this derail, should have taken it to the Gun Control thread, going there now

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:30 AM

xp - That's my point, though - it's taking an already ridiculous concentration (half the guns owned by like 3% of the population) and making it worse, putting all the guns in the hands of extremists who aren't going to respond to pressure from the broader culture any more than unacceptability made neo-Nazis disappear.

well you know you can do laws to prevent one guy from having 300m guns if you want

Yes, that's what should be done rather than hope that making it uncool to have guns will fix anything.

yeah that's the thing, if owning a semi auto is illegal, and that small percent decides to hold onto them, they're at least a little less likely to enjoy public support

xp

social and legal solutions arent really an either/or proposition and to some extent you need the former in order to achieve the latter

ppl are gonna be more okay with a handful of folks getting classified as criminals overnight if the social support is there for framing them as such

if only we had some recent precedent for that

The 'social solutions' that I've seen talked about (or the thing about getting a bunch of POC to join the NRA to rustle their jimmies) aren't being proposed in concert with a ban on semi-auto firearms or anything similar - the legal solution has to be the lead, the social reaction will follow. It's already basically unacceptable enough to be a gun nut in half the country and that will continue increasing with more urbanization and younger people further distanced from growing up around guns or shooting tin cans in the country.

kinda interesting how even gun opponents have bought into the mythology of guns as these unique objects and have all these ridiculous fetishistic proposals based on that, like limiting the number of bullets a magazine can hold

man just bring guns into the realm of the mundane like everything else, make ppl register and insure them, make licensing an actual hurdle, make ppl liable when they use them, make gun manufactures liable, make gun shops liable, and ffs dont let ppl carry them around for no reason

generally the fixation with assault weapons is idiotic, most gun violence happens with normal old hand guns, we need comprehensive approaches that relate to the actual reality of our situation

liability is key

maybe part of the maniacal stance of the nra is that they're terrified of being becoming big tobacco

xxp agree w/ all of that (and your next post as well)

also, tax ammo to fund buyback programs, offer full amnesty to any illegally-modified weapons that are turned in

and let the goddamn CDC study gun violence, wt actual f at that one

i hear all that but at the same time politicians have been telling us we need to wait for "culture to change" before they do anything as an excuse for inaction on everything from birth control to the death penalty to same-sex marriage. the cigarette ban's one example where it really worked the other way; the other example that springs to mind is new york's "curb your dog" fines introduced in the early 90s (or was it late 80s?) where suddenly "$100 fine" signs sprung up on every street corner and practically overnight people who didn't clean up after their dogs were booed off the sidewalks. compare to a place like paris, or london, without penalties like that. half the goddamn population "forgot their plastic bag". culture can change and it can change quickly. i don't buy "the us has a distinct weird history with guns blah blah blah". everywhere has a distinct history of something or other but if the political will is there to break its back that back gonna done get broke. whole languages have been wiped out in a decade. guns aren't impossible to deal with. they totally should be like big tobacco. put a 500% gun tax on all of them.