Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

[The Mance]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it kind of is the same thing as not caring, especially when they say that they're in favor of more background checks and reasonable gun control stuff, but then...don't vote on it or don't care.

I guess they might care, but it's not caring with action; it's thoughts and prayers. They certainly don't care enough to do anything about it, including things like proposing security guards in schools or arming teachers as actual laws that can be discussed. They have ideas but nothing else. 

I don't know, maybe.  I mean, I agree that ultimately it amounts to the same thing legislatively. So maybe it is not caring enough, or maybe that caring gets run through the ringer of NRA propaganda, right-wing scare mongering, there gunna take ur gunz!! or whatever, and just comes out the other end as inertia.  

And, just to reiterate, I'm talking about some imagined proportion of gun owners.  Certainly there are plenty that mostly don't care.  I'm just saying that many do, and short of some magical, finger-snapping, gun-erasing miracle, they just don't see how them giving up their personal firearms is really going to make things safer.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, The Mance said:

I...don't see how thats any different than what you were saying before.  Is there some distinction I'm missing?

Just clarifying a bit. Like I'm not saying they are monsters that hate children, but I still think you can hold their feet to the fire to some degree. Like what is it going to take for some measure of self-reflection or self-sacrifice here?  

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Mance said:

I don't know, maybe.  I mean, I agree that ultimately it amounts to the same thing legislatively. So maybe it is not caring enough, or maybe that caring gets run through the ringer of NRA propaganda, right-wing scare mongering, there gunna take ur gunz!! or whatever, and just comes out the other end as inertia.  

And, just to reiterate, I'm talking about some imagined proportion of gun owners.  Certainly there are plenty that mostly don't care.  I'm just saying that many do, and short of some magical, finger-snapping, gun-erasing miracle, they just don't see how them giving up their personal firearms is really going to make things safer.

Heck, I'm fine simply stopping and saying, literally - no one is going to take a single gun or bullet away from you, period. But from now on, all gun sales are going to require background checks and have a waiting period, and if you have certain things on your record your rights are rescinded from now on.

But they're not even willing to do THAT. 

[The Mance]

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But they're not even willing to do THAT.

Well, again, I think theres some space between what ma and pa gun owner would agree are reasonable measures, and how those proposed measures, or even the implications of conceding those measures, are presented to to them by the (their) news and political propagandists.  

I'm wary of citing any statistics because I really don't feel like doing my due diligence, but isn't there pretty broad support for things like background checks and even waiting periods?  Like on an individual voter level, people are fine with a lot of basic proposals.  Its just that those basics don't make it into actual legislation because of the undue influence of vocal minority lobbyists who scare up all sorts of real or imagined slippery slope projections.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, The Mance said:

Well, again, I think theres some space between what ma and pa gun owner would agree are reasonable measures, and how those proposed measures, or even the implications of conceding those measures, are presented to to them by the (their) news and political propagandists.  

I'm wary of citing any statistics because I really don't feel like doing my due diligence, but isn't there pretty broad support for things like background checks and even waiting periods?  Like on an individual voter level, people are fine with a lot of basic proposals.  Its just that those basics don't make it into actual legislation because of the undue influence of vocal minority lobbyists who scare up all sorts of real or imagined slippery slope projections.

There maybe some measure of support for this sort of legislation at the individual voter level, but there is basically little or no support for this type of legislation among actual legislators. I think the pressures that the NRA and other lobbys bring to bear against legislators who might seek to push this sort of legislation is significant. 

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, The Mance said:

I'm wary of citing any statistics because I really don't feel like doing my due diligence, but isn't there pretty broad support for things like background checks and even waiting periods?  Like on an individual voter level, people are fine with a lot of basic proposals.  Its just that those basics don't make it into actual legislation because of the undue influence of vocal minority lobbyists who scare up all sorts of real or imagined slippery slope projections.

There is support for it, just like there's support for feeding homeless.

What there isn't is actual action. It simply isn't that big a deal to most of these people. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, The Mance said:

Well, again, I think theres some space between what ma and pa gun owner would agree are reasonable measures, and how those proposed measures, or even the implications of conceding those measures, are presented to to them by the (their) news and political propagandists.  

I'm wary of citing any statistics because I really don't feel like doing my due diligence, but isn't there pretty broad support for things like background checks and even waiting periods?  Like on an individual voter level, people are fine with a lot of basic proposals.  Its just that those basics don't make it into actual legislation because of the undue influence of vocal minority lobbyists who scare up all sorts of real or imagined slippery slope projections.

Last time I saw any data a majority of Republicans, gun owners and NRA members were in favor of background checks and some other measures. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook several polls found that as many as 90% of the respondents felt the same. This is a frustrating example of tyranny of the minority. 

Also, it's important to keep in mind that 3-4% of the citizens of our country own a majority of the firearms. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Last time I saw any data a majority of Republicans, gun owners and NRA members were in favor of background checks and some other measures. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook several polls found that as many as 90% of the respondents felt the same. This is a frustrating example of tyranny of the minority. 

Not really. 90% are in favor of those things - but none of them consider it a major issue that they'd vote for, or vote against someone who didn't do it. 

Again, they're in favor of it. But they're in favor of ice cream and puppies. That doesn't mean they'll DO anything about it.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, it's important to keep in mind that 3-4% of the citizens of our country own a majority of the firearms. 

That's true, but not particularly useful, as a whole lot more have firearms and even more than that believe strongly in their right to acquire them. 

[Yukle]

On 11/10/2017 at 8:51 AM, Kalbear said:

Heck, I'm fine simply stopping and saying, literally - no one is going to take a single gun or bullet away from you, period. But from now on, all gun sales are going to require background checks and have a waiting period, and if you have certain things on your record your rights are rescinded from now on.

But they're not even willing to do THAT. 

Similarly worrying: it has been shown time and time again that keeping guns and bullets in separate locations within the house, including if neither of those locations is locked, significantly drops the risk of suicide.

If one of the two is locked, the risk is far smaller again.

For all of the talk about "responsible gun ownership" even these tiny matters are shouted down, and they are addressing the easiest way of reducing harm to those most likely to be killed by guns: those who pull the trigger on them.

[Free Northman Reborn]

On 12/11/2017 at 9:02 AM, Yukle said:

Similarly worrying: it has been shown time and time again that keeping guns and bullets in separate locations within the house, including if neither of those locations is locked, significantly drops the risk of suicide.

If one of the two is locked, the risk is far smaller again.

For all of the talk about "responsible gun ownership" even these tiny matters are shouted down, and they are addressing the easiest way of reducing harm to those most likely to be killed by guns: those who pull the trigger on them.

I believe in responsible gun ownership, but keeping guns unloaded pretty much defeats the purpose of owning a gun. Storing the ammunition in a separate location even more so.

You don't get to schedule when and where you will need your gun. You will almost never have time to load your firearm in an emergency.

The best one might be willing to do with say a backup pistol (the one that is not on you, but in your safe), is to leave a loaded magazine next to it. That way it is unloaded, but the magazine can be slipped in in a second. Storing that magazine in a separate place would make it useless as a defensive tool.

[Zorral]

It would be great to do with guns what we do with driving licenses: get re-examined every few years to see if that gun owner is still competent to drive.  Shoot car owners family members will tell a relative they need to stop driving.  Sometimes they will take the keys away.  It is a necessary action for the safety of the person involved and everybody else.  Why can't we do that with gun ownership? Not to mention having tests as rigorous as both the written and driving tests (or -- does this still happen these days?  I live in a place where having a car doesn't make sense, so I don 't know).

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

It would be great to do with guns what we do with driving licenses: get re-examined every few years to see if that gun owner is still competent to drive.  Shoot car owners family members will tell a relative they need to stop driving.  Sometimes they will take the keys away.  It is a necessary action for the safety of the person involved and everybody else.  Why can't we do that with gun ownership? Not to mention having tests as rigorous as both the written and driving tests (or -- does this still happen these days?  I live in a place where having a car doesn't make sense, so I don 't know).

We can't do that because gun ownership is a right, and rights cannot be impeded or dictated by the government in this way. Specifically, the government cannot decide whether or not you are competent enough to own a gun unless there are major reasons to show why you would be a risk to others (prior felony conviction, mental health issue (which Trump rescinded), etc). 

You do not have a right to drive a car, especially on shared or public lands. (little known fact: you can drive a car however you please on your own private property). 

In a sane society this would be the case that you need to regulate your militia - make sure your militia is trained, competent, and skilled with the firearms they're going to use, because naturally when fighting the communist threat you want trained people to do so. The US is not sane.

[Free Northman Reborn]

54 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We can't do that because gun ownership is a right, and rights cannot be impeded or dictated by the government in this way. Specifically, the government cannot decide whether or not you are competent enough to own a gun unless there are major reasons to show why you would be a risk to others (prior felony conviction, mental health issue (which Trump rescinded), etc). 

You do not have a right to drive a car, especially on shared or public lands. (little known fact: you can drive a car however you please on your own private property). 

In a sane society this would be the case that you need to regulate your militia - make sure your militia is trained, competent, and skilled with the firearms they're going to use, because naturally when fighting the communist threat you want trained people to do so. The US is not sane.

Actually I'm pretty sure the NRA and their supporters would be in favor of compulsory firearm handling and safety training in all schools.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Actually I'm pretty sure the NRA and their supporters would be in favor of compulsory firearm handling and safety training in all schools.

Not if it also implied that if you didn't have it, you couldn't have guns. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not if it also implied that if you didn't have it, you couldn't have guns. 

Sure, but taking the lead from your pragmatic approach to the problem, the introduction of such compulsory classes in school would by default mean that virtually every person would be more competent in handling firearms, including those that eventually end up owning firearms. So it helps to achieve your goal of a trained militia that is competent, even if it does not go quite as far as you would prefer.

[Kalbear]

I'm not even sure that the NRA would go that far. They appear to be pretty lax on the side of promoting gun safety as a cultural value. If they were on board with that, cool beans - but I suspect they're much more on the side of FREEDOM and not about, oh, responsibility. 

Philando Castile is a good example of them staying resolutely silent when a person who had done all the things that every gun responsibility course says you are to do ends up getting killed.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not even sure that the NRA would go that far. They appear to be pretty lax on the side of promoting gun safety as a cultural value. If they were on board with that, cool beans - but I suspect they're much more on the side of FREEDOM and not about, oh, responsibility. 

Philando Castile is a good example of them staying resolutely silent when a person who had done all the things that every gun responsibility course says you are to do ends up getting killed.

I disagree with this view. Last time I checked the NRA is heavily involved in gun safety programs all across America. They spend a large portion of their annual budget on it as far as I recall.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I disagree with this view. Last time I checked the NRA is heavily involved in gun safety programs all across America. They spend a large portion of their annual budget on it as far as I recall.

As far as I can tell the majority of their money go to promotions, advertisements, and lobbying. They do offer a lot of gun safety statements, but that does not appear to be what they care about first and foremost. 

In particular, they were instrumental in getting Smith and Wesson killed for developing smart gun technology. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As far as I can tell the majority of their money go to promotions, advertisements, and lobbying. They do offer a lot of gun safety statements, but that does not appear to be what they care about first and foremost. 

In particular, they were instrumental in getting Smith and Wesson killed for developing smart gun technology. 

And rightly so. Smart gun technology severely reduces the usefulness of a gun.

But that is beside the current point, I guess. Which is the idea of introducing compulsory gun training in schools. Something which the pragmatic advocates of gun safety should support, even if the idea of "normalizing" gun use does not sit well with them.

[Zorral]

O yay MORE guns in schools.  Just what schools need.  Especially without mental health check-ups.