Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

[DMC]

Quote

there is a certain amount of collateral damage that the pro-gun folks will accept before changing their views. they are so fearful of not having guns that they will accept  collateral damage to further their own selfishness. 

Please change certain to limitless, endless, or disgustingly yet intentionally perpetuating.

[Yukle]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Stat time:

The population of the United States accounts for 4.4% of the global population. The United States has 42% of the worlds' privately owned guns. 

Makes one wonder what's so different between us and the rest of the developed world.

I wonder if the stat includes nations like Switzerland. There, all men are entitled to buy the weapon they used for compulsory military service.

That said, the weapons come only with the strict understanding they are kept locked and away from children, safely cleaned and maintained, are registered, and because Switzerland’s policy of neutrality makes them rely on its citizen body forming a militia in a time of crisis.

5 hours ago, MercurialCannibal said:

there is a certain amount of collateral damage that the pro-gun folks will accept before changing their views. they are so fearful of not having guns that they will accept  collateral damage to further their own selfishness. 

After Sandy Hook, I think there is no limit to what they will accept. Really, the only step worse than that is to have a gunman rampage a birth suite.

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

I wonder if the stat includes nations like Switzerland. There, all men are entitled to buy the weapon they used for compulsory military service.

That said, the weapons come only with the strict understanding they are kept locked and away from children, safely cleaned and maintained, are registered, and because Switzerland’s policy of neutrality makes them rely on its citizen body forming a militia in a time of crisis.

After Sandy Hook, I think there is no limit to what they will accept. Really, the only step worse than that is to have a gunman rampage a birth suite.

I would suspect that the percentage of private homes where there is at least one gun is higher in Switzerland than it is in the United States. But so many American gun owners have several guns in their home that I am also sure that the average number of guns per household is probably higher in the USA than it is in Switzerland.

The fact that makes me think this moment is different from previous times is how many commercial organizations have suddenly severed their ties with the National Rifle Association. I just saw on CNN that Delta Airlines has dropped its perks for NRA members. CNN showed a graphic which had at least ten other companies which had done the same. First National Bank of Omaha will not renew its contract with the NRA to issue their official VISA card:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/first-national-bank-of-omaha-bails-on-nra-branded-visa-card.html

When so many for profit companies suddenly see a connection with the NRA as a liability, the culture as a whole is going through a shift.

One of my best friends here in Omaha works for First National Bank answering "incoming" customer telephone calls about their credit cards. I will try to remember to ask him this Sunday when I see him if he or his colleagues have had many irate calls either for or against the NRA the past week.

[Free Northman Reborn]

43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I would suspect that the percentage of private homes where there is at least one gun is higher in Switzerland than it is in the United States. But so many American gun owners have several guns in their home that I am also sure that the average number of guns per household is probably higher in the USA than it is in Switzerland.

The fact that makes me think this moment is different from previous times is how many commercial organizations have suddenly severed their ties with the National Rifle Association. I just saw on CNN that Delta Airlines has dropped its perks for NRA members. CNN showed a graphic which had at least ten other companies which had done the same. First National Bank of Omaha will not renew its contract with the NRA to issue their official VISA card:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/first-national-bank-of-omaha-bails-on-nra-branded-visa-card.html

When so many for profit companies suddenly see a connection with the NRA as a liability, the culture as a whole is going through a shift.

One of my best friends here in Omaha works for First National Bank answering "incoming" customer telephone calls about their credit cards. I will try to remember to ask him this Sunday when I see him if he or his colleagues have had many irate calls either for or against the NRA the past week.

Such reactions work both ways of course. The question then becomes how many "single issue customers" such a business might have. Meaning: Will the anti-gunners  go out of their way to support these businesses with the same enthusiasm that pro-gunners will go out of their way to take their business elsewhere in protest?

[The guy from the Vale]

7 hours ago, Yukle said:

I wonder if the stat includes nations like Switzerland. There, all men are entitled to buy the weapon they used for compulsory military service.

That said, the weapons come only with the strict understanding they are kept locked and away from children, safely cleaned and maintained, are registered, and because Switzerland’s policy of neutrality makes them rely on its citizen body forming a militia in a time of crisis.

After Sandy Hook, I think there is no limit to what they will accept. Really, the only step worse than that is to have a gunman rampage a birth suite.

Considering that Switzerland has only about 2% of the population of the USA, we'd need to store a hell of a lot of guns per capita to make a dent in the gloal gun ownership statistics. 

Also, while gun ownership is very common in Switzerland, the culture around them is nevertheless massively different to the US gun culture. Guns need to be safely stored by law and may not be carried when loaded, except by licensed hunters, security forces, or people who can show reason to fear for their life - while still needing to pass an exam showing they know how to handle a gun. Such a license is valid for five years. In practice, it is extremely rare to see people brandishing guns except during hunting season, on soldiers on their way to or from duty, or on the shooting range.

[mormont]

59 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Such reactions work both ways of course. The question then becomes how many "single issue customers" such a business might have. Meaning: Will the anti-gunners  go out of their way to support these businesses with the same enthusiasm that pro-gunners will go out of their way to take their business elsewhere in protest?

If this is a convoluted way of saying you hope these firms lose money for withdrawing their support, I think you will be disappointed. They didn't do this without careful consideration of that possibility.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

I would suspect that the percentage of private homes where there is at least one gun is higher in Switzerland than it is in the United States. But so many American gun owners have several guns in their home that I am also sure that the average number of guns per household is probably higher in the USA than it is in Switzerland.

The fact that makes me think this moment is different from previous times is how many commercial organizations have suddenly severed their ties with the National Rifle Association. I just saw on CNN that Delta Airlines has dropped its perks for NRA members. CNN showed a graphic which had at least ten other companies which had done the same. First National Bank of Omaha will not renew its contract with the NRA to issue their official VISA card:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/first-national-bank-of-omaha-bails-on-nra-branded-visa-card.html

When so many for profit companies suddenly see a connection with the NRA as a liability, the culture as a whole is going through a shift.

One of my best friends here in Omaha works for First National Bank answering "incoming" customer telephone calls about their credit cards. I will try to remember to ask him this Sunday when I see him if he or his colleagues have had many irate calls either for or against the NRA the past week.

What's disgusting is just how many corporate entities, and of such a variety, had courted and created special ties with the NRA.  They should be called out of that particularly.

[Free Northman Reborn]

15 hours ago, Zorral said:

What's disgusting is just how many corporate entities, and of such a variety, had courted and created special ties with the NRA.  They should be called out of that particularly.

There is nothing "disgusting" here. The NRA have broken no laws. They represent the interest of millions of Americans. But just because you don't agree with the cause they espouse, you deem it "disgusting" that they have normal corporate relationships with other entities.

I'm sure any number of "Women's Right to Choose" organizations have corporate ties with numerous entities. The fact that I find the right to kill an unborn child disgusting, is irrelevant in that context.

All we are talking about here, is an issue which fiercely divides society. You fall on one side, gun rights activists on the other. And the battle continues.

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is nothing "disgusting" here. The NRA have broken no laws. They represent the interest of millions of Americans. But just because you don't agree with the cause they espouse, you deem it "disgusting" that they have normal corporate relationships with other entities.

That would presumably be why Zorral terms it 'disgusting' rather than 'illegal'. 'Disgusting' is an expression of moral disagreement.

[Rippounet]

It's amazing what bullshit you need to spout to defend gun rights.
Like I stumbled on this piece by Ann Coulter:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/21/ann-coulter-amazing-new-breakthrough-reduce-mass-shootings/

Quote

 

We’re hauling in nearly 2 million manifestly unvetted Third World immigrants every year, leading to a slew of FBI “Watch Lists” with a million names apiece. In 2015, Director James Comey said that there were ISIS investigations in all 50 states — even Idaho and Alaska! And that’s just one terrorist organization.

Maybe the FBI brass would still be a bunch of incompetent, PC nincompoops if we weren’t dumping millions of psychotic and terrorist foreigners on the country. But even the most efficient organization would have trouble keeping track of the Nikolas Cruzes when our immigration policies require approximately one-third of the country to be constantly watching another third of the country.

Thanks to our Second Amendment, the United States has fewer mass shootings per capita than many other developed countries, including Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic. (And 98 percent of our mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones.”)

But imagine if we could cut our mass shootings in half?

There have been about 34 mass shootings since 2000. Forty-seven percent — 16 — were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e. people who never would have been here but for Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.

 

So much stupidity in so few words it hurts. But the worse bit here is the outright lie in bolded. The number of mass shootings in the countries listed on an average year is zero. You need to choose specific years to find mass shootings at all (2011 for Norway, 2015 for France for example). And then, the number of mass shootings per capita is still higher in the US. Maybe the number of victims of mass shootings per capita can be found to be higher for a specific year, and I'm not even sure...

Anyway, of course this piece is disgusting because it puts the blame on immigrants. Ha! Of course it's immigrants. Who else would be crazy enough to shoot people?

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It's amazing what bullshit you need to spout to defend gun rights.
Like I stumbled on this piece by Ann Coulter:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/21/ann-coulter-amazing-new-breakthrough-reduce-mass-shootings/

So much stupidity in so few words it hurts. But the worse bit here is the outright lie in bolded. The number of mass shootings in the countries listed on an average year is zero. You need to choose specific years to find mass shootings at all (2011 for Norway, 2015 for France for example). And then, the number of mass shootings per capita is still higher in the US. Maybe the number of victims of mass shootings per capita can be found to be higher for a specific year, and I'm not even sure...

Anyway, of course this piece is disgusting because it puts the blame on immigrants. Ha! Of course it's immigrants. Who else would be crazy enough to shoot people?

Not to mention the outright lies. But that is how they roll -- they lie, they lie, they lie and they lie some more and their base gobbles up the lies with the same greed they down nutrition free calories of fat and sugar, and then whine they've acquired adult diabetis -- and then their insurance kicks them off.

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/24/2018 at 11:41 AM, theguyfromtheVale said:

Considering that Switzerland has only about 2% of the population of the USA, we'd need to store a hell of a lot of guns per capita to make a dent in the gloal gun ownership statistics. 

Also, while gun ownership is very common in Switzerland, the culture around them is nevertheless massively different to the US gun culture. Guns need to be safely stored by law and may not be carried when loaded, except by licensed hunters, security forces, or people who can show reason to fear for their life - while still needing to pass an exam showing they know how to handle a gun. Such a license is valid for five years. In practice, it is extremely rare to see people brandishing guns except during hunting season, on soldiers on their way to or from duty, or on the shooting range.

I grew up in a gun owning culture. And as such, I had always been a rather moderate on gun control. But, what I grew up around was very different than some of today's fuckin' gun nuts. Some of these gun nuts are borderline mentally deranged, to put it bluntly. I mean they are just fuckin' obsessed by guns and block every attempt to get reasonable gun control done. And frankly, it's hard not to get extremely pissed off with them.

I mean some of these goddamned gun nuts just seem to me something very different what I grew up around. Guys I grew up around owned rifles and shotguns and used them to go hunting or maybe do some occasional target shooting. And when the guns weren't in use, they were locked and stored away securely. And certainly the gun owners I grew up around certainly didn't feel the need to own semi automatic weapons. Nor were they the types to carry around handguns when they when they went about their business in public.

And it seems to me or at least I've read, that most Americans are rather moderate on guns. But, a few mentally deranged and obsessive gun nuts seem to dominate the debate as far as gun control laws are concerned. And these don't seem to be the sorts of people that keep some shotguns and rifles around for hunting or maybe some occasional target shooting, but rather a few flamin' nuts that think they need to have easy access to high powered semi automatic rifles and easy access to handguns whenever they please.

I've said this before and I think this bears repeating again: The thing about firearms is that they are a big responsibility. If you carry one, you always have to be thinking about the safety of others. And that is the reason I do not wish to have to carry a fire arm in public, just to feel safe. I mean it's pretty ridiculous for people to feel like they have to pack heat just to go to the grocery store. The gun crazies always talk about their rights to carry guns. But they seem not to have any respect other people's rights not to carry firearms. Every time we have one of these shootings, the gun crazies say, "well everyone should just get a gun, no problem". Except it is a problem. I don't want to carry a gun in public. And I'm sure many others feel the same as well.

It just seems to me that handful of crazies have been able to dominate the debate about gun control in the US.

[OldGimletEye]

On 2/25/2018 at 5:09 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is nothing "disgusting" here. The NRA have broken no laws. They represent the interest of millions of Americans. But just because you don't agree with the cause they espouse, you deem it "disgusting" that they have normal corporate relationships with other entities.

Is helping to kill empirical research on gun violence in the interest of "millions of Americans" or is it in the interest of conservative clowns and gun nuts like Mr. Crappy Pants Ted Nugent?

[Week]

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is sad because you make your statement as if it is deeply meaningful, when in reality it is merely your opinion on the matter. So the sad part is you not understanding that just because you believe something passionately, does not mean any particular value is conferred to that belief. It remains your personal belief.

Nazism
Pacificism
Feminism
Sexism
Racism

All personal beliefs with no particular value because they are *just* personal beliefs.

[DMC]

12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

There is nothing "disgusting" here. The NRA have broken no laws. They represent the interest of millions of Americans. But just because you don't agree with the cause they espouse, you deem it "disgusting" that they have normal corporate relationships with other entities.

The NRA is also responsible for maintaining the ability for private sale of guns without a license or background check, commonly (if somewhat inaccurately) known as the gun show loophole.  This is primarily the avenue in which guns are freely transferred to people that should not have them, and it's all technically legal thanks to the concerted efforts of the NRA.  And, no, they're not representing the interests of millions of Americans in this nor their opposition to more thorough background checks for, say, domestic offenders with restraining orders.  They're representing people that want use guns to terrorize and kill; and the people willing to massage the law in order to acquiesce to and make money off of such needs.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I grew up in a gun owning culture. And as such, I had always been a rather moderate on gun control. But, what I grew up around was very different than some of today's fuckin' gun nuts. Some of these gun nuts are borderline mentally deranged, to put it bluntly. I mean they are just fuckin' obsessed by guns and block every attempt to get reasonable gun control done.

What else do they have left? Religion and nationalism certainly no longer play as central a role as they did 50, 30 or even 20 years ago. There is no serious replacement for them that is common to a vast majority. Instead, various people focus on various causes -- the vast majority of which are, let us say, not all that likely to lead to a society that is better for everyone. The people who chose guns as their cause at least have the advantage that it is self-protecting to some extent: if push really comes to shove, a well armed 1-2% of the population can make life really unpleasant for everyone else.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Altherion said:

What else do they have left? Religion and nationalism certainly no longer play as central a role as they did 50, 30 or even 20 years ago. There is no serious replacement for them that is common to a vast majority. Instead, various people focus on various causes -- the vast majority of which are, let us say, not all that likely to lead to a society that is better for everyone. The people who chose guns as their cause at least have the advantage that it is self-protecting to some extent: if push really comes to shove, a well armed 1-2% of the population can make life really unpleasant for everyone else.

I’m not really sure what is the point here.

Why would somebody become a gun nut because allegedly there is “nothing left”. And more importantly, why would we excuse somebody becoming a gun nut, particularly when they are able to dominate the discourse on gun control, when most Americans, to my understanding at least, would favor at least some gun control.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The people who chose guns as their cause at least have the advantage that it is self-protecting to some extent: if push really comes to shove, a well armed 1-2% of the population can make life really unpleasant for everyone else.

It's the height of irony and hypocrisy that someone can pose this while in the same breath assail "identity" politics.  Not to mention it logically contradicts the front of the graph:

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Religion and nationalism certainly no longer play as central a role as they did 50, 30 or even 20 years ago. There is no serious replacement for them that is common to a vast majority.

If it's only 1-2% of the population that are using guns to replace religion and nationalism, what of the rest of the "vast majority?"  You make no sense.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I’m not really sure what is the point here.

For people who have no economic power and who believe they have lost all political power, guns offer the illusion of some kind of power.

It's not a bad point to make. I think it's clear that guns have become a substitute for something. But even if you agree with the analysis there's little one can do about it.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Rippounet said:

For people who have no economic power and who believe they have lost all political power, guns offer the illusion of some kind of power.

It's not a bad point to make. I think it's clear that guns have become a substitute for something. But even if you agree with the analysis there's little one can do about it.

Ah got it. Thanks.

Anyway, it's extremely unfortunate that those people think they are going to change their lack of economic or political power because they can get any type of gun they wish, particularly if they are going to vote in such a manner where they keep denying those things to others.