Author Topic: Lowest common denominator on gun control  (Read 39967 times)

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #100 on: June 11, 2022, 03:20:58 PM »
And let's not conflate rural guns used to scare away a coyote, wolf, polar bear or whatever else and military style killing machines. The statements good ol Abbot and friends make that "well guns have been around for hundreds of years and this is just a recent few decade problem, so not a gun problem duh" ignores the fact that these high powered and fast killing objects are completely different from traditional 'guns' that have been around for centuries. Gun violence absolutely existed in those centuries just not at the mass shooting level where one single person takes down a bunch of people.

Here's the thing...  The statement of the AR-15 being a high powered killing machine when compared to rural guns is a fallacy.  The typical rural gun is much more powerful in order to tackle animals that will not go down easily under the small rounds the AR-15 fires.  The AR-15 is on the low end of rifle power, it's cheap, and it fires (relatively) cheap ammo.  That's a large reason why it's so popular these days.  I believe that's a large part of the problem with the regulation attempts so far.  The old assault weapons ban was a flop because it tried to go based on purely cosmetic things that are very easy to work around.  Trying to regulate by power, well, it's already on the low end of the rifle power spectrum, etc.

I thought most rural guns fire slower and hold less ammo. Is that not true?

Semi auto is semi auto, one bullet per trigger pull.  A Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle fires the same bullet at the same rate vs an AR15.  Most hunting rifles fire much more powerful rounds: https://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm

People commonly run 30rd magazines with AR15s, but they are by no means the only magazine-fed centerfire rifle out there. They are super common though.  You can run a three round magazine in an AR15 if you want, or a 100 round drum magazine.  The rifle itself is the same.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 03:25:25 PM by JLee »

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #101 on: June 11, 2022, 03:22:46 PM »
I thought most rural guns fire slower and hold less ammo. Is that not true?

Standard rural gun is also semi-automatic and will fire as fast as you can aim and pull the trigger.  Since the rural gun is more powerful there is more recoil and it can take longer to get on target especially for a smaller shooter, so in that sense the rate of fire would often be slower.

Ammo capacity is all over the map for both types.  It's common that rural users will only own shorty/low capacity magazines (or buy guns specifically with a set integrated ammo store size) instead of standard capacity due to hunting regulations that restrict ammo capacity.  The integrated ammo store type are significantly slower to reload, but the external magazine style are the same as the AR-15 for reload time.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #102 on: June 11, 2022, 03:33:17 PM »
To answer this point:

At this point, no offense intended, but you're providing a case study for the cliche of an anti gun activist. You're making completely baseless assumptions of how gun owners feel when shooting with no evidence from any studies and not even a personal anecdote (unless I missed it), and you're retaining this assumption despite multiple people who are giving their personal examples of completely the opposite of your position. You're coming at it from your position which is one of total speculation and not yielding.
--
This is going to be an almost impossible divide to cross because your seem intent on assuming every time someone takes an ar-15 to the shooting range they're picturing themselves as Scarface in the movie.

I read back at these posts

I've fired machine guns and automatic grenade launchers in the Army, as well as thousands of rounds through an M-4/M-16 and called in mortar and artillery fire. So firing an AR-15 at a static range where you can barely see if it's making a hole in the paper target is not exactly generating a lot of adrenaline - not compared to a live-fire training situation. However, the latter is something very few people outside the military or law enforcement will be able to experience.

Now I am no longer a LEO, I don't have any active carry permits, and I haven't gone shooting in years - despite owning guns and having sufficient income to go shooting whenever I want.  Thus on an anecdotal level, my existence contradicts your claims. Does your personal experience with firearms give you a feeling of addiction?

In all fairness, we have ex-Military and ex-LEO here, where the job requires being insensitive to the power of the weapon in order to use it effectively. No? I would imagine near 99.999999999% of ex-military and ex-LEO respect their weapons and understand its power. I would say the crime rate amongst that group (speculating) is fairly low. I'd be all on board that only ex-military and ex-LEO (active, honorably discharged or retired) can own these weapons. Isn't there a country like that? Maybe Switzerland?

What about everyone else, general public? I would like to hear from someone who was in neither military or LEO and hear what their experience was like firing an AR15 or other powerful weapon. Is there any reason for any 18 yr old to just walk into a gun store and walk out with one of these and a box of ammo without any of the training that others go through that actually have those or even better grades issued to them?

Sure. That's me. I have no LEO or military experience. I can't say shooting any gun with actual gunpowder (i.e. not a bb gun) had been truly meh for me, but it's not been any sort of adrenaline rush. It's more a reminder that this is a serious thing. There's a bit of a jolt given two factors - recoil and noise, but the ar-15 doesn't own either one of those. I also tried it once and didn't become addicted to it. I've never shot it again despite many opportunities.

You also said don't confuse "weapons of war" with stuff to use in rural settings, when it's already been discussed that ar15s certainly aren't the most overpowered of guns and are actually used for varmint control.... in rural areas.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 03:35:35 PM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #103 on: June 11, 2022, 04:08:07 PM »


This leads me to believe that many of these AR enthusiast gun owners are adrenaline addicts feeding off these high-powered military grade weapons like a junkie taking hits. I do not doubt it is quite a rush to fire some of these powerful machines made for the most absolute chilling destruction. Just writing this makes me understand that there might be a lot of the hard-core NRA gun owners that are essentially addicts to this rush. Which explains quite nicely the "Come and Take It" flags.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun?

I took my 13-year-old son shooting at a local firing range recently. He had a .22 bolt action rifle that was gifted to him by an older cousin. I had my AR-15. Even at 13 he could handle it just fine as it's barely got more recoil than the .22. After all, the caliber - .223 - is almost identical, albeit a larger cartridge with more powder than a .22. Virtually any hunting rifle is going to be more powerful than an AR-15. The .223 (5.56mm) cartridge is marketed for hunting varmints, i.e. coyotes, rabbits, etc. So "high-powered" is a bit of a misnomer. That's why the Army is moving to a more powerful 6.8mm cartridge.

I've fired machine guns and automatic grenade launchers in the Army, as well as thousands of rounds through an M-4/M-16 and called in mortar and artillery fire. So firing an AR-15 at a static range where you can barely see if it's making a hole in the paper target is not exactly generating a lot of adrenaline - not compared to a live-fire training situation. However, the latter is something very few people outside the military or law enforcement will be able to experience.
Seems like you have been desensitized to firing these weapons.

How many people, who have never fired a gun before, have you taken to a range, gave them an AR15 to use, and then after firing heard them say "meh"? I bet it is as many as new gun laws will be passed this year.

You have a bizarre perspective on this with the 'adrenaline rush' angle - and I say that as someone who supports gun control.


Why is it bizarre? Is a gun that can kill a lot of people quickly a tool like my hand drill? Again, I'm not talking about a bb gun, single shot rifle, or anything that has been in circulation years before all these mass shootings have happened.

I'd put bet on a research project showing during scans of brain activity before, during,  and after firing different types of guns that there is a significant correlation to an addiction to whatever chemical is released during that experience. And when one goes too long without going to the range there is a withdrawal.

I am almost hoping you are trolling.  I've fired guns before, and that act had no relationship in my mind to killing or hurting anyone.  It felt about the same as playing golf.  It was a skill/challenge. 

And withdraw?  yeah, no.  I mean, I suppose some people can get addicted to golf, too, so it is possible, but pretty ridiculous as a generalization.

You sound deluded, and you are reenforcing the stereotype of the clueless, pearl-clutching, judgmental, out-of-touch cliche that makes gun-owners dig in their heals.  You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. 

NaN

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2022, 09:27:45 PM »


This leads me to believe that many of these AR enthusiast gun owners are adrenaline addicts feeding off these high-powered military grade weapons like a junkie taking hits. I do not doubt it is quite a rush to fire some of these powerful machines made for the most absolute chilling destruction. Just writing this makes me understand that there might be a lot of the hard-core NRA gun owners that are essentially addicts to this rush. Which explains quite nicely the "Come and Take It" flags.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun?

I took my 13-year-old son shooting at a local firing range recently. He had a .22 bolt action rifle that was gifted to him by an older cousin. I had my AR-15. Even at 13 he could handle it just fine as it's barely got more recoil than the .22. After all, the caliber - .223 - is almost identical, albeit a larger cartridge with more powder than a .22. Virtually any hunting rifle is going to be more powerful than an AR-15. The .223 (5.56mm) cartridge is marketed for hunting varmints, i.e. coyotes, rabbits, etc. So "high-powered" is a bit of a misnomer. That's why the Army is moving to a more powerful 6.8mm cartridge.

I've fired machine guns and automatic grenade launchers in the Army, as well as thousands of rounds through an M-4/M-16 and called in mortar and artillery fire. So firing an AR-15 at a static range where you can barely see if it's making a hole in the paper target is not exactly generating a lot of adrenaline - not compared to a live-fire training situation. However, the latter is something very few people outside the military or law enforcement will be able to experience.
Seems like you have been desensitized to firing these weapons.

How many people, who have never fired a gun before, have you taken to a range, gave them an AR15 to use, and then after firing heard them say "meh"? I bet it is as many as new gun laws will be passed this year.

You have a bizarre perspective on this with the 'adrenaline rush' angle - and I say that as someone who supports gun control.


Why is it bizarre? Is a gun that can kill a lot of people quickly a tool like my hand drill? Again, I'm not talking about a bb gun, single shot rifle, or anything that has been in circulation years before all these mass shootings have happened.

I'd put bet on a research project showing during scans of brain activity before, during,  and after firing different types of guns that there is a significant correlation to an addiction to whatever chemical is released during that experience. And when one goes too long without going to the range there is a withdrawal.

I am almost hoping you are trolling.  I've fired guns before, and that act had no relationship in my mind to killing or hurting anyone.  It felt about the same as playing golf.  It was a skill/challenge. 

And withdraw?  yeah, no.  I mean, I suppose some people can get addicted to golf, too, so it is possible, but pretty ridiculous as a generalization.

You sound deluded, and you are reenforcing the stereotype of the clueless, pearl-clutching, judgmental, out-of-touch cliche that makes gun-owners dig in their heals.  You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Before you get all insulting towards me maybe try to understand this is where most[/I] people generally opposed to guns come from. Statistics seems to be that 60% of America do not own guns. A good chunk of that probably have never fired one. There is a huge crowd out there not like you. I don't speak for all of them, but I dont think my thoughts are original, as you have said. If you want to connect with this side too, don't shut it down.

That being said , I respect that you all have the view that an AR15 is not an adrenaline pumping machine. But I do expect you to respect my view here.

While you have pointed out views to the contrary, I am still not fully convinced of it. I remember the first time I drove down the freeway at 70 mph. That was intense. Definitely adrenaline rush. I have never fired an AR15, and yes, my gun knowledge is generally poor. But if someone gave me one to hold I'd probably feel very awkward and tense. And if I were to shoot one I guarantee I would have an absolute rush of some kind (and not one I would enjoy). For the first time sure. Second time? Sure, maybe it will be like swinging a golf club. I would wager a bet that if we pulled anyone besides myself who is generally repulsed by the idea of owning a gun that is the exact thing being used to kill children in an elementary school that their reaction the first time to firing it might be a little bit of a tense situation.  The rush does not have to be in a good way. But I understand why you all think firing a gun is now like driving on the freeway for the Millionth time.

And I really do dislike the idea of normalizing gun use like it is driving a car on the freeway. Maybe we would have less gun violence if owning one was normalized like owning a car? Now that's a thought. You don't see many people commiting mass murder with a vehicle. Though there have been a few loonies that have driven into a crowd. I guess the way I see it people just associate using a car to get from point A to point B and not as a weapon, so generally it's not in most lunatic's minds. These AR15s could be considered 'varmin' control but in the end it is meant to kill a being. I'm not getting all bent out of shape for killing some bunnies destroying someone's vegetables, but in the end the purpose of AR15 is to kill. It is very hard to normalize that. It is not like a car. But I did feel a rush in a car. So it seems pretty reasonable to expect it with a gun. And maybe it isn't the AR15, but the more people talk about it the more it seems like a lot of guns are like taking the race car or bike to a track and going 150 mph. I still think there is a little bit of that fix in the gun community. I can see a lot of similarities to taking guns to a specified place for practice as like taking a car to a specified place for practice (i.e. an open race track). I don't think people would take their Prius to a local track just to get better at driving.

And as it was mentioned - not all rural and assault rifles are equal. The AR15 seems to be especially unique in that it has less power but maximizes destruction. Others seem more powerful, possibly harder to control and require more skill to use, and aren't as popular and cheap as the fast food like availability of the AR15.

I am learning something about the AR15 and it doesn't make me feel any easier. I'm learning something about guns and it still doesn't make me feel easier that they are normalized versus it being an addiction.

And frankly I am pretty tired of the 2A crowd dominating the conversation to anchor the issue around very little change on the issue. Every. Single. Damn. Time. And then tell me that my view based on what little I know about guns is the issue. That's some gas lighting. At the moment with a 6-3 Supreme Court that is what is to be expected. But I hope for the reverse someday where the 2A crowd has to actually understand and answer to the perspective of those against the limitless distribution of guns in the way anti gun advocates have to always have to answer to the side that does not want any change.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2022, 09:43:21 PM by NaN »

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #105 on: June 12, 2022, 06:55:50 AM »
Some historical background of the US gun culture and the AR15:


How Did Guns Get So Powerful?
Decade by decade, firearms have become deadlier—and tightened their grip on our collective imagination.


"And yet it’s not quite right to see a gun as merely an efficient machine. When Americans call for regulation of guns, it isn’t the physical object in all its terrifying utility that blocks them but the deep attachment that their fellow-citizens have to their weapons and what they think they represent. Many of us walk around with an image of our country in our heads that we believe comes from history, when in fact it comes from marketing and mythology. It’s that marketing and mythology which keep us saturated with weaponry, and which need to be rejected before we can make any enduring change."


https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-did-guns-get-so-powerful

six-car-habit

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #106 on: June 12, 2022, 08:58:04 AM »
 I would like to thank NaN for expressing their thoughts on this subject.

Can any of the posters who are dissecting this into a technical argument into what constitutes an assault rifle, and relative bullet speeds and strengths -  explain what kind of anomaly must have happened such that the "low speed, low force, not the hugest magazine possible" equipped guns - easily chewed up shoppers at a grocery store in minutes, and ruined the bodies of the schoolchildren so badly they could only be identified by the color of their shirt and a small part of a cartoon character on that shirt  ???

  Can we avoid an answer similar to - " well of course it's inevitable if a person shoots a body 20+ times, and have 1000 rounds of ammo with them, these kinds of awful results will happen, But a bad guy with a knife or a bat could have done similar damage !! " ?

 Bad enough, sad enough, sickening enough, that you'll probably never see a picture of the inside of the Uvalde classrooms published ?

 Anyone want to take on why a grandfather can buy or build, in USA, what was described to me as an " AK-47 style full-auto selectable BB-gun"  for his 14 yr old grandson ?    How this enhances a teenagers hunting skills, or helps his self esteem, or will save the armed forces a bunch of training $ enlisting this kid in the future....

 Why does my co-workers brother, who is former law enforcement, feel the desire to procure - " 10 machine shop modified lower receivers, and associated parts" to convert his 2 rifles from semi- to full auto, and sell the other 8 kits to friends and relatives ??.  Because freedom ?  Because "protecting my family" ?

Should this guy get a pass since he is former LEO, his judgement must be good, he'll keep track of the "illegal" gun parts, the chances of a weapon modified by him is 99% unlikely to be used in a mass shooting...

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #107 on: June 12, 2022, 09:09:35 AM »
I would like to thank NaN for expressing their thoughts on this subject.

Can any of the posters who are dissecting this into a technical argument into what constitutes an assault rifle, and relative bullet speeds and strengths -  explain what kind of anomaly must have happened such that the "low speed, low force, not the hugest magazine possible" equipped guns - easily chewed up shoppers at a grocery store in minutes, and ruined the bodies of the schoolchildren so badly they could only be identified by the color of their shirt and a small part of a cartoon character on that shirt  ???

  Can we avoid an answer similar to - " well of course it's inevitable if a person shoots a body 20+ times, and have 1000 rounds of ammo with them, these kinds of awful results will happen, But a bad guy with a knife or a bat could have done similar damage !! " ?

 Bad enough, sad enough, sickening enough, that you'll probably never see a picture of the inside of the Uvalde classrooms published ?

 Anyone want to take on why a grandfather can buy or build, in USA, what was described to me as an " AK-47 style full-auto selectable BB-gun"  for his 14 yr old grandson ?    How this enhances a teenagers hunting skills, or helps his self esteem, or will save the armed forces a bunch of training $ enlisting this kid in the future....

 Why does my co-workers brother, who is former law enforcement, feel the desire to procure - " 10 machine shop modified lower receivers, and associated parts" to convert his 2 rifles from semi- to full auto, and sell the other 8 kits to friends and relatives ??.  Because freedom ?  Because "protecting my family" ?

Should this guy get a pass since he is former LEO, his judgement must be good, he'll keep track of the "illegal" gun parts, the chances of a weapon modified by him is 99% unlikely to be used in a mass shooting...

Maintaining technical accuracy is important if you don't want to immediately make all the pro-2A people shut down immediately. If you care enough to have the conversation, put the effort in to sound intelligent when you're doing it.

I can simultaneously support gun control and also correct wildly outlandish perspectives.  Why your coworkers brother feels like violating federal law, I don't know - go report him to the ATF.  Why you feel like I am going to justify mass shootings, I don't know. Why you assume I think people should get a pass for violating the law, I don't know.

You're so hopelessly blinded by your knee-jerk reactions that you have completely missed the fact that I'm on your side.

Oh and regarding "full-auto BB guns," get ready to clutch your pearls - go look up airsoft guns. They shoot plastic BBs and are used like paintball guns.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #108 on: June 12, 2022, 09:29:30 AM »
I would like to thank NaN for expressing their thoughts on this subject.

Can any of the posters who are dissecting this into a technical argument into what constitutes an assault rifle, and relative bullet speeds and strengths -  explain what kind of anomaly must have happened such that the "low speed, low force, not the hugest magazine possible" equipped guns - easily chewed up shoppers at a grocery store in minutes, and ruined the bodies of the schoolchildren so badly they could only be identified by the color of their shirt and a small part of a cartoon character on that shirt  ???

  Can we avoid an answer similar to - " well of course it's inevitable if a person shoots a body 20+ times, and have 1000 rounds of ammo with them, these kinds of awful results will happen, But a bad guy with a knife or a bat could have done similar damage !! " ?

 Bad enough, sad enough, sickening enough, that you'll probably never see a picture of the inside of the Uvalde classrooms published ?

 Anyone want to take on why a grandfather can buy or build, in USA, what was described to me as an " AK-47 style full-auto selectable BB-gun"  for his 14 yr old grandson ?    How this enhances a teenagers hunting skills, or helps his self esteem, or will save the armed forces a bunch of training $ enlisting this kid in the future....

 Why does my co-workers brother, who is former law enforcement, feel the desire to procure - " 10 machine shop modified lower receivers, and associated parts" to convert his 2 rifles from semi- to full auto, and sell the other 8 kits to friends and relatives ??.  Because freedom ?  Because "protecting my family" ?

Should this guy get a pass since he is former LEO, his judgement must be good, he'll keep track of the "illegal" gun parts, the chances of a weapon modified by him is 99% unlikely to be used in a mass shooting...

Maintaining technical accuracy is important if you don't want to immediately make all the pro-2A people shut down immediately. If you care enough to have the conversation, put the effort in to sound intelligent when you're doing it.

I can simultaneously support gun control and also correct wildly outlandish perspectives.  Why your coworkers brother feels like violating federal law, I don't know - go report him to the ATF.  Why you feel like I am going to justify mass shootings, I don't know. Why you assume I think people should get a pass for violating the law, I don't know.

You're so hopelessly blinded by your knee-jerk reactions that you have completely missed the fact that I'm on your side.

Oh and regarding "full-auto BB guns," get ready to clutch your pearls - go look up airsoft guns. They shoot plastic BBs and are used like paintball guns.

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #109 on: June 12, 2022, 11:07:00 AM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #110 on: June 12, 2022, 11:14:02 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #111 on: June 12, 2022, 11:35:45 AM »
Does this mean that anyone in favour of proper licensing and use of cars needs to know all about cars?  And anyone calling for controls on drunk driving needs to understand all the physiology and psychology of driving drunk?

Because people look at the effects on society of improper vehicle ownership, and improper drinking, and want social rules so that car ownership, and drinking, are not abused.  They don't need to know the itty bitty details.

When people dismiss gun control advocates because they don't know all the technicalities, what they are also dismissing is the concerns for proper social use of guns.  Not just the proper ownership of guns, but what their proper use is in terms of society.

People who want good socially responsible gun controls will leave the technical details to the experts if they think the overall goals are being respected.  When they know the overall goals are being ignored they start worrying about the technical details, and often getting them wrong.  If a certain kind of gun is popular with people who do mass shootings, can you blame gun control advocates for thinking that maybe this is a gun that needs better controls?

I don't need to know the ins and outs of various guns any more than I need to know the ins and outs of various vehicles.  I do need to know that vehicles will be owned and driven responsibly, and I need to know that guns will be owned and used responsibly.  This includes all the details, so for example, that people changing their own car oil don't dump the used oil in a drain going to a watershed, and gun owners control ammunition as well as the gun.

So when I see pro-gun advocates getting all fussy about the details, the message I get is that they are so focused on the guns that they are ignoring the overall effects on society.  Because just as we worry about the nut behind the wheel, we worry about the nut holding the gun.   Which is where things like delays for purchasing, registries, mental health and violence checks, and other ways to actually assess if someone should own a gun come in.  Did I really care exactly what rifles my former farming neighbours were using to shoot coyotes?  No.  Did I care that they had taken the gun safety course, knew when and where it was safe to use it and where it was not safe to use it?  Yes.  Do I care that checks fail and then we end up with domestic violence cases like the man who killed 3 women in Renfrew County?  Yes.  But I also care that because usually the system works, there are relatively few cases like the Renfrew County one (and yes you can find it with Google).

And of course someone who wants to kill people can use a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a car, whatever.  But guns are designed to kill people, and make it easy to kill people, or otherwise soldiers would be armed with knives, baseball bats and cars.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #112 on: June 12, 2022, 12:01:44 PM »
Does this mean that anyone in favour of proper licensing and use of cars needs to know all about cars?  And anyone calling for controls on drunk driving needs to understand all the physiology and psychology of driving drunk?

Yes, at least if you have an opinion on what the regulations should say. Eg, I'm hugely in support of bumper/hood height regulations to stem the recent increased deaths of pedestrians in North America with the proliferation of larger and larger vehicles. If I'm going to have that opinion I better know what a hood and a bumper are. Better yet I should probably know that as it stands today cars and trucks have different regulator frameworks.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2022, 12:13:09 PM »
Does this mean that anyone in favour of proper licensing and use of cars needs to know all about cars?  And anyone calling for controls on drunk driving needs to understand all the physiology and psychology of driving drunk?

Because people look at the effects on society of improper vehicle ownership, and improper drinking, and want social rules so that car ownership, and drinking, are not abused.  They don't need to know the itty bitty details.

When people dismiss gun control advocates because they don't know all the technicalities, what they are also dismissing is the concerns for proper social use of guns.  Not just the proper ownership of guns, but what their proper use is in terms of society.

People who want good socially responsible gun controls will leave the technical details to the experts if they think the overall goals are being respected.  When they know the overall goals are being ignored they start worrying about the technical details, and often getting them wrong.  If a certain kind of gun is popular with people who do mass shootings, can you blame gun control advocates for thinking that maybe this is a gun that needs better controls?

I don't need to know the ins and outs of various guns any more than I need to know the ins and outs of various vehicles.  I do need to know that vehicles will be owned and driven responsibly, and I need to know that guns will be owned and used responsibly.  This includes all the details, so for example, that people changing their own car oil don't dump the used oil in a drain going to a watershed, and gun owners control ammunition as well as the gun.

So when I see pro-gun advocates getting all fussy about the details, the message I get is that they are so focused on the guns that they are ignoring the overall effects on society.  Because just as we worry about the nut behind the wheel, we worry about the nut holding the gun.   Which is where things like delays for purchasing, registries, mental health and violence checks, and other ways to actually assess if someone should own a gun come in.  Did I really care exactly what rifles my former farming neighbours were using to shoot coyotes?  No.  Did I care that they had taken the gun safety course, knew when and where it was safe to use it and where it was not safe to use it?  Yes.  Do I care that checks fail and then we end up with domestic violence cases like the man who killed 3 women in Renfrew County?  Yes.  But I also care that because usually the system works, there are relatively few cases like the Renfrew County one (and yes you can find it with Google).

And of course someone who wants to kill people can use a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a car, whatever.  But guns are designed to kill people, and make it easy to kill people, or otherwise soldiers would be armed with knives, baseball bats and cars.

First, please indicate where we have dismissed concerns.

Second, if you were attempting to ban a specific type of car, then yes - I would absolutely expect you to know what you’re asking for.

You can say “Ban AR15s” all you want, but if you don’t also ban Mini 14s or AK variants or SKSs or CZ Scorpions or Steyr AUGs or FALs or SCARs or or or or or, it won’t matter. A lot of these are also legal in Canada, fwiw.

The ‘94 assault weapons ban was probably the closest to what people think they want, but it also targeted cosmetic features as reasons to ban.  I can own an AR15 in NJ as long as I meet the legal criteria - can’t have a flash hider, can’t have a bayonet lug, can’t have a collapsible stock, etc. The fundamental firearm itself? Not illegal. People are asking for restrictions without knowing what they’re asking for, and then get frustrated when people like me talk about it. I’m not opposed to gun control - but what you say you want is probably not what you actually want. You could snap your fingers and make all AR15s disappear and any other number of existing firearms would be used instead.

Education is important if you want change that will actually accomplish anything.  I will say the gun lobby is so inflexible that the likely only route to major change is to simply change the 2nd Amendment, but given how many low-population red states would need to be convinced, it’s unlikely anytime soon.

edit: For clarity I’m using “you” as a general term for the gun control population.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #114 on: June 12, 2022, 12:23:26 PM »
This detailed “equipment” analysis has been used for a good number of years or maybe decades now to stop meaningful reform of gun ownership. Here’s the thing, you can say that people are uneducated when they discuss the various technical aspects of the gun. But you cannot say that the people committing mass murders using a very specific type of weapon aren’t in fact being swayed by marketing that has told them that that particular weapon is ideal for this purpose. I’ve seen firsthand how the brainwashing has gone in the newest generation of young men. They are now deeply convinced that military style semiautomatic rifles are essential to the freedom of ownership. This marketing is what persuades mass shooters to use this particular weapon, often buying it one day before using it.  So I call BS on that argument. We need the ban now.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #115 on: June 12, 2022, 12:29:37 PM »
One long-standing theory of mine is that mass shooting is a form of suicide (as well as a form of domestic terrorism, as in the Buffalo, San Bernardino and the Las Vegas cases, among others).

Suicide is known to be contagious.

There’s a reason why train deaths are never publicized. In a high school near me whenever one student commits suicide on the tracks, which is surprisingly common, there are copycat events afterwards. Bridge and train deaths are never publicized for this reason. Yet AR-15 deaths and the usage of AR-15s for a specific type of mass murder are widely publicized. And then copycat events happen. It’s very predictable at this point.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #116 on: June 12, 2022, 12:32:45 PM »
You could even follow the money. Train companies do not benefit from people dying on the tracks. But gun manufacturers benefit every time their product is used, in any way.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #117 on: June 12, 2022, 12:40:54 PM »
Does this mean that anyone in favour of proper licensing and use of cars needs to know all about cars?  And anyone calling for controls on drunk driving needs to understand all the physiology and psychology of driving drunk?

Because people look at the effects on society of improper vehicle ownership, and improper drinking, and want social rules so that car ownership, and drinking, are not abused.  They don't need to know the itty bitty details.

When people dismiss gun control advocates because they don't know all the technicalities, what they are also dismissing is the concerns for proper social use of guns.  Not just the proper ownership of guns, but what their proper use is in terms of society.

People who want good socially responsible gun controls will leave the technical details to the experts if they think the overall goals are being respected.  When they know the overall goals are being ignored they start worrying about the technical details, and often getting them wrong.  If a certain kind of gun is popular with people who do mass shootings, can you blame gun control advocates for thinking that maybe this is a gun that needs better controls?

I don't need to know the ins and outs of various guns any more than I need to know the ins and outs of various vehicles.  I do need to know that vehicles will be owned and driven responsibly, and I need to know that guns will be owned and used responsibly.  This includes all the details, so for example, that people changing their own car oil don't dump the used oil in a drain going to a watershed, and gun owners control ammunition as well as the gun.

So when I see pro-gun advocates getting all fussy about the details, the message I get is that they are so focused on the guns that they are ignoring the overall effects on society.  Because just as we worry about the nut behind the wheel, we worry about the nut holding the gun.   Which is where things like delays for purchasing, registries, mental health and violence checks, and other ways to actually assess if someone should own a gun come in.  Did I really care exactly what rifles my former farming neighbours were using to shoot coyotes?  No.  Did I care that they had taken the gun safety course, knew when and where it was safe to use it and where it was not safe to use it?  Yes.  Do I care that checks fail and then we end up with domestic violence cases like the man who killed 3 women in Renfrew County?  Yes.  But I also care that because usually the system works, there are relatively few cases like the Renfrew County one (and yes you can find it with Google).

And of course someone who wants to kill people can use a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a car, whatever.  But guns are designed to kill people, and make it easy to kill people, or otherwise soldiers would be armed with knives, baseball bats and cars.

Nothing I've seen on this thread has been super technical. We're not talking about understanding the inner workings of a jet engine. We're talking about stuff that takes a ten minute Google search.

Serious question, would you not be taken aback a little if a person is super passionate about curtailing drunk driving and yet couldn't identify accurately what a blood alcohol content was or have any idea what the legal limit is currently?

I get gun people can get pedantic (calling out people for using clip vs magazine, for example), but I'm not seeing any of this here. Also, it's become almost a point of pride in some gun control advocates to not care that they know basic details, and that's just ridiculous.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #118 on: June 12, 2022, 01:01:10 PM »


This leads me to believe that many of these AR enthusiast gun owners are adrenaline addicts feeding off these high-powered military grade weapons like a junkie taking hits. I do not doubt it is quite a rush to fire some of these powerful machines made for the most absolute chilling destruction. Just writing this makes me understand that there might be a lot of the hard-core NRA gun owners that are essentially addicts to this rush. Which explains quite nicely the "Come and Take It" flags.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun?

I took my 13-year-old son shooting at a local firing range recently. He had a .22 bolt action rifle that was gifted to him by an older cousin. I had my AR-15. Even at 13 he could handle it just fine as it's barely got more recoil than the .22. After all, the caliber - .223 - is almost identical, albeit a larger cartridge with more powder than a .22. Virtually any hunting rifle is going to be more powerful than an AR-15. The .223 (5.56mm) cartridge is marketed for hunting varmints, i.e. coyotes, rabbits, etc. So "high-powered" is a bit of a misnomer. That's why the Army is moving to a more powerful 6.8mm cartridge.

I've fired machine guns and automatic grenade launchers in the Army, as well as thousands of rounds through an M-4/M-16 and called in mortar and artillery fire. So firing an AR-15 at a static range where you can barely see if it's making a hole in the paper target is not exactly generating a lot of adrenaline - not compared to a live-fire training situation. However, the latter is something very few people outside the military or law enforcement will be able to experience.
Seems like you have been desensitized to firing these weapons.

How many people, who have never fired a gun before, have you taken to a range, gave them an AR15 to use, and then after firing heard them say "meh"? I bet it is as many as new gun laws will be passed this year.

You have a bizarre perspective on this with the 'adrenaline rush' angle - and I say that as someone who supports gun control.


Why is it bizarre? Is a gun that can kill a lot of people quickly a tool like my hand drill? Again, I'm not talking about a bb gun, single shot rifle, or anything that has been in circulation years before all these mass shootings have happened.

I'd put bet on a research project showing during scans of brain activity before, during,  and after firing different types of guns that there is a significant correlation to an addiction to whatever chemical is released during that experience. And when one goes too long without going to the range there is a withdrawal.

I am almost hoping you are trolling.  I've fired guns before, and that act had no relationship in my mind to killing or hurting anyone.  It felt about the same as playing golf.  It was a skill/challenge. 

And withdraw?  yeah, no.  I mean, I suppose some people can get addicted to golf, too, so it is possible, but pretty ridiculous as a generalization.

You sound deluded, and you are reenforcing the stereotype of the clueless, pearl-clutching, judgmental, out-of-touch cliche that makes gun-owners dig in their heals.  You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Before you get all insulting towards me maybe try to understand this is where most[/I] people generally opposed to guns come from. Statistics seems to be that 60% of America do not own guns. A good chunk of that probably have never fired one. There is a huge crowd out there not like you. I don't speak for all of them, but I dont think my thoughts are original, as you have said. If you want to connect with this side too, don't shut it down.

That being said , I respect that you all have the view that an AR15 is not an adrenaline pumping machine. But I do expect you to respect my view here.

While you have pointed out views to the contrary, I am still not fully convinced of it. I remember the first time I drove down the freeway at 70 mph. That was intense. Definitely adrenaline rush. I have never fired an AR15, and yes, my gun knowledge is generally poor. But if someone gave me one to hold I'd probably feel very awkward and tense. And if I were to shoot one I guarantee I would have an absolute rush of some kind (and not one I would enjoy). For the first time sure. Second time? Sure, maybe it will be like swinging a golf club. I would wager a bet that if we pulled anyone besides myself who is generally repulsed by the idea of owning a gun that is the exact thing being used to kill children in an elementary school that their reaction the first time to firing it might be a little bit of a tense situation.  The rush does not have to be in a good way. But I understand why you all think firing a gun is now like driving on the freeway for the Millionth time.

And I really do dislike the idea of normalizing gun use like it is driving a car on the freeway. Maybe we would have less gun violence if owning one was normalized like owning a car? Now that's a thought. You don't see many people commiting mass murder with a vehicle. Though there have been a few loonies that have driven into a crowd. I guess the way I see it people just associate using a car to get from point A to point B and not as a weapon, so generally it's not in most lunatic's minds. These AR15s could be considered 'varmin' control but in the end it is meant to kill a being. I'm not getting all bent out of shape for killing some bunnies destroying someone's vegetables, but in the end the purpose of AR15 is to kill. It is very hard to normalize that. It is not like a car. But I did feel a rush in a car. So it seems pretty reasonable to expect it with a gun. And maybe it isn't the AR15, but the more people talk about it the more it seems like a lot of guns are like taking the race car or bike to a track and going 150 mph. I still think there is a little bit of that fix in the gun community. I can see a lot of similarities to taking guns to a specified place for practice as like taking a car to a specified place for practice (i.e. an open race track). I don't think people would take their Prius to a local track just to get better at driving.

And as it was mentioned - not all rural and assault rifles are equal. The AR15 seems to be especially unique in that it has less power but maximizes destruction. Others seem more powerful, possibly harder to control and require more skill to use, and aren't as popular and cheap as the fast food like availability of the AR15.

I am learning something about the AR15 and it doesn't make me feel any easier. I'm learning something about guns and it still doesn't make me feel easier that they are normalized versus it being an addiction.

And frankly I am pretty tired of the 2A crowd dominating the conversation to anchor the issue around very little change on the issue. Every. Single. Damn. Time. And then tell me that my view based on what little I know about guns is the issue. That's some gas lighting. At the moment with a 6-3 Supreme Court that is what is to be expected. But I hope for the reverse someday where the 2A crowd has to actually understand and answer to the perspective of those against the limitless distribution of guns in the way anti gun advocates have to always have to answer to the side that does not want any change.

I could respect if if you said that *for you*, the act if firing a gun would be tied to the act of killing, would be a huge adrenaline hit, and would be potentially addictive.  But I can not respect you spouting off about what that act means to other people.  That's why you are getting push back.  You are stating your opinion on what guns are to you, you are stating what guns mean to other people. 

If you were commenting on job interviews and I said that for interviewers, the act of interviewing is a control experience from which they get high, and further that the reason they didn't hire a candidate of color in some specific situations was because they were racist, would you "respect" my opinion?  And if multiple people who routinely interviewed said it have never been about control for them, and I said I "weren't convinced" would that be an opinion on other people's motivations and experiences that should be respected, or perhaps should it be challenged.

So no, I don't respect your opinion about my experiences and my motivation in those experiences.  that's just silly.

Again, maybe *you* would feel a rush firing a gun.  But I didn't and that's not the experience of anyone I know well.  Having an opinion on what it is or would be like for you is fine, and I respect that.  But having an opinion on what it is like for other people, even when they tell you it isn't?  Why wouldn't I think that was arrogant and silly? 

And FTR, I am in favor of gun control.  I posted two approaches in this thread that seems like they might be most likely to get significant support.  But I'd support much, much more stringent measures as well.  So I'm not arguing against gun control.  I'm arguing against you suggest that it is some almost fetishized experience for most other people when they fire a gun.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #119 on: June 12, 2022, 01:07:44 PM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

 My point, though, is not that 2A people generally know more about guns than vehemently pro-gun control people. I readily concede that is true. My point is that pro-2A people have been conditioned by the NRA and gun lobby to take the first slightly inaccurate thing a non-gun-owner says as an excuse to proclaim that the gun control person does not deserve to be talked to as a result. It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to stop conversations between the two sides. Because stopping those conversations is the goal. Not making things better.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4867
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #120 on: June 12, 2022, 01:25:54 PM »
Hey look we might get something here. Definitely baby steps,  but it's something.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/12/1104433332/gun-control-senate-deal

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #121 on: June 12, 2022, 01:26:17 PM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

 My point, though, is not that 2A people generally know more about guns than vehemently pro-gun control people. I readily concede that is true. My point is that pro-2A people have been conditioned by the NRA and gun lobby to take the first slightly inaccurate thing a non-gun-owner says as an excuse to proclaim that the gun control person does not deserve to be talked to as a result. It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to stop conversations between the two sides. Because stopping those conversations is the goal. Not making things better.

Yes, I somewhat got called out above.  Do I need to know the exact height of various bumpers and the rules that govern them?  No.  Can I see or read that higher bumpers are a problem?  Can I see with my own eyes that driving a car at night is a problem, because SUVs and trucks shine their lights right at me because of their greater height?  Yes.  So can I tell my lawmakers that there is a problem with bumper height and vehicle height that is not being addressed, without knowing all the details?  Yes.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #122 on: June 12, 2022, 01:34:54 PM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

 My point, though, is not that 2A people generally know more about guns than vehemently pro-gun control people. I readily concede that is true. My point is that pro-2A people have been conditioned by the NRA and gun lobby to take the first slightly inaccurate thing a non-gun-owner says as an excuse to proclaim that the gun control person does not deserve to be talked to as a result. It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to stop conversations between the two sides. Because stopping those conversations is the goal. Not making things better.

I do agree it is used as that. Do you not agree, though, that given the significant misunderstandings and misrepresentations of key aspects of the issue due to a lack of knowledge by gun control advocates, that corrections of the inaccuracies cannot be dismissed. This is especially true given the presence of this misinformation not just on mmm forums but in pop culture (tv, novels, etc.), in mainstream journalism, and by politicians who will make the laws.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #123 on: June 12, 2022, 01:39:18 PM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

 My point, though, is not that 2A people generally know more about guns than vehemently pro-gun control people. I readily concede that is true. My point is that pro-2A people have been conditioned by the NRA and gun lobby to take the first slightly inaccurate thing a non-gun-owner says as an excuse to proclaim that the gun control person does not deserve to be talked to as a result. It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to stop conversations between the two sides. Because stopping those conversations is the goal. Not making things better.

I do agree it is used as that. Do you not agree, though, that given the significant misunderstandings and misrepresentations of key aspects of the issue due to a lack of knowledge by gun control advocates, that corrections of the inaccuracies cannot be dismissed. This is especially true given the presence of this misinformation not just on mmm forums but in pop culture (tv, novels, etc.), in mainstream journalism, and by politicians who will make the laws.

Absolutely, but then why is the reaction to misunderstandings not education? Instead, it is finger-pointing and a-ha’ing and “libtard”-ing.

Because the point is not to correct. The point is to use it as a tool to arrest further discussion and justify not working toward a solution.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #124 on: June 12, 2022, 01:52:27 PM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

 My point, though, is not that 2A people generally know more about guns than vehemently pro-gun control people. I readily concede that is true. My point is that pro-2A people have been conditioned by the NRA and gun lobby to take the first slightly inaccurate thing a non-gun-owner says as an excuse to proclaim that the gun control person does not deserve to be talked to as a result. It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to stop conversations between the two sides. Because stopping those conversations is the goal. Not making things better.

I do agree it is used as that. Do you not agree, though, that given the significant misunderstandings and misrepresentations of key aspects of the issue due to a lack of knowledge by gun control advocates, that corrections of the inaccuracies cannot be dismissed. This is especially true given the presence of this misinformation not just on mmm forums but in pop culture (tv, novels, etc.), in mainstream journalism, and by politicians who will make the laws.

Absolutely, but then why is the reaction to misunderstandings not education? Instead, it is finger-pointing and a-ha’ing and “libtard”-ing.

Because the point is not to correct. The point is to use it as a tool to arrest further discussion and justify not working toward a solution.

Sometimes it is as you say, and that's not cool. However, often, it seems like it's more like, again, what we've seen on this thread. Not a welcoming of education, but arguments that it doesn't matter or is insignificant, or dismissing people's more informed perspectives. Also, Im sure you can understand the frustration of having an issue your passionate about that you constantly have to correct others about on the simplest of aspects when they have ample opportunities to educate themselves on it and don't. It doesn't excuse dismissing them, but it hopefully helps understand their perspective in doing so somewhat.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #125 on: June 12, 2022, 09:25:54 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dGaLRsgofQ

What are your thoughts on his solution?

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #126 on: June 12, 2022, 11:47:45 PM »
I have come to this belief about the “education” point based on having this precise discussion endlessly for years with the various gun aficionados in my life. I also don’t want to get into weapons credentials but if I had to describe some of my experience it wouldn’t be dismissible as someone who doesn’t know anything about guns, mods, ammo, etc. Thus, I see this argument as a dead end, as someone else pointed out. Sadly that’s not just a figure of speech.

But I think I made a good point about the marketing… Would be interested to see that addressed or refuted.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #127 on: June 13, 2022, 12:15:02 AM »

Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

I'll reply to yours, but as I'm on my phone and have difficulties typing, I'm going to also call out NaN in this as well.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

Your line of thought is often brought up on these forums, and again, there's certainly truth on it. Here's the other side though. The problem that NaNs statements are a perfect example of the larger problem that is truly there when gun control proponents speak is that a large subset are hugely uninformed, and that has significant consequences beyond simple dialogue. It is that it shuts down pro 2A people on discussion, but that's not the worst part, imo. The worst part is that no one knows what the heck they're really thinking and would try to actually get accomplished.

One of the most commonly called out mistakes is how automatics should be banned. Do they not know that they are already essentially? Are they meaning something entirely different? I truly don't know. Then there's people that call out banning semi automatics. Do they truly mean that?That would technically include a huge percentage of rifles and handguns including revolvers. So do they mean that or do they mean automatic which are already severely restricted or semi autos with large capacities or something entirely different? No one knows.

The problem with NaNs arguments is that they've gotten this mindset that they know the situation when they clearly do not. They were presented with arguments, and it took several times for them to admit that the caricature they had on their mind of people shooting ar15s as psyched up movie villains addicted to the thrill of it out of their head and also to understand that there are actual uses for ar15s beside weapons of war.

So, directly to NaN, people calling you out for your assumptions based on zero personal experience and no actual studies is not gaslighting. It's being rational. When I don't know something about a subject, I research it out and sometimes present my ideas on a forum like this one so they can be agreed with or shot down with personal experiences or statistics and studies. I don't accuse others of gaslighting when they know more about something then I do and have more experience in it than I do. I acknowledge their point (although I may disagree with it), and I try to learn from it.

Being technically correct and understanding the issue is hugely important on anything. Remaining stubbornly ignorant or bold despite no actual knowledge should not not be given a pass, not because it's not right in some Robert's  rules of order let's dialogue technically correctly way but because I literally have no idea what gun control proponents mean a lot of the time and no idea what they want to get accomplished.

I will say that if pro gun people keep stonewalling everything, it might not matter if people are ignorant of the issue. They'll be the ones pushing through whatever they like.

 My point, though, is not that 2A people generally know more about guns than vehemently pro-gun control people. I readily concede that is true. My point is that pro-2A people have been conditioned by the NRA and gun lobby to take the first slightly inaccurate thing a non-gun-owner says as an excuse to proclaim that the gun control person does not deserve to be talked to as a result. It is a thought-terminating cliché designed to stop conversations between the two sides. Because stopping those conversations is the goal. Not making things better.

I do agree it is used as that. Do you not agree, though, that given the significant misunderstandings and misrepresentations of key aspects of the issue due to a lack of knowledge by gun control advocates, that corrections of the inaccuracies cannot be dismissed. This is especially true given the presence of this misinformation not just on mmm forums but in pop culture (tv, novels, etc.), in mainstream journalism, and by politicians who will make the laws.

Absolutely, but then why is the reaction to misunderstandings not education? Instead, it is finger-pointing and a-ha’ing and “libtard”-ing.

Because the point is not to correct. The point is to use it as a tool to arrest further discussion and justify not working toward a solution.

Sometimes it is as you say, and that's not cool. However, often, it seems like it's more like, again, what we've seen on this thread. Not a welcoming of education, but arguments that it doesn't matter or is insignificant, or dismissing people's more informed perspectives. Also, Im sure you can understand the frustration of having an issue your passionate about that you constantly have to correct others about on the simplest of aspects when they have ample opportunities to educate themselves on it and don't. It doesn't excuse dismissing them, but it hopefully helps understand their perspective in doing so somewhat.

That generous view notwithstanding (and I am absolutely aware of all the mechanical distinctions), it seems more like a focus on details that are trivial in comparison to the real issue—which is not just the fact of the excessive gun deaths, but the effect that elevated risk has on daily life and attitudes within the US—and using that as one more reason to avoid an honest look at the problem.


RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #128 on: June 13, 2022, 07:57:54 AM »
That generous view notwithstanding (and I am absolutely aware of all the mechanical distinctions), it seems more like a focus on details that are trivial in comparison to the real issue—which is not just the fact of the excessive gun deaths, but the effect that elevated risk has on daily life and attitudes within the US—and using that as one more reason to avoid an honest look at the problem.

As an outsider I can say I do see this.  Just as I see the U.S.'s lack of universal health care, poor parental leave, and joint filing of income tax all affect decisions in a way that does not happen here.  I am sure there are others, just that those are all really obvious.  But they are the water that American fish (people) swim in.

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #129 on: June 13, 2022, 08:08:44 AM »
I have come to this belief about the “education” point based on having this precise discussion endlessly for years with the various gun aficionados in my life. I also don’t want to get into weapons credentials but if I had to describe some of my experience it wouldn’t be dismissible as someone who doesn’t know anything about guns, mods, ammo, etc. Thus, I see this argument as a dead end, as someone else pointed out. Sadly that’s not just a figure of speech.

Same.  I'm not a gun expert, but I have used them in the past, taken training, and currently own one (inherited from my grandfather).  But I've come to the conclusion that there's just no point in talking about any kind of gun control or regulation with 2A proponents, because everything you put forward will be pooh-poohed, picked apart for technical inaccuracies and/or screeched about how it infringes their freedom to have an entire armory to fight off imagined home invaders.

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #130 on: June 13, 2022, 08:17:42 AM »

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

But now they're coalescing around "hardening the schools" despite evidence of past ineffectiveness and the lack of any consideration for the effect that the "under siege" mentality will have on students (or, more cynically, because they think it will support the development of further paranoid reactionaries). Surely it's only a coincidence that it will further enrich traditional Republican donors and justify more and more invasive surveillance of private life.

LaineyAZ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #131 on: June 13, 2022, 08:24:18 AM »
I'm reminded of the similarities with the pro-choice issue. 

I've often wondered if we require all those who are anti-abortion to be able to accurately describe:  all the methods of birth control, a woman's reproductive anatomy, how often pregnancy occurs despite using birth control, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, the statistics on fatal fetal abnormalities, the maternal death rate in U.S. and how it varies by race and income level, the teaching of sex education and how that impacts pregnancy rates, etc. etc.

I'm betting the number of anti-abortion people who know all of that is pretty small yet it never stops them from loudly voicing their opinions.  And because they vote accordingly, the number of legislators and judges - up to and including the U.S. Supreme court now - base their decisions on these "beliefs" and not the facts and societal impact. 

So does everyone have to know every detail about gun weaponry to say that changes have to be made to avoid further carnage?  Of course not.  Let the government hash out the details but the slaughter has to stop now. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #132 on: June 13, 2022, 08:29:44 AM »
I'm reminded of the similarities with the pro-choice issue. 

I've often wondered if we require all those who are anti-abortion to be able to accurately describe:  all the methods of birth control, a woman's reproductive anatomy, how often pregnancy occurs despite using birth control, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, the statistics on fatal fetal abnormalities, the maternal death rate in U.S. and how it varies by race and income level, the teaching of sex education and how that impacts pregnancy rates, etc. etc.

I'm betting the number of anti-abortion people who know all of that is pretty small yet it never stops them from loudly voicing their opinions.  And because they vote accordingly, the number of legislators and judges - up to and including the U.S. Supreme court now - base their decisions on these "beliefs" and not the facts and societal impact. 

So does everyone have to know every detail about gun weaponry to say that changes have to be made to avoid further carnage?  Of course not.  Let the government hash out the details but the slaughter has to stop now.

Nobody here is saying everyone has to know every detail. Are you actually reading the thread or just skimming it and assuming the contents? I'm starting to wonder if I'm not typing clearly enough.

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #133 on: June 13, 2022, 08:31:47 AM »

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

But now they're coalescing around "hardening the schools" despite evidence of past ineffectiveness and the lack of any consideration for the effect that the "under siege" mentality will have on students (or, more cynically, because they think it will support the development of further paranoid reactionaries). Surely it's only a coincidence that it will further enrich traditional Republican donors and justify more and more invasive surveillance of private life.

They're coalescing around 'hardening the schools' and 'arming the teachers' because of one reason - it will sell more guns.  It will sell more guns to those schools, and it will sell more guns to people terrified of a shooting happening to them/their children, and it will sell more guns to 2A proponents because 'libs wanna take away our guns' (despite all evidence to the contrary). 

It's always about selling more guns.  That's why the answer to gun violence for Republicans is always more guns, despite the fact that we're already drowning in them as a country.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #134 on: June 13, 2022, 08:34:35 AM »

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

But now they're coalescing around "hardening the schools" despite evidence of past ineffectiveness and the lack of any consideration for the effect that the "under siege" mentality will have on students (or, more cynically, because they think it will support the development of further paranoid reactionaries). Surely it's only a coincidence that it will further enrich traditional Republican donors and justify more and more invasive surveillance of private life.

They're coalescing around 'hardening the schools' and 'arming the teachers' because of one reason - it will sell more guns.  It will sell more guns to those schools, and it will sell more guns to people terrified of a shooting happening to them/their children, and it will sell more guns to 2A proponents because 'libs wanna take away our guns' (despite all evidence to the contrary). 

It's always about selling more guns.  That's why the answer to gun violence for Republicans is always more guns, despite the fact that we're already drowning in them as a country.

Is the real reason simply to sell more guns?  My gut feeling says it's more sinister -- stoking feelings of fear leads to further political support for extreme conservative viewpoints, and scared people are more likely to vote, thus keeping the same political machine in power.

LaineyAZ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #135 on: June 13, 2022, 08:42:14 AM »
I'm reminded of the similarities with the pro-choice issue. 

I've often wondered if we require all those who are anti-abortion to be able to accurately describe:  all the methods of birth control, a woman's reproductive anatomy, how often pregnancy occurs despite using birth control, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, the statistics on fatal fetal abnormalities, the maternal death rate in U.S. and how it varies by race and income level, the teaching of sex education and how that impacts pregnancy rates, etc. etc.

I'm betting the number of anti-abortion people who know all of that is pretty small yet it never stops them from loudly voicing their opinions.  And because they vote accordingly, the number of legislators and judges - up to and including the U.S. Supreme court now - base their decisions on these "beliefs" and not the facts and societal impact. 

So does everyone have to know every detail about gun weaponry to say that changes have to be made to avoid further carnage?  Of course not.  Let the government hash out the details but the slaughter has to stop now.

Nobody here is saying everyone has to know every detail. Are you actually reading the thread or just skimming it and assuming the contents? I'm starting to wonder if I'm not typing clearly enough.

Okay, I'll settle for half of these details before I start to listen to your (generic your) opinion on abortion rights ....  How's that?

But I'm not stuck on the word details - I, like others in the gun and pro-choice and climate change and housing and other societal issues, am focused on the outcome.  And polls in the U.S. show a population that is fed up with the thoughts and prayers response.

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #136 on: June 13, 2022, 08:42:38 AM »

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

But now they're coalescing around "hardening the schools" despite evidence of past ineffectiveness and the lack of any consideration for the effect that the "under siege" mentality will have on students (or, more cynically, because they think it will support the development of further paranoid reactionaries). Surely it's only a coincidence that it will further enrich traditional Republican donors and justify more and more invasive surveillance of private life.

They're coalescing around 'hardening the schools' and 'arming the teachers' because of one reason - it will sell more guns.  It will sell more guns to those schools, and it will sell more guns to people terrified of a shooting happening to them/their children, and it will sell more guns to 2A proponents because 'libs wanna take away our guns' (despite all evidence to the contrary). 

It's always about selling more guns.  That's why the answer to gun violence for Republicans is always more guns, despite the fact that we're already drowning in them as a country.

Is the real reason simply to sell more guns?  My gut feeling says it's more sinister -- stoking feelings of fear leads to further political support for extreme conservative viewpoints, and scared people are more likely to vote, thus keeping the same political machine in power.

That's possible, but stoking feelings of fear in people + giving them lots and lots of guns historically tends to end in unpredictable outcomes for people in power, even conservative ones.  If it was just political power, I'd think we'd see more stuff like we see from other dictator-led countries - stoking fear and then telling people that only the strongman dictator/conservative government will protect them from the libs/gays/immigrants/insert scapegoat here, and using that to lock down power, rather than arming your base and hoping they don't lump you with the 'enemy' for not being conservative/fanatical enough.  (see also: Newsmax, OAN)

That said, it's entirely possible that the conservative politicians and talking heads don't know their history and think it's a perfectly valid tactic to play with matches while banning fire extinguishers ....

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #137 on: June 13, 2022, 08:51:14 AM »

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

But now they're coalescing around "hardening the schools" despite evidence of past ineffectiveness and the lack of any consideration for the effect that the "under siege" mentality will have on students (or, more cynically, because they think it will support the development of further paranoid reactionaries). Surely it's only a coincidence that it will further enrich traditional Republican donors and justify more and more invasive surveillance of private life.

They're coalescing around 'hardening the schools' and 'arming the teachers' because of one reason - it will sell more guns.  It will sell more guns to those schools, and it will sell more guns to people terrified of a shooting happening to them/their children, and it will sell more guns to 2A proponents because 'libs wanna take away our guns' (despite all evidence to the contrary). 

It's always about selling more guns.  That's why the answer to gun violence for Republicans is always more guns, despite the fact that we're already drowning in them as a country.

Is the real reason simply to sell more guns?  My gut feeling says it's more sinister -- stoking feelings of fear leads to further political support for extreme conservative viewpoints, and scared people are more likely to vote, thus keeping the same political machine in power.

That's possible, but stoking feelings of fear in people + giving them lots and lots of guns historically tends to end in unpredictable outcomes for people in power, even conservative ones.  If it was just political power, I'd think we'd see more stuff like we see from other dictator-led countries - stoking fear and then telling people that only the strongman dictator/conservative government will protect them from the libs/gays/immigrants/insert scapegoat here, and using that to lock down power, rather than arming your base and hoping they don't lump you with the 'enemy' for not being conservative/fanatical enough.  (see also: Newsmax, OAN)

That said, it's entirely possible that the conservative politicians and talking heads don't know their history and think it's a perfectly valid tactic to play with matches while banning fire extinguishers ....

I think that's the one.  So far they've been able to guide the fanatics in the direction they want - e.g. Jan 6th. It will very much blow up in their face if (when) it gets out of hand.


I'm reminded of the similarities with the pro-choice issue. 

I've often wondered if we require all those who are anti-abortion to be able to accurately describe:  all the methods of birth control, a woman's reproductive anatomy, how often pregnancy occurs despite using birth control, the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, the statistics on fatal fetal abnormalities, the maternal death rate in U.S. and how it varies by race and income level, the teaching of sex education and how that impacts pregnancy rates, etc. etc.

I'm betting the number of anti-abortion people who know all of that is pretty small yet it never stops them from loudly voicing their opinions.  And because they vote accordingly, the number of legislators and judges - up to and including the U.S. Supreme court now - base their decisions on these "beliefs" and not the facts and societal impact. 

So does everyone have to know every detail about gun weaponry to say that changes have to be made to avoid further carnage?  Of course not.  Let the government hash out the details but the slaughter has to stop now.

Nobody here is saying everyone has to know every detail. Are you actually reading the thread or just skimming it and assuming the contents? I'm starting to wonder if I'm not typing clearly enough.

Okay, I'll settle for half of these details before I start to listen to your (generic your) opinion on abortion rights ....  How's that?

But I'm not stuck on the word details - I, like others in the gun and pro-choice and climate change and housing and other societal issues, am focused on the outcome.  And polls in the U.S. show a population that is fed up with the thoughts and prayers response.

Hey me too, which you would know if you actually cared to read what I have posted so far. If we want change to be effective, we have to ensure that the change we're asking for is actually going to accomplish something. The generic "ban AR15s" attitude is not going to fix anything.

I’m not opposed to gun control - but what you say you want is probably not what you actually want.

and I say that as someone who supports gun control.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #138 on: June 13, 2022, 09:06:35 AM »
I’m not opposed to gun control - but what you say you want is probably not what you actually want.

and I say that as someone who supports gun control.

Which methods of gun control do you support?


I mean, I'm pro-life for 9 month old fetuses, but doubt many would consider me particularly pro-life.

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #139 on: June 13, 2022, 09:15:56 AM »

They don't want a solution.  They don't care how many people die.  That's what it comes down to.  Otherwise THEY would be the ones on the front lines, proposing solutions and pressuring their NRA-funded politicians to pass them or else.

But now they're coalescing around "hardening the schools" despite evidence of past ineffectiveness and the lack of any consideration for the effect that the "under siege" mentality will have on students (or, more cynically, because they think it will support the development of further paranoid reactionaries). Surely it's only a coincidence that it will further enrich traditional Republican donors and justify more and more invasive surveillance of private life.

They're coalescing around 'hardening the schools' and 'arming the teachers' because of one reason - it will sell more guns.  It will sell more guns to those schools, and it will sell more guns to people terrified of a shooting happening to them/their children, and it will sell more guns to 2A proponents because 'libs wanna take away our guns' (despite all evidence to the contrary). 

It's always about selling more guns.  That's why the answer to gun violence for Republicans is always more guns, despite the fact that we're already drowning in them as a country.

Is the real reason simply to sell more guns?  My gut feeling says it's more sinister -- stoking feelings of fear leads to further political support for extreme conservative viewpoints, and scared people are more likely to vote, thus keeping the same political machine in power.

Why can't it be a little of both?

Look at it from the perspective of weapons manufacturers - most guns made in the last 100 years are likely still in circulation. It doesn't take too much to keep a firearm operational, and it's not like people are throwing them away to to get a better model like they do with phones and TV's.

Granted, there's plenty of firearms that leave the US every day that go to cartels, foreign conflicts, radical states, etc. but that's not necessarily something that can keep a company afloat. Eventually, if not today, there's going to be so many firearms in circulation that people will be more likely to inherit them or purchase them secondhand than to buy them new.

Sure, you can plan obsolescence but not nearly as well as you can in many other consumer segments.

But that doesn't invalidate your presumption, which I would expect is an equal contributor to the issue. No sarcasm, there's nothing more intoxicating and unifying to the type of people who believe they need to have an arsenal to defend themselves against an unknown threat - proud boys, oath keepers, etc. - than a constant injection of fear into their daily information consumption.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #140 on: June 13, 2022, 09:23:22 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

I agree with you that so much of the gun discussion iS full of  technical details, when we sincerely engage  in discussion. I don’t participate in most of the discussions because I have learned over the years of reading form discussions that I just don’t have the technical knowledge and I’m not going to get it from dipping into the occasional forum thread.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #141 on: June 13, 2022, 09:39:08 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision. I am an expert in a (narrow, usually marginalized) area of law that is getting extra attention at the moment, and yes, it's comical to me to see how even the most well-motivated laypersons (including some of the regulators) think they've become "experts" after a few months of part-time reflection, but I don't dismiss their thoughts (rather, I offer assistance in developing some precision necessary to turn good ideas into good law). With gun violence, in my opinion, the US is stuck with willful obfuscation of the issues by those who are satisfied with technical gotchas as a response to the slaughter of innocent children.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 10:04:48 AM by Undecided »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #142 on: June 13, 2022, 10:11:18 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision. I am an expert in a (narrow, usually marginalized) area of law that is getting extra attention at the moment, and yes, it's comical to me to see how even the most well-motivated laypersons (including some of the regulators) think they've become "experts" after a few months of part-time reflection, but I don't dismiss their thoughts (rather, I offer assistance in developing some precision necessary to turn good ideas into good law). With gun violence, in my opinion, the US is stuck with willful obfuscation of the issues by those who are satisfied with technical gotchas as a response to the slaughter of innocent children.

That is not the case in this thread, yet I feel those who are attempting to hold an intelligent discussion on the topic are accused of the same practices as NRA lobbyists.

I’m not opposed to gun control - but what you say you want is probably not what you actually want.

and I say that as someone who supports gun control.

Which methods of gun control do you support?


I mean, I'm pro-life for 9 month old fetuses, but doubt many would consider me particularly pro-life.

Please show me something I've posted here that would confirm your implied accusation above.

I will say the gun lobby is so inflexible that the likely only route to major change is to simply change the 2nd Amendment

I would be happy to see:

NFA style (current machine gun regulation) restrictions placed on magazine-fed semi-auto centerfire rifles
Magazine capacity limits (IIRC Canada has 3 or 5 round magazine capacity limits for magazine-fed rifles?)
Federal regulation on concealed carry permits and massively more stringent standards (or elimination of CCW entirely)
Digitized / searchable database of transaction records
Mandatory ownership transfers through FFLs
Red flag systems in place
Waiting periods for every firearm purchase
Buyback system for anyone who wants to give up guns so they can have them destroyed without suffering financial losses

And frankly? I don't particularly care. At this point I would vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The NRA crowd has pushed back for so hard and for so long against any type of gun reform that I feel they've exhausted any scrap of goodwill they may have had.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #143 on: June 13, 2022, 10:12:07 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #144 on: June 13, 2022, 10:13:45 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Not to mention that a US-manufactured M1A is legal, but if it's imported from the wrong country it's illegal.  But in Canada, the same illegal-in-US imported rifle is perfectly legal, despite having much stricter gun laws.

Makes tons of sense!!! (.....)

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #145 on: June 13, 2022, 10:18:29 AM »
In all seriousness if you told Republican gun owners that in exchange for raising the age to buy an AR-15 from 18 to 21 that we will drop all of the stupid import bans and origin laws I bet that they would take the deal. They might even throw in universal background checks.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #146 on: June 13, 2022, 10:20:39 AM »
I’m not opposed to gun control - but what you say you want is probably not what you actually want.

and I say that as someone who supports gun control.

Which methods of gun control do you support?


I mean, I'm pro-life for 9 month old fetuses, but doubt many would consider me particularly pro-life.

Please show me something I've posted here that would confirm your implied accusation above.

I will say the gun lobby is so inflexible that the likely only route to major change is to simply change the 2nd Amendment

I would be happy to see:

NFA style (current machine gun regulation) restrictions placed on magazine-fed semi-auto centerfire rifles
Magazine capacity limits (IIRC Canada has 3 or 5 round magazine capacity limits for magazine-fed rifles?)
Federal regulation on concealed carry permits and massively more stringent standards (or elimination of CCW entirely)
Digitized / searchable database of transaction records
Mandatory ownership transfers through FFLs
Red flag systems in place
Waiting periods for every firearm purchase
Buyback system for anyone who wants to give up guns so they can have them destroyed without suffering financial losses

And frankly? I don't particularly care. At this point I would vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The NRA crowd has pushed back for so hard and for so long against any type of gun reform that I feel they've exhausted any scrap of goodwill they may have had.

Well, I'm on board with all of those suggestions - they mostly seem like common sense things that would help and don't require much technical firearms knowledge to get behind.

I apologize for the implication above. I've talked about this issue with many people who 'support gun control' but then when asked about it what they really seem to want is no appreciable change to the status quo.  Clearly you don't fit into that group.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 10:25:00 AM by GuitarStv »

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #147 on: June 13, 2022, 10:23:35 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #148 on: June 13, 2022, 10:28:27 AM »
Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

I don't think you're understanding, or I don't know what your point is.

Rifle made in USA or other whitelisted country: Legal
Identical rifle (with interchangeable parts) imported from the wrong country: Illegal

It's mechanically identical.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Lowest common denominator on gun control
« Reply #149 on: June 13, 2022, 10:30:50 AM »
Pro-2A people have been trained to immediately knee-jerk shut down the second they perceive someone has said something incorrect about a gun. It’s a tactic to shut down discussion that has been carefully honed and implemented by the NRA and the gun lobby, to keep the conversation from ever going anywhere productive.

You are correct that many pro-gun people use anti gun activists' incorrect terminology and statements as a means to shut down conversation. To quibble a bit, I would say that your use of the word perceive is inaccurate. I've been on a whole lot of gun conversations, and when people are called out, I've literally never seen the pro-gun person not be at least technically right.

I think that part of it is that gun control is highly technical and legalistic whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go read U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922. How am I supposed to have a conversation about gun control without having words that mean things and common terminology? I have this radical idea that words mean things.

But, so what? Are you a legislator, or drafting counsel? People should be able to have conversations and reach consensus in plain language---about the vast range of topics to be regulated---and then much smaller groups should suffer the pain of precision.

So law abiding gun owners literally have to pay attention to U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 section 922, especially 922(r) and it pisses them off. Where you fire control group was manufactured is the difference between being legal and being a felony. Is that sensible gun control? Because that's what we've been living with for decades and would prefer to to see more of. I write that as someone who would love to see universal background checks and gun owner licencing, but not more bullshit like 922(r). But how do you have a conversation about gun control without talking about the gun control that we already have?

Yes; if you want to assemble a semiautomatic rifle identical to one that can’t be imported, don’t be surprised if there’s some regulation to establish US jurisdiction over the manufacture of the parts being used.

But I'm not a legislator or drafting counsel. Why should replacing a broken part in the rifle I purchased at Walmart be an exercise in lawyering?

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!