SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The love of guns in the United States has been well documented, as have multiple mass shootings across the country such as those in Orlando, San Bernardino, Newtown, and Virginia. The ease of access to guns in American society comes at a shocking cost.
As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Despite this high death toll, mass shootings in America show no sign of disappearing.
The Stateside obsession with guns can appear baffling to UK observers unfamiliar with its origins. So just how did this gun culture become so deep-rooted in the American psyche?
BBC source: Why Are Americans so Obsessed with Guns?
Wikipedia: Gun politics in the United States
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Why Are Americans So Obsessed With Guns?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 324 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Moon, n.:
1. A celestial object whose phase is very important to hackers. See
PHASE OF THE MOON. 2. Dave Moon (MOON@MC).
(Score: 5, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Monday January 09 2017, @08:50PM
I will shoot the next person that says we are obsessed with guns!
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:06PM
Where's the "+1, Irony" mod when we need it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:08AM
That idea has been shot down.
(Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:13PM
You're certainly not obsessed with apostrophes. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:24PM
It's the apostrophe's clip size restrictions what's done it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:26PM
Me will send the next Grammar Nazi that shows up in this thread to a concentration camp.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Monday January 09 2017, @09:43PM
Say "obsessed with guns", one more goddamn time [youtube.com].
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:46PM
Can an article be modded "flaimbait"?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:16AM
Latest idiot attempted to defend his grilled cheese sandwich from his wife with a gun.
Yes, this actually just happened.
At least this disease is largely contained within the US.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @08:50PM
Eastern Nazarene college offers a timeline of genocides, in the 20th century. Their timeline is not all inclusive. http://libguides.enc.edu/genocide/timeline [enc.edu]
Listverse has a list of the ten most atrocious genocides in human history. This list is not all inclusive, either. http://listverse.com/2013/05/03/10-atrocious-genocides-in-human-history/ [listverse.com]
Rantnow has a somewhat more inclusive list of genocides. http://www.rantnow.com/2014/12/06/15-worst-genocides-in-history/ [rantnow.com]
Al Jazeera offers a close up view of one modern genocide. 800,000 killed, in just 100 days. Mind that this is not ancient history, but almost current events. This took place in the life time of most of us who are old enough to vote. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/04/interactive-how-rwanda-genocide-unfolded-2014478459557910.html [aljazeera.com]
The wikipedia has a far more extensive list of genocides, beginning with a hypothetical reason for the disappearance of neanderthal man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history [wikipedia.org]
When considering the atrocities of man against his fellow man, consider the fact that our own government - the United States of America - has participated in it's own genocides. Custer and others like him hunted the native Americans almost to extinction. They would have killed the very last of the Indians, if those Indians had not finally surrendered. "The only good Injun is a dead Injun!" https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-gilded-age-1870-1900-20/the-transformation-of-the-west-149/the-american-indian-wars-1422-8660/ [boundless.com]
Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
— - Col. John Milton Chivington, U.S. Army[85]
Mind that almost all the victims of genocide had previously been disarmed. Most of the people who have been hunted like animals faced years in prison, if they were discovered with a weapon. Prison, only IF they weren't summarily executed. Germany, Russia, China, Japan, America - laws were passed that prohibited the undesirables from owning weapons.
Many of us Americans understand that shit happens. And, shit can happen right here. If, and when, the shit hits the fan, we insist that we are going to make some noise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2rjo0TmCiw [youtube.com]
By Dylan Thomas -
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Those of you who claim that "violence never settles anything" are willfully blind to the fact that violence settled the United States. Violence settled that the Chin and the Han ruled China. Violence settled World Wars one and two. Violence settled the American Civil War. Violence settled Islam over most of the mideast, and violence settled that Europe would be Christian rather than Muslim. Violence is the human method of settling disputes. When the philosophers, the diplomats, the lawyers, and the clergy have all failed to settle things, the warriors come in and settle everything.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 09 2017, @09:19PM
Those of you who claim that "violence never settles anything" are willfully blind [...] Violence is the human method of settling disputes. When the philosophers, the diplomats, the lawyers, and the clergy have all failed to settle things, the warriors come in and settle everything.
I'm far from anti-gun, and I'll agree with a lot of what you said. But I don't know if "settle" is the right word to conclude your argument here. Violence, like any action, can easily enjoin others to take more action. Large-scale wars between many nations have often been started by Country A attempting to "settle" a dispute with Country B, but what actually happens several years later is that both Country A and B have suffered horribly, after Countries C, D, E, and F also got involved to "settle" things.
And even once a truce is reached, if the losers feel unhappy about how things were "settled," they or their sons will likely rise up in a decade or two to "settle" things again.
Those who say "violence never settles anything" generally don't mean that violence can't sometimes result in temporary truces or whatever. What they generally mean is that violent actions tend to encourage violent retaliations and escalations, whether immediate or years or decades later. It's all about establishing the "rules of the game." Look at what has happened recently with the beheadings and such with ISIS -- you have Americans who a generation ago or whatever would say torture should be outlawed and retaliation by killing families or whatever is unjust and horrific. Now, because the "rules of the game" seem to have changed, these same Americans are happy to behead, maim, and torture ISIS folks and likely even their families who have nothing to do with anything.
Civilization is a based on a bunch of made-up "rules" and principles. We live in a much less violent time overall than 100 years ago, and most modern folks in the richer nations would find life a few centuries ago to be unfathomably violent. What changed? Not humans -- we all still possess the capacity for violence. What changed is widescale adoption of principles away from violence. When the state itself is executing people by disemboweling them or tearing them apart in a public square (e.g., drawing and quartering), it doesn't take a genius to realize that privately most people living in that state will think it's more reasonable to tear people apart in violent crime.
So, violence perhaps can "settle" stuff temporarily along with diplomacy or whatever too. But whatever methods you use to "settle" something, you should be prepared for similar methods to be revisited upon you or your children in the future. Violence does beget more violence; history shows that too. Violence can also follow more peaceful actions, but with significantly lower frequency.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:25PM
Good response, and I thank you for that. I expect a lot of nonsense responses to my post, but this one is really good. I will remind you, however, that some of those settlements have been very permanent indeed. I intentionally listed several citations of genocide and gendercide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:50PM
I expect a lot of nonsense responses to my post,
Interesting, why is this the case?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:57PM
Because he has a massively-inflated opinion of himself and his worldview, and any replies that don't mesh with it in several key ways are "nonsensical."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:08PM
If you can't refute what the guy says, insult him, eh? Weak Troll is weak.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:16AM
That is not an insult; that is a fair description of his modus operandi. And yours, I notice. What made you come rushing to his aid anyway? No one was talking to you, and he's a big boy; he can handle this himself...riiiiight?
Go back to your hugbox, carrion-breath. The grownups are talking.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:45AM
I enjoy pointing out when you're spouting worthless venom. It does amuse.
+1 Funny
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:55AM
Some part of you know what just happened here, Uzzard. Even you can't be so completely dense as not to realize it. We've gone down the wrong leg of the trousers of time, *again,* and this time when SHTF ain't *none* of us getting out of it alive. Even your insults are lacking the usual joie d'vivre.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:07AM
Excessive vitriol is a GREAT personality trait to have post-apocalypse.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:01AM
Ve haff sayink in old country: "CRY SUM MOAR!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:42PM
Who will weep for you when you are gone?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:16PM
Who cares? This isn't my first time in the body, though I'm hoping it'll be the last. Throw all that away; the ego is temporary and transient.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Monday January 09 2017, @10:59PM
Because everybody else is wrong
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 09 2017, @11:33PM
Because people like Azumi like to respond to anything he says with knee-jerk insults.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:44PM
Because people like Azumi like to respond to anything he says with knee-jerk insults.
Interesting. Why is that, do you think?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:02AM
Because it's much easier to respond with a knee-jerk insult than formulate an actual coherent argument?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:09AM
easier to respond with a knee-jerk insult than formulate an actual coherent argument?
Could be. But it is very difficult to form a coherent counter-argument to batshit-insane right-wing NRA talking points, since they are incoherent to begin with. And it scares me when Runaway goes all "Internet scholar" on us. Sure sign of a red herring fallacy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:56PM
All that proves is "if you're gonna use violence, use it very, very well." Which is true, of course; violence begets more violence in retaliation, unless you commit complete and utter genocide.
Violence has its place. Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes they prevent a third, fourth, etc. wrong. Just for the love of all that's holy, make sure you do it right...and be prepared to accept the consequences. Save it for a last resort, and use it like a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DECbot on Monday January 09 2017, @11:48PM
Not trying to invoke Godwin's Law, but I want to point out that what you said sounds eerily similar to German sentiment in the 1930's.
A final solution...
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:23AM
Actually, the inverse of that was my point: basically "If you're gonna go this route, you've already sold your soul. Go the whole hog. If you're gonna be evil, be evil with a capital E."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:13PM
I haven't seen any evidence of guns settling the problems in Syria. Nor did I see any evidence of guns settling the problems in Northern Ireland -- in the later case it was only when the guns were put down that the problems were reduced.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday January 09 2017, @10:02PM
So, violence perhaps can "settle" stuff temporarily along with diplomacy or whatever too. But whatever methods you use to "settle" something, you should be prepared for similar methods to be revisited upon you or your children in the future. Violence does beget more violence; history shows that too. Violence can also follow more peaceful actions, but with significantly lower frequency.
Welcome to the human condition.
Not that I disagree with your premise, but the fact is that violence is the only universal solution to a problem. When all else fails, attempt to remove the problem by removing the opposing party.
Generally you can make it permanent, but that does involve destroying your opponent. In the case of a people, it means destroying their culture and identity, to the point where they just meld into the rest of humanity. If this does not work, then you can try destroying them physically, but the Nazis were really the last ones to try something like that, and it didn't work out too well for them.
When you don't go for a "final solution" type of violence, you can only really manage a temporary truce, just like you said. That is why you have wars ongoing now that have lasted for centuries, if not millennia. For example, the Shia/Sunni split in the middle east is not a new fight. Just that the collapse of authority in certain countries has allowed the violence to restart. That is a centuries long war at least, with breakouts of peace due to fatigue or the imposition of control by someone.
Not much is different in Europe, who historically are the most violent humans, it is only the post WWII prosperity that has kept them more or less peaceful, along with remembering the atrocities of WWII, and the risk that nobody will really survive WWIII that they make an effort to get along.
Also, There is a huge gun culture in Europe, looking online(1) there are three European countries in the "top 5 in number of privately owned guns per head of population" (Serbia, Switzerland and Cyprus), the Czech Republic has very liberal gun laws, and recently made noises about allowing full auto assault rifles to be owned by citizens.
Yet they do not suffer from mass shootings like the USA. The USA has some specific issues, of which the mass shootings and other violence are just a symptom. Beats me what those issues are, I would hope the Americans themselves can work it out.
*(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday January 09 2017, @10:44PM
> then you can try destroying them physically, but the Nazis were really the last ones to try something like that
I hear that there are people in the Balkans, the Middle East, Rwanda, and Central and South Asia who would really love it if you grabbed a recent history book...
> in Europe, who historically are the most violent humans
[citation needed, unless you mean they are the best at recording themselves doing it]
> For example, the Shia/Sunni split in the middle east is not a new fight. Just that the collapse of authority in certain countries has allowed the violence to restart.
To be pedant, one will point out that that particular fight had mostly been on a really long hiatus, with decent cohabitation in places, and regular territorial/influence wars in others, until people had to find reasons to take sides when the shit hit the fan in places where political opposition has been tortured away. Baghdad, for example, had lots of mixed neighborhoods until 2003.
While the US did not create the idea of the armed jihadi group, the influx of weapons and ideas to defeat the other empire in remote whogivesafuckstan is definitely the root of the recent revival ("recent" on a 1500-years timeline).
> The USA has some specific issues
Colonized by people who feared the locals could come express their land rights at any time.
Landscaped by people who feared the slaves could revolt at any time.
Formalized by people who feared the Brits could come back at any time.
Strengthened by people who feared the Soviets could invade at any time.
Surrounded in the South by jealous people who are feared for they're coming to steal the prosperity any time.
Besieged by people with the wrong god who cultivate the fear that they'll retaliate for the meddling any time.
The US people are supposed the be afraid. They have things to lose. If they don't have things to lose, they still have their freedom to lose, or their life, to all the bastards out there.
So they need a gun.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:37AM
Don't forget that the laws restricting guns in the first place to keep blacks from being able to defend themselves against racist violence. Just look up the documentary "fear of an armed negro" and see for yourself as those that wrote those laws? Really weren't shy or coy about their racism, they were pretty blatant and quite clear it was to keep blacks from being able to fight back.
This is why one of the first guns they targeted and demonized was the so-called "Saturday Night Special" which if anyone here has ever shot one like I have can tell you it was a solid reliable self defense weapon that was easily affordable....which is why it was targeted. it was essentially a "poll tax" on guns that blacks could use to protect themselves and their property and again the guys that passed those laws in the late 60s and early 70s? Didn't even try to hide their racism and wrote and spoke about it quite often to pretty much anybody that would listen.
I strongly urge everyone to look up that documentary and give it a watch, its quite an eye opener. Of course if most folks knew the real reason those laws came into being most would oppose them, hence why they are not spoken about, same as the Democratic party just ignores their support of the KKK following reconstruction or LBJ saying "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." after passing welfare.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:33AM
They sure seem to have a lot of guns though.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:46AM
I used to think this way too. No way the Holocaust could have happened if every time they went to round up some Jews there was a shootout to the death. Then humans invented killer robots. Personal firearms are going to be useless against the next Hitler, who will use robots that don't at all think about going home to their families.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:08PM
I believe there are three major viewpoints behind the phenomenon:
First is nostalgia: it reminds many of the "good ol' days" when life was (allegedly) simpler, and cowboy-ish (rural) people had more power.
Second is distrust of the government or governments. It's seen as an insurance policy against some unspecified tyranny or takeover.
Third, hunting is seen as an alternative food source if apocalyptic conditions arise. Evangelicals are especially worried about such because they are often taught that the end times are near, based on their interpretation of scripture.
Given these, the risk of higher homicides and suicides is seen as worth the trade-off. For example, if one believes there is roughly a 1/3 chance of a mass uprising or apocalypse in one's lifetime, then a 1% increase in the homicide and suicide rate may seem acceptable compared to losing such weapons during famine or invasions.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:18PM
I'm sure that during the biblical apocalypse, there would be no opportunity to hunt.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Touché) by turgid on Monday January 09 2017, @09:22PM
And you can't kill the undead with a gun, no matter how powerful. I reckon Satan himself is impervious to anti-tank rounds and RPGs. You need something that squirts holy water or flings crucifixes at least 100 yards. Question is, though, is it Catholic or Protestant holy water?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:30PM
"Question is, though, is it Catholic or Protestant holy water?"
Holy crap, what are you trying to do here? Start another Holy War?
(Score: 3, Funny) by fadrian on Monday January 09 2017, @10:13PM
Holy crap, what are you trying to do here? Start another Holy War?
That depends on which superstition you adhere to - emacs or vi...
That is all.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday January 09 2017, @10:19PM
Vi, for the record. Emacs is the superstition.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday January 09 2017, @10:46PM
I bet you never actually used vi, only vim.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday January 09 2017, @11:10PM
Elvis. Wash your mouth out with soap and water!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:46PM
Heathens. Nano is the One True Editor (TM). Vi is a strange form of black magic and Emacs is...well, it's a neat little text-mode OS but MAN does its text editor blow...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday January 09 2017, @11:12PM
Nano???!! Haven't you heard of Pico? Give me strength... I'd like to see you use that newfangled nonsense on a 120 baud modem anyway. Kids these days...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:32AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:43PM
Get the water blessed by both. Assuming it doesn't cancel each other out at least.
(Score: 3, Informative) by nethead on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:29AM
Catholic or Protestant holy water?
Just go with Episcopalian. It's kind of the O-positive of holy water.
How did my SN UID end up over 3 times my /. UID?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:52PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger blew up Satan with a grenade launcher in End of Days. Didn't kill him, but slowed him down and messed up his plans.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:30AM
What's the exact scope of the Apocalypse? My edition didn't come with a map.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:46PM
The bible. Outside of the bible, any attempt to invoke it is invalid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:24PM
Second is distrust of the government or governments. It's seen as an insurance policy against some unspecified tyranny or takeover.
While I think that most gun-nuts wouldn't even notice when they would have to take up their arms.
Third, hunting is seen as an alternative food source if apocalyptic conditions arise. Evangelicals are especially worried about such because they are often taught that the end times are near, based on their interpretation of scripture.
A good government should prevent these conditions from rising.. however those governments are scarce. In those conditions you will run out of bullets at some point and IMHO growing food is a more sustainable way to overcome those conditions than hunting (is there even enough wildlife in the USA to support the whole population for more than a week?).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:33PM
" . . . to support the whole population for more than a week?)."
By definition, the whold population doesn't survive an apocalyptic event. My only concern for the bulk of the population that didn't survive, is "where did they store their ammunition?"
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:30PM
I would think medicine would be the more valuable find. You can make your own ammunition or even fall back on primitive weapons, but it's pretty tough to make modern medications without clean, laboratory conditions. You could do OK with minor complaints if you knew the natural pharmacopeia the Indians did, but if you have diabetes or heart issues, you're SOL.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:54PM
Yes, but. Pharmaceuticals have a limited shelf life, under the best conditions. Post-apocalypse conditions aren't likely to be the best. Nothing wrong with your thinking. The limited stocks of properly stored drugs will be as valuable as anything that might be salvaged from the old civilization. But, ammunition has a pretty long shelf life even in bad conditions. You can count on finding good ammo for a lot longer than you can count on finding good drugs. Depending on how bad things got, people might have to rely on alcohol and/or cannabis as an anesthetic, a disinfectant, headache remedy, and whatever else.
(Score: 2) by lgw on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:15AM
While I think that most gun-nuts wouldn't even notice when they would have to take up their arms.
It will be quite obvious: when the Brown Shirts come to pull your neighbors out of their house and take them away or shoot them on the street. Tyranny doesn't start with a totalitarian government, it starts with assholes using violence to enforce their belief system, while the government openly tolerates that violence. It takes only a very small percentage of the population (1-2%) willing to go into harms way when that happens to outnumber and outgun the Brown Shirts.
In those conditions you will run out of bullets at some point
America will never run out of bullets. There are certainly more than 10 rounds per person in the US, probably in the range of 30-100, in private hands, and more in government armories. If those ever run out, you just need to be friends with a reloader. Cartridges aren't high tech (except some special fancy ammo), and really only primer is hard to make.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:28PM
unless those neighbors are black, mexican, muslim, homosexual, transgender, jewish, catholic, hipsters, liberals...
no, they wont start acting until its their personal door being kicked in, else they would've started acting decades ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:30PM
None of which is happening outside of the illegal Second Prohibition. Lie detected; try again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:36AM
While perhaps true, their behavior is based on what they BELIEVE they are capable of, not what they actually are capable of.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Monday January 09 2017, @09:44PM
I think you miss the prime reason.
Obsession with guns is due to being prudish about sex and therefore continuously frustrated. Is there a higher gun fascination among right wing people?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:00PM
Its well known that "discovering girls" results in the temporary (decades) abandonment of ham radio as a hobby, so its not a completely ridiculous idea.
What I observe is I don't see that in the shooting sports beyond the usual "old people have more spare time and more spare money" effect that applies to all hobbies.
If the hypothesis were true, one could theorize that military personnel would be unusual non-horny given access to machine guns and battle rifles to satisfy their urges, yet I never really saw that effect when I was young either before, during, or after I was in the Reserves. If anything, fondling M-16 barrels (barrel guards ribbed for your pleasure) made us even worse.
There is some truth to the "hunters widow" stories about the wife laying down the law and "no you are not going 'hunting' with your bros I know damn well you spend five hours at the strip club getting drunk for every hour you spend in a field supposedly shooting at deer" and depending on red or blue pill consumption levels the husband might get whipped into staying home. As a non-hunter it was never an issue for me.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:48PM
> red or blue pill consumption
Let me guess, you took the red one? Cripes, if I roll my eyes any harder they're gonna get stuck staring at their own optic nerves...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:14PM
You know, I could write a bot that would throw out better insulting replies than you. If I let you have the source would you promise not to try manually anymore? You're really bad at it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:30AM
You stole that one from me anyway, dipshit. Remember when I replied to you and said something along the lines of "I could take a text dump of your post history, hook it up to a Markov generator, and no one would tell the difference?" Pepperidge Farm remembers, and so do I :D But you apparently don't.
And wow, you sure do seem to be making it a point to hunt down my posts on this thread and bitch about them. Walgreens is still open; here's five bucks for the extra-large tube of Preparation H. Now piss off, feathers-for-brains.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:50AM
I like guns. You like to shitpost. Our getting crossways in this story was a foregone conclusion.
No, I don't bother remembering what you say. It's unimportant and doesn't even have the saving grace of being especially witty. And "go away or I will replace you with a very small script" isn't something you can claim ownership of on account of it being older than you and stolen a gerzillion times over the years.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:04AM
Hey, I like guns too, surprisingly. Shot a fair few since moving out here to Wisconsin. I consider it a good skill to have under my belt, like cooking or fixing my own computers. Some people shouldn't own the things, though.
Sorry you think my posts are shitposts. But I suppose it's inevitable you would; as I said in this very thread, hypocrisy, projection, and ignorance are the bread and butter you regressive morons thrive on. It's okay, Uzzard; I've long since accepted that you can't be saved, that you've willingly and spitefully sold your soul for what amounts to an eye's blink of temporal triumph. You are not the first, you sure as death and taxes won't be the last, and by Cthulhu, I am going to *enjoy* watching you get yours in this world and the next :)
Keep posting. Keep modding me down. Keep trying to break me. You can't. You lost this fight before it even began.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:26AM
I go to soylent for the articles, I say for the back and forth argument. Regardless of dislike between you if either of you were not here the disussion would be of a much lower quality.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:33PM
Agreed, but I often wish the back & forth was wittier. Knee-jerk insults I can get on Huffington Post or Drudge. Here I hope for more.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:47PM
I agree with Phoenix666 that holier than thou eye rolling is weak sauce.
If you like banjos, the only thing better than a banjo is dueling banjos, played well. Even if you don't like banjos, dueling banjos sound better. But a banjo plus eyerolling or ranting, eh go home and sleep it off.
The problem with a response like "you're a big poopy head" is its basically stockholm syndrome speech for "I agree with you completely on all the facts and analysis and conclusion, but for political reasons I must pretend to disagree in public". Its a way of saying "AOL me too" in a politically non-diverse setting where the truth can't be spoken. Very millennial college student-esque, like something you'd hear said in "problematic white identity 101" class. But... this isn't a college campus where diversity in political thought is strongly suppressed. If you like something non-progressive counter-cultural non-establishment, you can just say it, at least here. No need for obtuse "My areas of disagreement are as numerous as angels dancing on the head of a pin" (aka... I have no idea what this means, actually) or "Your argument contains as many errors as Moldbug" (aka infallible).
I always enjoy reading and occasionally disagreeing with AthanasiusKircher's well reasoned posts. Also Aristarchus and Azuma when those two are not triggered. Runaway1956 is interesting because we agree and disagree in so many apparently unpredictable ways and his arguments are uniformly very strong. None of that is weak sauce.
We should have a new mod option "triggered" where people can just filter it out once its been identified. Yeah yeah yeah Azuma is all fired up, turned up to 11 ranting again, just mod it as "Triggered" to skip it and get on with reading the good stuff.
The God Emperor's inauguration is in ten days I should be decorating and preparing the feast and readying Kek's worship shrine alcove in my house and celebrating in good cheer not getting in flamewars about whacked out UK gun control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:53PM
This is so true. Find a guy that knows how to use a sword, and he'll be called a geek, every single time. Something is more masculine about knowing how to attack and defend in personal combat, but the typical 'gun nut' is more about the size of the weapon...
There are certainly gun enthusiasts that understand very well how their weapons work, how to maintain them, all of the complicated aspects of owning and maintaining and improving upon a weapon. But most that I have met are simply users that think it provides them power they can't get elsewhere. The knowledge aspect of it is for chumps, they can pay someone to clean it or fix it or buy a new one when it gets old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:35PM
NONE of that is complicated, and "improving a weapon" is typically a matter of bolting on an accessory to an existing bolt-on point.
Cooking is more complicated than the responsible use, maintenance, and even "improvement" of firearms. The fact that you believe otherwise is evidence of your lack of simple education.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @09:52PM
if one believes there is roughly a 1/3 chance of a mass uprising ... in one's lifetime
The press, nominally uniformly ultra left wing, none the less help with this belief because if it bleeds it leads.
I'm like middle aged-ish kinda and I've lived "in the area" of several uprisings. Never involved with any of it, but I can see I should probably own a gun.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:34AM
No.
The Press is uniformly Democrat.
Democrats are not lefties, liberals, or progressives.
Therefor the Press is not lefty.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:37PM
I would say they're uniformly corporate, Establishment. I have watched the modern, post-fairness doctrine press kiss up to administration after administration no matter which party occupied the Whitehouse. The New York Times cheerled the invasion of Iraq, even.
They cheerled for Hillary recently because she was Establishment, not because she was Democratic.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:49PM
You are laboring under the assumption that Democrats are NOT warmongering corporate whores when that is EXACTLY what they are.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:07PM
I am not laboring under that assumption. It's that I don't want to feed the false dichotomy and false narrative of Left vs. Right/Democrat vs. Republican anymore. It's tricky because many many billions of dollars have been spent to indoctrinate all of us with it so we spend all our time fighting each other instead of properly assessing accountability and making progress; and even when you consciously try to avoid it it still creeps back into your speech and thought patterns. But I have resolved to do the best I can to name things truly; I hope others might do likewise, but that's beyond my control.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday January 09 2017, @09:57PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:15AM
We will always have a crime problem. No jobs, crime pays when work won't.
Plain and simple as that.
The problem we face now is how to avoid civil war. Our right wing media outlet, fox news is inciting literal civil war by promoting Black Lives Matter as terrorists and cops as heros.
The rub is that cops aren't the only ones with guns. Eventually an oppressed people will fire back. Ever hear the name Custer?
After all the black youth gunned down on the streets by the pigs lately. I have NO sympathy for murders.
I remember Kent state.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:36AM
Our right wing media outlet, fox news is inciting literal civil war by promoting Black Lives Matter as terrorists and cops as heros.
Too bad there aren't any other media outlets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:55AM
Ever hear of an echo chamber?
Cops are watching Fox et.al. and being encouraged to shoot BLM terrorists.
Blacks are watching lefty MSM and hearing that the cops are murdering peaceful blacks with impunity, BLM heroes are their only hope.
Both sides are encouraging this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:01AM
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:05PM
Actually if you look up the stats, places and times with more gums, and especially with some form of legal carry, have noticeably less violent crime. Especially rape.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:02PM
The second one is the primary one. Without privately owned guns, there would not be a United States of America; there would be a bunch of British colonies. First privately owned guns created this nation. Then in the early 1800s ensured the continuation of this nation. Then in the middle of the 1800s freed this nation from itself. Do you see yet exactly why we have in our heads that privately owned firearms can be an extremely powerful force for good?
More to the point though, it's not some unspecified tyranny. It's the currently existing and ever-expanding tyranny. Eventually, likely within my lifetime, private weapons will again be used against tyrants on US soil. This time they'll be the ones we created for ourselves but their origins only matter after the fact when reconstructing a system hopefully less prone to spawning tyrants.
In any case, check the violent crimes rates and murder rates in the US vs most of the world. We're doing just fine on that front, thanks. Our gun-violence rates are higher, yes, but the overall numbers say that just as many people would be dying if guns were completely banned. The raw odds of you being shot in the US are pretty low; less than half a percent. If you can refrain from joining a gang, killing yourself, or committing a violent crime, they fall to winning the lottery levels.
Final fun fact: if we could exclude the counties of the US that voted Hillary, we'd lead the world in both safety from criminal violence and gun ownership.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:47PM
Calling BS on this:
> Without privately owned guns, there would not be a United States of America; there would be a bunch of British colonies.
Obvious counterexamples from different eras are Canada and India, along with many other former British colonies, many of which left the empire without major wars.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:25AM
Which of them were the major center of goods and profit that the colonies within current US borders were for the British again? Oh, right, none of them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by tekk on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:40AM
You mean like Canada, the world center of the incredibly lucrative fur trade which was the reason the British beat the French up over it in the first place?
Or maybe India, not like any valuable products were extracted from there. No sir, haven't heard of tea (literally the reason the subcontinent was conquered) or exotic spices or anything like that.
Those Caribbean holdings probably weren't worth anything either, right?
The British had plenty of holdings that were on the same rough level of value as the US, and I would argue that India was worth more than the US, all of which managed to separate from the empire without a civil war.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:21AM
Erm... sorry, no. Not a one of the above came anywhere close to matching the production value of the American colonies. Not even matching just the southern colonies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:32AM
Obvious counterexamples from different eras are Canada and India, along with many other former British colonies, many of which left the empire without major wars.
The key phrase is "different eras". Even if we were to suppose that the British empire would have collapsed on time anyway despite the additional economic support of the American colonies, that still means a century or more that the American colonies would remain under the thumb of the British.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:01AM
You were doing good until you stepped in this pile of shit. Explain what Hillary has to do with this. Otherwise its meaningless, divisive rhetoric.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:22AM
Hillary? Nothing, really. I just find it an interesting correlation that the blue counties are by far the most violent counties.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:17AM
Yet instead of thinking critically to have an informative opinion you throw out "that voted hillary" which isn't even quite correct. Urban areas still have a significant percentage of red voters.
It is interesting that urban centers have higher crime rates, the answer being at least partially because urban centers are where wealth inequality is at the most extreme. In rural areas people in poverty can usually still afford a crappy house on a small plot of land, and that is a huge lifestyle improvement over low end city housing...
Your opinionated statement just indicates low level partisan thinking, which taints anything else you might say as people must wonder if your opinions are valid or affected by emotional rhetoric.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:42AM
No, it's only mostly correct. This is true. I hang my head in shame that generalizations are not true to the last man/woman/child.
Wealth inequality is the cause of violence you say? Well, you would, wouldn't you? The reason it's happening has to fit your narrative. Must be someone else causing them to be criminals or all your cards come tumbling down, right?
Partisan? You know it's not only Republicans who hate the Democrat party's platform and policies, yes?
Now, how about some critical thinking of your own. Look at the cities that lie in red counties and compare violence levels to those in blue counties. Can you see the correlation or would that create too much cognitive dissonance?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:35AM
You aren't fooling anyone. You're trying to pick a fight. Stop baiting people with nonsense. It's childish and what you would expect from angsty teenagers. If a grown man needs to satisfy his ego by smacking down someone on the internet, well I just feel bad for them.
It's exactly what runaway did in this post: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=17380&cid=451649#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]. And look who came to his aid: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=17380&cid=451725#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]. And resulted in a little mod skirmish. Grow up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:20AM
Some fights need picked.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:44AM
some noses need picked...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:55PM
Most all of em but I'm not going to infringe on anyone else's nasal liberties. That's a step too far.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:25PM
The second one is the primary one. Without privately owned guns, there would not be a United States of America;
Just like there isn't an India. Or Austrailia. Or New Zealand.
However I think a more accurate statement would be "without private parity with armed forces" the US revolution would not have occurred. Does owning half a dozen P90s, a couple of glocks, and a few pickup trucks or whatever give you parity with the US military? In 2017, don't you need airplanes, helicopters, Obama's drone warfare, etc.
If the government had decided to ignore Trump's glorious victory and instead instill Obama as "President for life", do you really think that you'd be able to fight the government?
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:52PM
Yes. Without question. If only every tenth gun owner killed one jackbooted thug, they would run out of jackbooted thugs before we ran out of gun owners. You massively underestimate how many armed people there are in the US.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:51AM
those planes, tanks, etc are not autonomous yet. so, yes, easily.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:24PM
We know you aint the sharpest tool in the shed. But claiming to be inteligent and then pretending a violent crime is a violent crime is a violent crime and just adding up the numbers is even idiotic for you. Getting punched and kicked in the UK is a lot different to being shot in America. Even Chinese kindergarten students survive stabbing rampages at their schools, American school gun massacres...not so much...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:10PM
Violent crime is violent crime is violent crime if that's what you're looking at. Would you prefer simply murders? Can't be done. The UK only reports [parliament.uk] proper Murder convictions and file them under the year the conviction was attained, whereas the US reports any violent or suspicious death at the time it is discovered, regardless of even having a suspect much less a conviction. Using the same methodology as the US, experts estimate the murder rate in the UK would be up to five times what is currently reported. That would put them down as significantly more deadly than the US to live in despite having to do it all with knives and cricket bats and such.
Another fun fact, the `96 gun ban in the UK had absolutely no lasting effect [mintpressnews.com] on the murder rate there, though it did cause a spike in the murder rate directly after it was enacted.
Do your research next time, so you don't look like quite as unprepared.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:36AM
You forgot phallic symbol.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:57AM
He's a Red Pillar, you know, an erect phallus that has been stroked a bit too much, like until the skin comes off. No wonder all these MRA types like metal rods instead! Although, you know, on full-auto they can get too hot to handle. Maxim, the gun, not the magazine. Water-cooling, without the over-clocking.
(Score: 4, Funny) by number6x on Monday January 09 2017, @09:10PM
About 36,000 people in the US were killed by cars in 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/traffic-deaths-up-more-than-10-percent-in-first-half-of-2016.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
We strive to make cars as safe as possible. We teach safe driving. We punish bad driving through financial and legal means. We try to design safer roads. Despite all of this, we will kill more Americans in 2 years on the road than died in 10 years of fighting in Vietnam.
Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill. Think about it.
Cars are much better at killing people than something designed to kill is at killing people.
Or, maybe it is not the gun or the car, but the people who are responsible, or irresponsible, as the case may be.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:16PM
I want to legalize this [wikipedia.org]. Or better yet, this [imdb.com].
Plz.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday January 09 2017, @09:36PM
Sylvester Stallone was in that film. Recently it was rumoured that he was offered an appointment as chief administrator of the National Endowment for the Arts:
After a report that Trump had offered the NEA chairmanship to Stallone, the actor on Sunday released a statement indicating he does not want it, but he said he would be open to a role that focuses on helping veterans.
-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/12/19/sylvester-stallone-trump-appointee/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:23PM
Or maybe if many Americans were constantly shooting for half an hour twice every day, there would be far more gun accidents?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday January 09 2017, @09:30PM
If they're cutting in front of each other to shoot in their lane for no reason, while drinking, eating and checking their phone, or shooting drunk after the game because they have to go home, or shooting tired, in the snow, or with no too-expensive training...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:18PM
Hey now, shooting drunk is a time honored tradition in the US. And still there are so very few accidental shootings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:09AM
It is unquestionably harder to inflict significant self-injury through bad maintenance or drunk state, with a gun than with a car. If we all shot high-explosive shells out of cannons, the stats would likely reflect our clumsiness (or irresponsibility) better.
I'm wondering how many objects would testify as to not being the intended target or the bullet they received. Those don't make it into the official stats.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:18AM
This is true. No pond has never complained that I just missed the turtle I was shooting at while drinking beer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:29AM
Did you just admit to discharging a firearm while under the influence? What the hell is wrong with you?! Get a clue, asshole: that is NOT "responsible gun ownership!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:11AM
And just what are you going to do about it?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:02AM
Just point it out so this shit isn't normalized on here. Maybe a few people seeing that will be shaken out of their apathetic stupor long enough to realize, holy shit, this guy is exactly the kind of person who can't be trusted with firearms, and stop giving his constant torrents of reactionary squitter any credence on here.
Cleaning out the meme pool with an eyedropper of bleach is a thankless fucking job but every little bit helps.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:26AM
You know, around here we prefer our insults to have either insight or wit. Yours lack both. You should spend some more time in IRC. Most anyone there can teach you how to zing people without coming off like an angry noob.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:59PM
Remember...tone-policing is the last refuge of the scoundrel, having replaced patriotism sometime around Eternal September.
It's not even possible to insult you properly, since you're a complete nihilist. That was never the point; none of this is for you. It's for other people who still have some shred of humanity left who will be encouraged by seeing that *someone* is still standing up to this tide of self-serving postmodern bullshit you and your kind are peddling. I know you can't be saved, and I'm sorry for that, but you made your choice a long time ago.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:35PM
I'm policing skill not tone. You suck at insults. It makes people pity you. I don't think that's what you're going for.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:14PM
Keep telling yourself that, Uzzard...every time you reply, every time you drop another stinking load of bird turd on these forums, you just prove my points about you all the harder. Kinda like Donnie the Dire Oompa Loompa from Hell and his Twitter account, come to think of it, except no one outside this site can see it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:32PM
You made points? When was this?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:55PM
I can keep this up as long as you can, Uzzard, and longer still. I'm younger, faster, tougher, and I don't abuse my body with cigarettes and booze. Besides which, half the time you make my points for me :) If I ever make a mistake, it's in trying too hard; all I need to do is let you keep doing the work for me, like an aikido-ka with an overeager striking-style opponent. Keep it coming, feathers-for-brains!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:21PM
Is that what you call it? Looks like the equivalent of an outmatched child screaming "NUH UH!!!" at the top of her lungs to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxuMKb5CKI0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:37PM
You forgot to log in :D I dunno, man, if anyone looks off-balance here it's not me. Try again, and this time, aim properly and consider your actions before you move.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:05PM
I did try to help yas. I told ya, chromas or crutchy or many of the others in IRC could show you how to insult properly. You don't wanna listen though...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:21PM
Aaaaaalley-oop! Once again, you fail to understand what's going on here :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:44PM
Oh? I thought I was just ignoring your nonsense and mocking you. Guess you sure told me though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 11 2017, @04:35AM
Please, Uzzard, you're stalking me like a teenage girl with a massive crush, responding to my every post. That's the precise opposite of ignoring. This is so easy it's almost *embarrassing.*
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:43AM
You're in a post about guns. Consider which of us belongs here more and try again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:36PM
Says the feckless jackoff who pounds brewskis and then discharges firearms, and then is stupid enough to brag about it on a public, internet-facing forum which he has an editorial position in.
You're making me feel guilty, Uzzard. This is too easy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:25PM
I have an editorial position? I think you've not been paying attention.
Fun fact: A healthy adult male can drink a beer an hour and never become in any way drunk.
Another fun fact: Blow me. I've had firearms safety drilled into me since I got my first bb gun at five years old. I'm not going to forget it even blackout drunk.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:35AM
If I were gonna blow you I'd need one of those industrial nano-pipette things. And we'd end up with the world's smallest gas chromatograph in short (heh) order. You're losing it, Uzzard. You hang on my every post like a desperate, abandoned puppy, and boy did that one annoy you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:19AM
Mildly, yep. Congrats on finally getting me to give 1/32 of a shit about anything you said. Have a celebratory cup of STFU and type up your OCD reply. Go ahead, I'll even let you have the last word.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:23AM
You're having a meltdown of Trumpian proportions here, Uzzard :) I wish you had a Twitter feed!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:48PM
A noble enough goal in and of itself...
... and yet here you fall flat on your ideological face. As stupid as TMB's claimed behavior seems to be, who was harmed? Who was even aware that there was a potential for harm in said situation until TMB himself posted about it after the fact? No one. And no one is exactly the same person who has any moral or legal authority to do anything about TMB's irresponsible use of booze and guns until someone else (or someone else's property) has been harmed or reasonably threatened to be harmed.
By stating TMB is the kind of person who "can't be trusted with firearms", you are implicitly demanding TMB be forcibly disarmed since I presume TMB won't divest himself of arms voluntarily; if you were to follow through on that demand, you would be facing people like me: in general agreement with your evaluation of TMB's behavior, but armed and willing to kill you for trying to disarm TMB. If you want to get all "prior restraint", I propose we follow your plan to go big-E Evil and lock everyone up gagged in a gibbet where they can't do anything - starting with you.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:52PM
Okay, let's try an analogy. A car analogy, since I'm told these were popular 'round these parts:
Suppose you have a guy who drives drunk a lot. Now he's driving really late at night, say 2 AM, and there aren't too many people on that road at that time. Not even cops, usually. Is his driving drunk still morally permissible? Why, or why not? What sanctions should there be for this?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:58PM
Let's analyze your analogy. There are multiple levels of sanctions, primarily split between public (law) and private (freedom of dis/association). What sanctions should there be for:
- botching a service repair (i.e. loss of data)
- failing to fulfill a promise
- taking a personal risk which has resulted in at least one previous death of the risk-taker
- horrible body odor, failure to floss teeth, and/or lack of clean underpants
What levels of sanctions, if any, (for BOTH public and private sanctions) should there be for the above? We can't get to matters done in public until private matters are discussed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by J053 on Monday January 09 2017, @11:40PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:35AM
Come on. That's a distinction without a difference.
By that same logic, short of acts of god, there are no accidents of any sort.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:16AM
The distinction between *accident* and other incidents is intent. The incidents where people were careless, and there is no malice are ACCIDENTS.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:30PM
There are no gun accidents. Every unintentional shooting is strictly and provably caused by negligence on someone's part. A properly handled and maintained firearm does not fire itself by "accident".
Likewise there are almost no car accidents. A properly handled and maintained car does not crash, which means you're down to acts of nature
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:35PM
Nope, its all due to PEBSAS - problem exists between seat and steering wheel. Operator error. With firearms its outright negligence, like leaving a fucking cocked and loaded firearm where your child (or dog, or cat) can shoot you with it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Monday January 09 2017, @09:24PM
So what you're saying is we should go to work by gun and defend ourselves with cars?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:04PM
I think he's saying that if road vehicles were as unreliable as my M16 from basic training, then every time Muslims try to run people over with a truck, the truck would jam saving many lives. Or something like that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:51PM
Those M16s in Basic training have been seen, handled, and deep cleaned by hundreds of recruits using allowed and non allowed methods of cleaning. I have seen those weapons with no rifling left over. Not to mention that originally many of them were the full auto version that was converted to semi auto/burst. Your duty units weapons will tend to be in much better shape assuming you are active duty.
I personally witnessed M16s being cleaned with a drill during basic. A lot faster then the t handled cleaning rod, but much more likely to remove the rifling.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:21PM
That is no shit. I picked up like eight extra hits qualifying in basic vs qualifying at my unit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 09 2017, @09:29PM
Cars are much better at killing people than something designed to kill is at killing people.
Can you compare the total amount of time people spend handling guns with the total amount of time people spend driving cars in the U.S. during this time frame? While your quote makes for a great soundbite, I don't think the stats actually back up your claim.
According to AAA [aaa.com], Americans spend on average about 17,600 (about 293 hours) driving each year. That's over 48 minutes/day on average.
How much time does the average American spend handling a gun? Unless you're a major gun fanatic, I doubt it's anywhere near 48 minutes/day. Thus, it seems guns are quite a bit more efficient and effective at killing people than cars are.
(P.S. I'm actually a big supporter of the Second Amendment. I'm just tired of people -- on both sides of the gun argument -- citing a whole bunch of BS or deliberately distorting statistics.)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:57PM
Few gun owners fondle their weapons in the manner that car owners lavish affection on their cars. ;^)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:13PM
As someone who used to always carry when not at work, I can say I was in possession of my gun for much much more time than my vehicle. Guess what, I've been in multiple car accidents and have never once had an accident with a gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:30PM
To quote the high commander: "Guns don't kill people. Physics kills people."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:03PM
The car / gun comparison is of limited use -- for example, it's useful when building a table of causes of mortality.
People use cars primarily for moving themselves and their stuff around. Due to various causes, accidents happen which can be tragic, but very few car related deaths are on purpose.
People use guns to shoot things, they are designed to do harm (to targets, animals and people) and gun violence is primarily on purpose. Of course there are tragic exceptions, for example when little kids get their hands on loaded guns.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by lgw on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:21AM
About 36,000 people in the US were killed by cars in 2016
Drug overdose kills more people than car accidents these days, and falls are a close 3rd. All over 30k. While easy gun availability probably does increase the rate of (successful) suicide--a big chunk of those gun deaths are suicide--with the quick suicide I htink we'd just see a similar number of drug-related deaths later on.
Falls, though, are the danger people ignore. Watch out for those ladders - they're conspiring against you.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:15AM
Falls are God's way to balance the stats a bit, since guns and cars bias the death tally towards the young men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:51AM
And if you don't give those people easy access to deadly weapons everything is safer. Much like cars in countries like Finland or Germany, where getting your license requires competence rather than patience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:26AM
Americans teach safe driving? Compare American drivers tests to other countries, for instance, browse around EU for curricula or driving exams.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by garrulus on Monday January 09 2017, @09:21PM
self reliance, distances (lebensraum) also play a big part, and america also has a big black people problem, etnic vibrancy
note: having guns in usa is a given, a foundation, and although you strive to minimize it, it doesn't matter this comes at a price, this price is no surprise, it is included.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:30PM
...when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
And that's the sad truth.
A firearm is the last refuge of the home invasion, mugging, assault, and rape victim.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday January 09 2017, @10:25PM
When I was in college five years ago we had a situation where the University wanted to ban firearms on campus because of all of the school shootings. There was protest by the student population because it was in Alaska and guns are very much part of the culture, I only knew a few people who carried but everyone still wanted the ability to. The chancellor told the campus police chief to fix it, his response was:
"All I know is that if there is a shooting in the Arts building, none of my people will be able to get there for 10 minutes"
Chancellor got pissed and increased funding to a childcare to make it a full daycare so they could ban firearms from that building and sever campus in half. I never saw the need to carry on campus, or anywhere else personally. But first they came for those that CC, but I do not CC so etc etc.
As an aside I am unsure why someone who is planning to shoot up a school would care that guns are banned, but whatever. Suppose the counter argument to that is someone could steal someone elses gun or in "the heat of the moment" get pissed and kill someone.
I do think stupid people having objects above their ability to control is a bad idea. Cars, firearms, etc. But just try making it harder to get a drivers license. My suggestion would be to give grreater discression to gun shop owners in turning away customers, but that makes me a horrible person because it would lead to profiling of people who call guns pieces and wear pants around their knees.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 09 2017, @10:45PM
As an aside I am unsure why someone who is planning to shoot up a school would care that guns are banned
Aside from the far lower chance that there's someone present who could shoot back?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:06AM
Sorry I did not conceive of this response when I wrote that. I was thinking more along the lines that they would not care whether or not a law says they cant if they already plan to break the law to murder. Your comment is most correct.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:27PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:10PM
When I lived in Anchorage there were numerous situations that were solved by a citizen making a citizens arrest. One memorable one was someone citizen arresting a taxi driver at gunpoint, the taxi driver was in the middle of an attempted rape at the time. I think whether or not guns can make you safer depends on where you live. In Alaska there is a large portion of the population that is military or military family, in addition there is a lot of thought to gun safety and practice. This leads to people, on average, being better trained. Other places might just have a bunch of fudds who get drunk carrying firearms, which would be less safe than what I saw in Alaska.
The post suggested that if a kid wants to shoot up a school, he would prefer guns are banned at the school because his kill count will be higher. When I worked some garbage jobs one of my coworkers was a pot dealer, she loved it being banned because she made a huge amount of money. She voted against legalization because it would effect her profit. Its a pretty common attitude for many different things.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:49PM
My experience with campus carry in a rural entertainment state is trying to make life miserable for hunters who just want to go hunting on Friday night instead of (or while) getting drunk. All kinds of insanity about banning guns in the dorms.
Also ROTC is notoriously not looked at favorably by lefties and "too bad so sad" if ROTC can't bring weapons on campus for training or display models or whatever.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 09 2017, @10:49PM
Don't gun shop owners already have discretion to in turning away customers? Or am I missing something?
But that would lower revenues, therefore profits. This is America. Profit is more important than the lives of people who might be killed by a creepy customer that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:09PM
Private sales.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 09 2017, @11:26PM
My suggestion on school shootings is rearm the students. Not arm them, simply stop disarming them. There was a gunrack in every pickup and a pocket knife in every pocket at my highschool and not a single person has ever been shot or stabbed there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:13PM
There was a gunrack in every pickup and a pocket knife in every pocket at my highschool
Yet at my highschool guns and knives were banned and not a single person has ever been shot of stabbed there. There was a bullet hole in the wall, it was back in 1940, middle of WW2, when they were building guns in some form of metal class and the teacher was somewhat negligent when demonstrating. Or so the rumour went.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:53PM
Teach em proper respect for weapons and that don't happen nearly as often. That respect can't be created in the absence of them though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:22AM
And I will similarly note another sad truth that whenever a mass shooting erupts, you 2A-loving ammosexuals also seem to be just minutes away. Why is it that the Internet Tough Guys who boast about what they would have done had they been at the scene of the crime never are around when the shit really does hit the fan? I mean, you guys wouldn't just be all talk and no action, right?
Well, OK, but exactly how many guns do you need to repel a home invasion? By one estimate [fool.com], the average number of firearms owned by a "typical gun-owning household" in the USA had roughly doubled between 1994 and 2013, to 8.1 guns per household. After three or four, I think it fair to ask your neighbour "just how much trouble you expecting, son"?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:32AM
"you 2A-loving ammosexuals also seem to be just minutes away"
Obvious is obvious. Most of us are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! The law says, "Don't be around here with your guns!" so we stay the fuck out. Meanwhile, the crazies move in, shoot at you, and you bitch that we are nowhere around to save your chicken ass? FOAD, buddy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:52AM
This is just bullshit. Many of the places where we have seen mass shootings over the last several years were places where it was legal to carry. So, I must ask again: where are you guys when the shooting starts? This is not just about saving my life, but also about saving your family, your friends, your community. I seem to recall on more than one occasion--on this very forum, no less--seeing at least a couple of you gun-toting 2A-types blustering about your moral imperative to protect your family. So, even if you have no interest in saving my "chicken ass", surely your friends and family are worth the time and effort, right? Right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:43AM
"Many", eh? More akin to "zero or near enough to zero statistically-speaking".
So-called gun free zones are safe spaces for mass murderers.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:36PM
"Many of the places . . . legal to carry."
Fine - then it should be easy to name a few of them. Carrying a weapon is illegal in virtually all school zones, campuses, colleges and universities. The cops that were shot in Dallas and in Baton Rouge were shot in legal carry areas, I believe. The one legal-carry guy who displayed a weapon was pounced on by the cops, as I recall. Name some other places for me, because I'm having a tough time recalling any of them.
THE CRAZIES GO TO "GUN FREE ZONES" FOR A REASON!! People like myself are excluded from them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:35AM
Ever since I truly realized that the US is now a police state I became much more favorable of the 2nd amendment. I haven't seen any real good evidence that the liberal gun ownership in the US is the cause of our problems, and its historically proven that extensive gun ownership can help prevent the authoritarian boot from reaching your face. I don't own any guns, but I value the option.
"It can't happen here" has been said too many times and failed, and I see nothing special about the US beyond a significant amount of cultural mixing.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:09PM
US is now a police state
extensive gun ownership can help prevent the authoritarian boot from reaching your face
On the assumption that the US has extensive gun ownership (which seems fair, given that it's got the highest guns per capita, 50% more than the next country) I would suggest your two statements are incompatible.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:07PM
All the apparent incompatibility indicates is that things have not yet gotten bad enough that a violent uprising seems to most to be worth the cost. But note the yet - if there's one thing that history teaches it's that governments almost always trend towards becoming more authoritarian and abusive over time, with periodic uprisings (violent or otherwise) making for occasional large jumps in the other direction.
And many times it's not clear that a non-violent uprising would have been effective - Gandhi was able to organize a massive non-violent protest that became expensive enough to drive the British out of India (after almost a century of subjugation), but could he have realistically done so within the fiercely independent Americas?
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:51PM
Don't need that many for home invasion, but do need several for specialized purposes..
1) Powerful pistol or shotgun (tactical) for home protection
2) General use pistol
3) Slim concealed carry pistol
4) Shotgun for hunting
5) Small caliber rifle for plinking
6) Large caliber rifle for hunting
7) Shotgun for sport shooting (skeet/sporting clay etc..)
8) Assault rifle for when the Apocalypse or rebellion arrives..
So, there we go.. not too hard to get up to eight firearms..
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:45PM
I don't know anyone who was injured or killed because of a gun, but I know three people who successfully defended themselves from attackers (muggings, maybe rape, possibly murder) because they were armed. In none of those cases did they need to actually shoot the attackers. Just the ability and apparent willingness to do so was enough to cause the attackers flee.
None of them reported the incidents to the police, because they were in a city that effectively outlaws possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens, so they risked being prosecuted for defending themselves.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:06PM
Two weeks ago a couple of guys tried to rob my home. I stood them down with a baseball bat.
I didn't report it to the police either because I don't talk to cops.
Just because someone used a gun to stop a crime doesn't mean a gun was the only way to stop that crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:01PM
Got that drug grow op or do you just know the police to be worthless and dangerous?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:40PM
Why does it have to be both?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:20PM
You know, if the cops are worthless enough that he is unwilling to talk to them, then I guess it's a good idea to be carrying because crime rates must be insane there with no good cops to do anything about it.
(Score: 1) by mobydisk on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:53PM
Why don't you talk to cops?
By not reporting crimes:
* The same criminals can commit repeat offenses.
* The police departments are staffed and budgeted by crime rates, so your area will be underfunded and underrepresented.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:16AM
uhh, because calling the cops only makes things worse? they can't do shit but take a report and that's if they're not assholes. what frequently happens is they are annoyed that you interrupted their pimping/highway robbery/sitting around getting fat and start screwing with you to teach you a lesson.
* the cops could have already caught the real criminals if they weren't so busy preying on peaceful citizens insztead b/c it's easier.
* maybe we want to be underrepresented...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:29PM
You are lucky you didn't bring a baseball bat to a gun fight.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 09 2017, @11:28PM
You don't always see it coming.
I knew a young guy who was shot dead years ago. Sold his car to some kid who had a bad temper, and a father with a worse temper. Supposedly the car's wheel fell off or something of that nature. Well the father and son came back to demand their money back. Seller was with his friend and heard the idiot kid was doing something stupid which broke the car (something like racing or doing doughnuts.) So he told the two to get lost as they were responsible for the damage. The father and son threaten them verbally, and wanting nothing to with that, they walk away and got into their car to leave. The friend, the witness, then said out of nowhere the father walked up to the car and shot the seller in the head. Just like that. No warning, no nothing.
I was just a kid, maybe 8 or 9, and I knew the seller as he had worked for my father a few times. I remember playing catch with him. His friend also worked for my father. I saw the friend a few weeks later, and little dumb kid me asked what happened to the seller. All he could say was, "He's dead." Me: why? Him: "I don't know what to tell you but he was shot in the head. His brains were splattered all over my face. (his voice was shaking)" I stopped asking. It was a shock. I cried. Very vivid memory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:32AM
None of them reported the incidents to the police, /quote. because if they had, they would also have to have filed reports on their alien abuduction and the chem-trails. Or, these incidents never happened, except as gun-owner fantasies in the "Letters to The American Rifleman" section of the NRA's publication? Ockham's razor on this one, doubled down with Hanlon's!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:49AM
Believe what you want, but it won't change reality.
I was unfortunate enough to feel like I had to resort to pointing my firearm at a thug to ward him off, a would-be kidnapper who threatened people with a hatchet (yet fortunately bright enough to back off the instant I drew). That incident was not reported to "law enforcement", aka the largest criminal gang in the USA. It happened, it is part of factual history, and no amount of your disbelief will change it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:47AM
Few are against basic firearms to protect their home.
The problem is with either a large percent of the population carrying them around in public (inviting accidents and rage killings), and/or semi-automatic weapons that can kill many instantly.
You don't need an AR-15 to stop a robber. Robbers are rarely there to play Rambo with you. The vast majority of robbers who know you have ANY loaded weapon will leave quickly to go rob somebody else without a gun. They just want enough money to fund their next drug dose, not have a shootout.
By the way, I know a church kid who was injured because some kids got into a gun collection and were goofing around.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @09:48PM
White people are too fragile to admit the obvious - the reason guns are a big deal in america is racism. The more racist someone is the more pro-gun they are.
Sure not every pro-gun person is pro-racism. And yeah some black people own guns too - especially in neighborhoods where the cops bust people for jaywalking but don't give a damn about violent crime. But you know when gun control became a big deal? When the black panthers started exercising their right to open carry. We had to shut that down right quick. That's when the NRA supported gun control. [theroot.com] Now, 50 years later, the situation is reversed. Thanks to the new jim crow (aka the war on drugs) so many black men have criminal records precluding them from legally carrying a gun that we don't need gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of black folks. So time to ratchet those gun control laws back down.
for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home," as well as "a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077552 [plos.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by EvilSS on Monday January 09 2017, @10:04PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:18PM
So, gun ownership and gun control/bans are popular in the USA because racism? I think you need to examine your faulty logic circuit.
It is quite true that "gun control" was rooted in keeping guns out of black peoples' hands [jpfo.org]. That's about as far as you were correct, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:05PM
weak
try again
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:41PM
everybody's a little bit racist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:59AM
Not everybody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:22AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:54AM
Haven't you heard? Being "colorblind" and evaluating people on their own chosen behavior is now racist.
RIP "racist"; you were once a useful word with a valid definition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:20AM
> Being "colorblind" and evaluating people on their own chosen behavior is now racist.
Wah!
No, claiming to be colorblind while denying your own biases has always been racist.
It just took the racists a while to figure out how to co-opt the language of anti-racism to disguise their racism.
But you knew that already didn't you? You sound like you really want to believe your own bullshit, so you keep repeating it like a mantra hoping eventually you'll brainwash yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:55PM
Crying "racist!", as with the boy who cried wolf, no longer has any effect; attempting a kafkatrap [ibiblio.org] does not change the situation.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42AM
Gun control is all about racism. Just as welfare is all about racism. Keep the darkies dependent, and keep them away from weapons. That is the Democratic party line. Blacks are the original reason Democrats fear guns. People like the Buzzard and I are only secondary reasons for Democrats to fear weapons. The occasional crazy shooting up a public venue are merely excuses used to justify the fear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:47AM
Its like you are a bot that is starting to achieve self-awareness.
But you've been examining yourself in a mirror so your self-image is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
How appropriate you would choose to post in a thread with this subject header.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11AM
http://www.guns.com/2016/01/18/the-birth-of-a-gun-control-nation-a-backwards-glance-at-some-of-americas-first-gun-control-laws/ [guns.com]
For example, a statute passed in 1640 in the Commonwealth of Virginia forbade non-whites from carrying guns or weapons of any kind. A rash of like “codes” were adopted in a number of colonies prior to the Revolutionary War.
Gun control has always been racially motivated, and today's gun control advocates are no different from those of yesterday. You fear the Negro.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:26AM
Its convenient for you to ignore the fact the last 40 years of mass incarceration of black men have created an easy proxy for gun-control laws to keep guns out of the hands of black people.
Address that head on and then we can have a talk.
Until then you are just an intellectual coward hiding behind half truths.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:45AM
WTF? I have pointed out that people are convicted with unjust laws, for the purpose of denying their rights. Gun rights, voting rights, and more, are stripped upon conviction. Marijuana prohibition was aimed directly at the black communities. More recently, laws regarding crack cocaine are targeted directly at the black communities.
You appear to be preaching to the choir here, and don't even realize it.
Gun laws are primarily aimed at black people. The fact that they also entrap some (conservative) redneck white people is a bonus. Democrats hate all of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:39AM
And your explanation for why the last 10+ years has seen expanded gun access laws not restrictions is... ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:17AM
Common people with functional brains getting fed up with bullcrap "laws" which only affect them, the common law-abiding folk, and taking action to demand that their so-called representatives show some modicum of respect to the plain language of the Second Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:22AM
> Common people with functional brains getting fed up with bullcrap "laws" which only affect them
Didn't runaway just establish that gun-control laws have always been targeted at black people?
You won't find all that many black people advocating for more gun access.
Try again!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM
Please, define "all that many" for us. If only ONE black person is denied a weapon BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, then our laws are unjust. Deny a gun to a black guy who is clearly nuts, and we're cool. Deny a gun to another black guy who is a demonstrable menace to society, we're still cool. But, when you deny a gun to a black guy BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, then you are the fascist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:57PM
Way to miss the forest for the trees: laws affect the law-abiding, regardless of skin color. Racist!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:08PM
Huh, wut? You're saying that democrat controlled cities and states are voluntarily relaxing gun control laws? Or, are you attempting to credit those democrats with Supreme Court rulings that have FORCED the democrats to accept more lenient gun laws?
Which laws have been rolled back in Chicago, and Illinois, may I ask?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:02PM
Ok, so faced with facts that don't fit your agenda, you just go into denail mode.
Republican controlled states have been passing more and more lax guns laws for the last decade.
Expanding the areas where people can legally carry to churches, schools, parks, workplaces etc.
Texas has gone from first permitting concealed carry about 20 years ago to now permitting open carry.
Missouri recently passed a new stand your ground law and eliminated the requirement for training before getting a CCW.
Its a really long list.
When you try to deflect away from those simple facts you are agenda driven instead of fact driven.
Democrats are the real racists! -- The rallying cry of actual racists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:59PM
So, logically, that makes you...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:14AM
I would love to see you explain this theory to a group of infantry veterans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:34AM
Screw you and your false valor.
My am a vet. He's right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:20AM
Vets are a homogenous hivemind now? I'm also a vet - GGP is wrong: rural gun owners in particular care little for what others do so long as they aren't robbing, raping, murdering, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:29AM
OP is the one who started the homogeneity canard.
Your argument about "robbing, raping, murdering, etc" is the most common rationalization of a racial motivation for gun ownership.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:14AM
Gee, I guess that since "rationalization" over historical and ongoing fact is raaaacist, we'd best get rid of everyone's guns post-haste!
Dream on; "racism" as an insult is dead. You killed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:20AM
> Dream on; "racism" as an insult is dead. You killed it.
Good thing you literally just resurrected it then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM
So far, the only person making stuff about race is you.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:16PM
You're right - black people never take photos of themselves holding pistols, pistols and other firearms have no place in rap lyrics, no gun-based sexual innuendos, etc.
Get a life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:56AM
Troll much? I have to assume you really aren't that stupid to make such an accusation that the more racist someone is the more guns he owns.
I'll share my position on guns... guns are machines with no intent, they are tools. For some they are tools of skill (target shooting), others they are fort self defense and in a minority they are a tool for crime. But, a gun itself does no wrong. It is the user that does wrong. I'm far from racist (I'm white but had almost exclusively black friends until my mid 20s) but, I do love my guns. The design of them, the art and science of them, the crafsamship of them. And, I will gladly admit that if you broke into my home or attempted to harm my family the last thing I would be thinking about is skin color. The first thought would be to take down the threat to my family and then happily shoot the person dead; for, if you break into my home you are immediately posing a threat to my family. I value my family and myself above and person that would break into my home or pose a threat to my family out in the world. If you don't value your family's life more than a threat then perhaps you don't deserve family.
Then, you have the whole approessor/tyranny of the state reason that the right to firearms exists in our constitution. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we would be able to fight against any oppressor, foreign or domestic. I believe any state that does not permit its citizenry to possess and use firearms fears they may rise up against its tyranny.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @09:48PM
Break it down by ethnic demographic group and the results are interesting.
First of all, all my numbers vary year to year and decade to decade and I'm sure cherry picking can look better or worse so please no commentary about how I'm totally wrong about the 2013 white male murder rate in NYC vs the 1972 black male murder rate in Utah or something.
A couple white men die every year when deer hunting, mostly drunks driving off roads or into each other. Indirectly without guns they wouldn't deer hunt which means they wouldn't spend an hour in the field and then ten hours at the strip club drinking followed by driving unfamiliar roads and drunkenly killing each other. Directly with guns one dude shoots another every couple years, or somehow gets themselves while cleaning the rifle or whatever. Basic NRA gun handling rules and trivial hunter safety education vs "we dun built us a better idiot" and lots of booze, and millions go out to recreate while single digits die. In between about one heart attack in the woods per year (dead deer are heavy, hunting is better 10 miles from the road, etc) Aside from deer hunting if a white man is holding the gun the murder rate is roughly similar to Norway or Germany (pre-invasion) or perhaps UK. It DOES happen and usually involved domestic problems (catch yer wife with some other dude in bed, etc etc)
Now on the other hand, the black folks murder rate is better than, say, Somalia, but its still pretty bad, roughly like the Congo.
Education is kind of the same demographic situation. When people want to shit on the USA education system they point out that an average of all the kids regardless of race means we have the shittiest school system in the developed world. When like 1/3 our school kids were literally living in the 3rd world a couple years ago it makes more sense that their individual ethnic score is basically rural Mexico because they are rural Mexicans recently arrived. When you want a nice discussion of education in the USA, our white school kids perform to vaguely Scandinavian levels of education and our black kids are the highest performing Africans on the entire planet, crushing the entire continent of Africa. Of course the average across all school kids, again, of the top performing Africans (which is very low) and the white kids, averages out to something like Turkey or maybe Egypt.
As to why we pretend USA is a white country or is going to stay a white country, that's a longer term political discussion. Until certain people rammed thru an immigration reform in about fifty years ago it was a white nation. Not so much now. Maybe we need gun confiscations and tin pot dictators to match our future demographics. I mean, if we are gonna be "Cuba with snow" ya gotta take the gun confiscations and Castro revolutions with the ethnic food, ya know?
There's a meme going around about the Democrat archipelago where its like 1% of the landmass of the country and about 40% of the population ruled over by the left and its basically a 3rd world hellhole plus some rich people gated compounds where the violence and educational results are basically what you'd expect from Africa, vs the 99% of the landmass of the country with about 60% of the population ruled by republicans where the demographics and violence and educational results are basically Scandinavia, sure maybe not as smart as Korea or Japan supposedly but kicking some serious ass. We have two countries with two cultures and two wildly different levels of demographics and achievement unfortunately right next to each other. So averaging those two separate countries with separate cultures and demographics is going to give you nonsense as a result.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:52PM
How could anybody dispute your use of statistics when you cite no actual statistics or other sources in your comment? It's indisputable!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:00PM
How could anybody dispute your use of statistics when you cite no actual statistics or other sources in your comment? It's indisputable!
VLM has proven himself to be a congenital liar. [soylentnews.org]
Nobody should believe a single damn word he says.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:57PM
I still stand by that post proudly. Everyone else just triggered on the "ethics" dog whistle word and immediately went identity politics mode of us is good them is bad and I researched the situation deeply and documented why that office is objectively in fact totally worthless. I still say its totally worthless and no one wants to debate it beyond trivial level of "us is good thems is bad" or "anything ethics has to be good therefore its good no matter what they do".
I might even be wrong, but I did put in more research effort than ten of my opponents put together, so I deserve a participation trophy if nothing else.
I have written stuff thats outright false cause I'm just stupid sometimes, and I'll post follow up to correct the record when I notice it. Not this time. That office is useless paper pushing BS action for the sake of putting on good theater BS. In fact its actively bad because "we don't need real ethics, we gots us a committee already" That office is exactly what we don't need in government.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:03PM
> I still stand by that post proudly.
Of course you do! When you have no facts on your side, all you've got is the courage of your convictions.
If a strongly held belief is enough for you, it ought to be good enough for everyone else!
Tell us again how everything you disagree with is fake news. I love that one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 09 2017, @11:54PM
I've never uniformly modded ACs down before, but you guys really make me want to start.
Have the balls to make a damn account before you hypocritically whine about a specific user.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:09AM
before you hypocritically whine about a specific user.
Was going to FTFY tango, 'til I realized it was not possible. Did you mean "hypercritical", or "hypnocritical"? And is it "whine", or some kind of "wine"? Could it have been "hippocratic wine"? Sorry that I have to post this as AC, but tango, you are defending a Nazi?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:27AM
> Have the balls to make a damn account before you hypocritically whine about a specific user.
The day VLM pays the price for his constant prevarications — his posts start at +0 just like mine do — is the day your complaint will have merit.
As long as he's going to get a +2 bonus for being pseudonymous despite regularly lying his ass of and being a racist sonofabitch then I have every moral right to hold him to honest account for his words. Obviously the karma system is failing to do it.
You want to mod me down for pointing out his history of lying? Go ahead, it is absolutely within you rights to be as petty and parochial as you desire. And since I post at +0 your spite will punish me for telling the truth more effectively than the same down-mod applied to VLM's lies would. You'll be a hero.
(Score: 2, Informative) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:46PM
It ends up a steaming pile of numbers looking like an ipv6 hosts file clouding the point. Then, pointless sophistry will follow along the lines of "citation needed" and "what about the result from 1972 for ... " BS that don't mean nothing.
None the less, lets have some pointless numerical fun to distract from the actual issues:
Lets talk about Iowa. Its basically all white people, not even illegal laborers. Needless to say its entire state gov and all but one congressman are R not D. There are some D just not many. Wikipedia reports a firearm death rate in 2013 per 100K of a whopping 8. Something called "Guns in Finland" (A real page turner I'm sure) claimed in 2013 per 100K to get a whopping 3. White SAT score in 1986 for reading was 524. Something called the PISA Reading Test in Finland provided the numerically identical 524 result.
Lets talk about Alabama. Alabama will be our proxy for black people. I've lived there, every white guy who graduated high school seems to move to Huntsville and be a rocket scientist and the rest of the state is a like all black. Anyway its 2013 per 100K gun death rate was 18, almost but not quite three times a white state. Its hard to get gun data from Africa but one of the few data points available is Swaziland at 37 per year per 100K. Black SAT score in 1986 for reading was 428 (like did you guys even try?) In the PISA Reading Test Swaziland was not one of the 65 participants and Tunisia is the only African country that even tried with a score of a whopping 404.
Lets talk about New Mexico. To quote Wikipedia "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 48% of the total 2015 population was Hispanic or Latino of any race, the highest of any state." so they'll be our proxy for Hispanics, because, well, they are in fact half Hispanic. The 2013 firearm death rate in NM per 100K people was 16, twice white states, but less than black states. In comparison most of them were recently living in say Guatemala which wikipedia claims 34 firearms related deaths per 100K people. Trump said they're not sending their best but I have to disagree with the God Emperor here in that the most civilized Guatemalans have moved here, leaving behind some trigger happy dudes in the old country. Hispanic "Mexican American" SAT score in 1986 for reading was 457, which is impressive for people who speak Spanish not English that they crushed the black kids taking the test who theoretically at least speak English. In the PISA reading test for 2015 Guatemala did not even try although as a point of comparison Mexico achieved a 424.
There's kind of an averaging effect where whites die in shootouts a little more in the USA than in the home country, and non-whites are dramatically less violent than back home, but still extremely violent compared to the whites. WRT education the trends are the same.
Its not entirely surprising... there is no magic dirt, so transplanting a "X" from "X-land" will naturally tend to get results extremely similar to "X" when they grow in different dirt.
OK here's your numbers let the sophistry and distraction begin!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:46PM
Tach accuses you of just making up numbers.
So in response, you ... make up more numbers.
I swear you have an illness.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:53AM
Exactly how is it "sophistry" to dispute your numbers when you produce blatant falsehoods?
Lets talk about Alabama. Alabama will be our proxy for black people. I've lived there, every white guy who graduated high school seems to move to Huntsville and be a rocket scientist and the rest of the state is a like all black.
According to the U.S. Census [census.gov], the white population in Alabama is 68.5% of the state population in 2010, and estimated to be 69.5% in 2015. "Black or African American" was 26.2% in 2010 and 26.8% in 2015. Thus, roughly 2.5 white people live in Alabama for every black person. And since the Huntsville [wikipedia.org] metropolitan area (I'll be generous and not just count the city, but the entire metro area) is somewhere between 417k in 2010 and 441k in 2014, and the entire population of Alabama according to the Census in 2015 is estimated to be 4.85 MILLION -- that means even if every single person in Huntsville's 400k+ population were white (not true), the rest of Alabama would still have over double the amount of white people compared to black people.
Anyway its 2013 per 100K gun death rate was 18, almost but not quite three times a white state.
Interestingly, you omit what the gun death rate is BY RACE in Alabama. Here are the numbers from 2014 [kff.org] for example. The black rate for gun deaths is 20.5, but the WHITE rate for gun deaths is 15.3. So actually the gun death rate for WHITES was "almost by not quite two times a white state." Oh wait, by the majority of its population, Alabama IS a white state!
Take a look at that last link, actually... you might notice any interesting pattern. Generally speaking, you are correct that gun violence in black communities is higher than white communities. You could have just cited national stats to prove that -- I have no idea why you feel the need to label various states as "white states" and "black states." But ALSO generally speaking, when the overall gun violence rates go up, they go up significantly for BOTH black and white communities. When they go down, they go down for BOTH black and white communities. (Note Massachusetts, where the black gun death rate is 7.3 -- even below that of a white state!! Same with Connecticut! And the white death rates there are proportionally lower than average too.)
How does that fit into your racial narrative? Is just the random proximity to black people enough to cause white people to go crazy and start shooting each other?!
Yes, there are some exceptions to that general trend, but overall it seems what you're actually proving is that some states have OVERALL higher rates of gun violence than others. Why?
Well, here's an article [theatlantic.com] that actually looks at a much broader selection of statistics than you do to try to tease it out. Turns out that some of the best correlations between gun deaths and states exist when you look at poverty level within a state and percentage of working class jobs in the state economy.
Basically, poorer people shoot each other more. The end. You could have skipped your entire rant and weirdly selective stats and just said that. It so happens that black folks (and hispanic folks) tend to be poorer that white folks in general too. Amazing coincidence?? No. Turns out that when you control for socioeconomic status that the vast majority of your supposed race gap in gun violence disappears.
Its not entirely surprising... there is no magic dirt, so transplanting a "X" from "X-land" will naturally tend to get results extremely similar to "X" when they grow in different dirt.
Interestingly, when black children are raised in upper-class white households, turns out they erase most of the supposed "racial gap" in intelligence, educational performance, etc. Huh... maybe changing the "dirt" does matter... maybe what you're talking about are cultural and demographic trends, not actually primarily caused by race itself.
That's not "sophistry and distraction" -- it's an alternative explanation backed up by statistical evidence. Now, I'll grant you that in such studies there are often still smaller gaps that appear between racial groups, but it's interesting that MOST of the discrepancies can be eliminated when you control for various factors (socioeconomic background, educational level and parents' educational level, being the most important). Is the remaining gap the result of racial differences or more minor confounding factors? Statistical evidence can't yet prove one or the other, but what's certain is most of the numbers you're citing are misleading and sometimes completely bogus.
The broader lesson here is that if you choose to see the world through a racist lens, you will find evidence to support your racism. If you open your mind to the possibility that there are other confounding factors though, you might realize there's a lot more going on here.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:05AM
By the way, I realized that I forgot to mention an important qualification -- the racial breakdown by state is by race of VICTIM, not perpetrator. I used this as a proxy because I couldn't quickly find data by state that also broke down by race for perpetrators. But we do know from numerous crime statistics [fbi.gov] that intrarace homicides (white kills white, black kills black) are MUCH more common than interrace (white kills black, black kills white) crimes. So it's a reasonable assumption that the pattern in most states for race of offender follows race of victim, at least overall.
I'm sure the omission of such a qualification (even though it's plain from the link I gave in my first post) will have some people here brand my entire argument as "fake news" or something. Oh well. I'm just trying to provide a more complete perspective.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:12AM
Exactly how is it "sophistry" to dispute your numbers when you produce blatant falsehoods?
Standard tactic - accuse your opponents of your own failings. Everything that bot posts is sophistry.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:36AM
Biiiiingo. The holy trinity of the neo-reactionary right is hypocrisy, projection, and ignorance.
This means you, VLM. Uzzard. J-Mo. Kyuubey, if you're still here. Runaway, you too sometimes. You don't fool anyone with their eyes open, and for the benefit of those whose aren't, I'll point it out every--single--*fucking*--time--one of you festering shitgluttons decides to piss in the meme pool.
Mod me down all you like; all it does is expose your own hypocrisy and taint your souls even further.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:47AM
and
You realise that if the intra-race murders were mostly black, and the inter-race murders were mostly blacks murdering whites, then the figures would come out as you say while still matching what VLM said?
Statistics by the victim's race are useless here, you need the statistics by perpetrator.
(And isn't dividing by race of victim racist anyway? Are black lives worth less so you count them separately?)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:12AM
Black-on-black crime accounts for about 90% of black victims
White-on-white crime accounts for about 85% of white victims
Your objections are without merit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:40AM
Taking the big assumption that your figures are correct, and applying them only to the murder rates above, then :
4,850,000 population 69% White 31% Black :
3,346,500 White 1503500 Black
20.05/100000 * 1503500 * .9 = 271 Black Kills Black
20.05/100000 * 1503500 * .1 = 30 White Kills Black
15.3/100000 * 3346500 *.15 = 77 Black kills White
15.3/100000 * 3346500 * .85 = 435 White kills White
465 White killers in total /pop 3346500 *100000
348 Black killers in total / pop 1503500 *100000
=
Blacks are killers at 23 per 100000
Whites are killers at 14 per 100000.
Isn't playing with numbers fun? I wonder what those numbers become if you manage to exclude gun suicides.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:05PM
So, you're saying that, based upon your numbers, black-skinned people are 1.6 times as likely to murder someone as white-skinned people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:25PM
Kill someone, not necessarily murder. Those figures include suicide and lawful kills too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Monday January 09 2017, @09:56PM
> 60% of the population ruled by republicans where the demographics and violence and educational results are basically Scandinavia
Have you checked the stats of the red states? That's some serious delusion, man...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:57AM
Plus, the writer may be mixing cause and effect. Is the political angle a result of bad conditions or a cause? There are plenty of well-to-due progressive areas such that progressivism by itself does not appear to be the primary cause of region rot, such as rust belts.
Rust belts appear to be the result of the well-to-do and well-educated leaving when the bottom falls out of a regional industry. It's harder for the uneducated to move, exasperating an already bad situation, creating a feedback loop of despair.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:52PM
I'm impressed with the self-control it must have taken you not to throw a single racial slur, not even once. I mean your entire post condenses down to someone shouting the n-word for 5 minutes straight, but you have the skill to disguise it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:49PM
Sorry, your ad hominem is invalid. The term "racist" was thrown around so much that it has passed the point of becoming meaningless. You'd have a more effective noise to use as an insult if you merely pressed your lips together and blew.
"Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 09 2017, @11:58PM
"Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.
You know, curiously, this is the kind of thing only a racist would say! You fucking racist, trying to obfuscate the fact that VLM is both a racist and not smart enough locate actual facts, but is smart enough to do a whole comment without once using the n-word. One almost can come to admire such clever levels of racist sub-intelligence. The only thing more devious would be an attempt to erase the word "racist" entirely. And, bless your heart, here we are! Epic racist fail! This is why we cannot have white supremacy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:05AM
Exactly.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:20PM
For the record, we have it on record that VLM is a fascist, because he openly advocated forced labor and extermination for undesireables. The code word he used was 'immigrants,' but he was talking about Latinos, Muslims, and other assorted brown people, but certainly not Irish overstaying student visas or Eastern Europeans sneaking in on container ships.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:34AM
> "Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.
You got that exactly backwards. 2016 was the year that all those accusations of racism were validated.
Nearly half the voting population just proved they don't mind textbook racism. [cnn.com]
You know what kind of people are OK with racism? Racists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:42AM
It was her turn, wasn't it?
Sorry, friend, but the trump train is coming into station and if you don't get off the tracks you're going to get blown the fuck out.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:53AM
You poor fool...you're rejoicing over the very instrument of your own demise. That "train" is going to go over the cliff with you on it. Are you so completely nihilistic you'll kamikaze yourself just to get "those damn lib'ruls" too, or are you just completely out to lunch concerning what kind of electoral disaster we've just had? You utter illiterate moron, do you think a man who literally lives in a gold-plated penthouse in Manhattan and considers a million-dollar loan "a small amount" gives even the tiniest shit about We the People?
This isn't some fucking football game, you imbecile. We ALL lost. In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization. We may very well end up in a world war which blows us all back to the Iron Age, without leaving us any more easy oil to jumpstart a second industrial revolution. THAT is what we're facing here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:57AM
Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary. That should tell you something about the person you were supporting but it won't because that would require critical introspection.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42AM
> Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary.
Yeah it means their worldview is warped as fuck.
> that would require critical introspection.
That's rich coming from the lips of someone in the running for least introspective person on the site.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:18AM
You don't seem to remember all the posts I've made about not liking Hillary, do you? And, hel-LO, the people who voted for him obviously do NOT know "precisely what he [is]" for the exact reason stated above in the post you just replied to. Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit. I get that you're a permanent nihilist, but at least try to keep up appearances, hmm...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:44AM
for the exact reason stated above in the post you just replied to
We ALL lost. In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization. We may very well end up in a world war which blows us all back to the Iron Age, without leaving us any more easy oil to jumpstart a second industrial revolution. THAT is what we're facing here.
What is the chance of this? Do you have any evidence to show that Trump will end human technological civilization? We've had warmongers as presidents and this hasn't really happened yet.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11AM
We've never had a warmonger who was also this completely bugfuck insane, though, and there have always been cooler heads in the cabinet. Look reeeeeal close at who we got now. I'm not saying this necessarily WILL happen, but the conditions are much too ripe for my liking.
Trump himself really isn't the issue. He's a loose cannon, but he's not, by himself, focused enough to see something like that through. It's the Dominionist contingent in his cabinet who are the real problem. We're talking about people who want to start another war in the Middle East for the sole purpose of bringing on Armageddon, do you get that? To make this clearer: we have our own Taliban and they are now in power.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:33AM
Trump is on the record wanting the Saudis to have nukes. [breitbart.com]
He's also on the record refusing to rule out nuking europe. [independent.co.uk]
Is he just bullshitting?
I dunno. But he's literally the first president to ever say these things. That is not a good sign.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:15AM
1/ I read your first link. The article says Trump wants them to have weapons, many times. But if you take out their commentary, and only read the actual quotes you get :
Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?
2/ Does not the President have the duty to defend the USA? Any President who flatly rules out the use of a weapon is either lying or failing in his duty.
Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true, whereas all the pundits are basing their estimations of his beliefs on adjusting for the usual amount of political bullshit.
(Tech analogy: you have a meter that always reads exactly 3 volts high, you use it check AA batteries. 4.6 is good, 4.4 is on the way out. One day you get a battery that bypasses the 3 volt error and reads 1.5V. Standard response is "WTF, that's crazy!!".)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:06AM
> Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?
What kind of bullshit apologia is that?
Even if he thinks its inevitable that doesn't make it "reality" it means he's ready to give up and let it happen.
I do not want a president who gives up. Especially when it comes to nuclear proliferation.
> Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true,
Ok, you are one of those idjits who voted for him aren't you? Because "blowing everyone's minds" about nuking europe is the kind of thing only a delusional fool would find admirable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:08AM
You have reading comprehension problems don't you. Get someone smarter to explain it to you.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM
You make that sound like he intends to nuke Europe. That's not the context of what he was saying. He was saying that when you're talking about defending your country you never take anything off the table, so that the enemy knows you're prepared to go the full measure if necessary. It makes sense, if you're bloody-minded.
I would say in certain contexts, it is quite necessary that we speak as he has. China needs to remember that we hold a trump card (no pun intended) in our nuclear sub fleet, and can bring an abrupt end to their 5,000-yr old civilization in 15 minutes if necessary; it constrains their ambitions. Maybe it's not the warm fuzzy that some like to hear, but neither would the attempt to build the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere be, either.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:06PM
Yes I know what he was saying.
A sane person says, nuking europe is not on the table.
Because it fucking well isn't.
And same thing with China. We are not in a cold war with china. Threatening china, and yes what you wrote is a literal threat, is the kind of thing that causes wars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:11PM
Sane according to an insane person who apparently claims to be able to see the future.
Every means of war is always on the table for sane people who look reality in the face and deal with it. Europe would have already been nuked had the technology been ready before Germany surrendered. Or maybe you just like Hitler so much that you want the option "off the table" before his successor arises, is that what you're saying?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11PM
They are never not in power.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:45AM
Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary. That should tell you something
It tells me they had no fucking idea who or what they voted for.
Like this person who publicly celebrated today's Senate vote to repeal Obamacare [tumblr.com] because they had ACA health insurance.
THAT is how well informed your loudest Trump voters are.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:17PM
I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton knew nothing about technology. She did not set up that email server herself, nor has she ever understood the basics of the Internal Combustion Engine nor any other component of our technological civilization. I'm equally sure Donald Trump has no clue about it, either.
I'm pretty certain that people like us know that stuff and do that stuff, even with all the H1-B's. I'm also pretty certain that no matter what happens to any government at any level, people like us will still know that stuff and do that stuff because it's in our blood. As long as people like us exist, human technological civilization will continue.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:10AM
Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists. Our country's voting system is defective by design and locks out alternative choices in most people's minds, so people will vote for the candidate they believe is the lesser evil. This means that voters don't necessarily vote for someone because they believe they're good, but just because they believe the person is less evil than the other candidate. Maybe many Trump voters disagreed with him on many issues but ultimately saw him as a lesser evil. I'm not seeing how this necessarily indicates they're all racists; it's classic team politics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:38AM
> Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists.
It does follow that for them being a liberal is worse than being a racist.
Watch the regulars chime in to agree that's not just a belief, its a fact.
And if you think liberalism is worse than racism, you've never really been on the wrong side of racism.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:12AM
It does follow that for them being a liberal is worse than being a racist.
Which, even if true, still doesn't make them racist. But it's not even necessarily true, because many people who voted Trump simply despised Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:51AM
Sure that's what they said.
But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.
When such strong emotions have such weak foundations its because people don't want to acknowledge their real motivations so they grasp on to whatever fig leaf is handy.
You strike me as somebody who think racism is a purely conscious phenomenon.
True?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:43AM
But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.
Hardly different from usual, then.
You strike me as somebody who think racism is a purely conscious phenomenon.
It doesn't need to be. I just can't read minds or generalize so broadly based on a mere vote.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:03PM
That dismisses the 30 years that Hillary and her husband spent in the national spotlight, which we were all treated to. It's hardly quicksand to watch them cheat and parse and sin and thieve and wriggle and never, ever face real consequences for anything. We all discussed the particulars ad nauseum during the election campaign, so you can trawl through the archives or google if you really want the citations.
Pumpernickel is right--there were many, complex reasons why people chose Trump over Hillary. Glossing over them will not only obscure the reality but will also prove a material impediment to your winning next time.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:29AM
Well, I can't speak for what is in the hearts and minds of every Trump voter, but it is crystal clear what they were voting for. He did not in any way try to hide his bigotry and xenophobia. In fact, he revelled in it. At the very least, his clearly articulated bigotry and xenophobia were not enough of a turn off to persuade Trump voters to choose someone else. Unfortunately, I think it understandable if many come away with the conclusion that a sizeable number of his supporters agree with his repugnant views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:48AM
Concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism isn't "bigotry or xenophobia". So, what exactly were you referring to here? Those are the only examples I can recall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:28AM
Oh, come now. I expect much better than this sort of facile (and erroneous) analysis from a reader of SN. Do I really need to rehearse one more time his public statements about Mexicans, specifically, and minorities more generally? [huffingtonpost.com] Or his blanket proposal to deny approximately a fourth of the world's population their basic human rights? [cbsnews.com] Well, OK, he only wants to deny First Amendment rights to Muslims living inside the borders of the USA. But that is a rather Earth-shattering departure from the ideals that our nation's leaders have touted since before I was born that the First Amendment is considered sacred for all Americans and that we would champion basic human rights for everyone, no matter who they are or where they live, wouldn't you say? This goes far, far beyond mere "concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism". Yes, this is bigotry and xenophobia we are talking about here.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:20AM
Hey, dumbass, "ad hominem" is an UNSUBSTANTIATED attack ON THE PERSON, not the argument. Not only was "wow, you basically just got drunk and hung out the window and shouted "eeeeeEEEEEEeeeeyyynigganigganigga!" for 5 minutes straight" an attack on his argument, not him, it was also *entirely* on the mark.
You don't know what words mean, do you?
And contrary to "racist" becoming meaningless, this shitshow of an election has made it more topical and urgent than ever. When the goddamn KKK is supporting your rallies, when your chief strategist is basically David Duke in plainclothes dress, you have a racism problem. Fuck you for trying to silence the people pointing this out, and may you fry in hell for your part in the coming collapse of this nation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:28AM
Blame your SJW allies if you must. "Racist" is attached to the person now, and because it's ALWAYS attached to a person a special snowflake SJW (and allies) disagrees with, it is now a meaningless term, devoid of useful definition.
It is sad, in a way, but you brought this situation on yourselves, much like with Trump getting in because the The Other Side of the Same Coin demanded that it was Hillary's turn. You pushed so hard that the blowback blew you out of the water.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:22AM
So if I understand you right, insulting someone at any point in any way during an argument makes that argument null and void, no? Looks like all the "special snowflakes" won this round then :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:01AM
Winning sure does feel good, doesn't it?
Hm - that actually sounds familiar...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:47PM
a racism problem
What is that exactly? The problem, specifically.
So the original problem is some loose rambling about Americans shocking cost of easy gun access, which actually isn't all that much of a cost for a 320 million person nation, seeing as its like 1/4 the cost of suicides or well under a tenth the cause of generic accidents (slip and fall) and with well over 2.5 million deaths per year total, guns are a microscopic fraction of a percent basically not worth worrying about. 11K deaths per year sounds like a lot if you live in the UK where a big town is like 500 people or even 11K shootings in London would be kinda noteworthy, but the BBC has to face facts that "the colonies" have expanded slightly since the revolutionary war and we're now a modest integer multiple of the population of the old home island... So it would be like freaking out about 1000 knife deaths in the entire UK, interestingly enough the UK does score a bit less than 1K murders per year... You're almost certain to die from eating too much carbs and not exercising too much with a side dish of cancer from environmental exposure to various chemicals, or from drinking booze, or in a car accident, but not from a gun.
The reason to ban guns is purely political, not practical and not for safety reasons. Also massive progressive signaling points by claiming support.
I proposed that effective gun control could take race into account, the only really useful response pointed out that their statistical samples imply a moderately better correlation with income, which is basically a stealth race measurement so whatever. Either way you slice it, a rifle in a white $75K/yr deer hunters hands in the hunting woods is harmless to society and a pistol in a black $0/yr hands in the inner city is going to fill coffins, and regulation should respect those outcomes.
So anyway, what exactly is the problem?
Fuck you for trying to silence the people pointing this out
Speak up, here's your podium.... Try something deeper than "I'm a better person for pointing out its a thoughtcrime double plus ungood". How about in the spirit of a physics thought experiment, if either what I'm suggesting or you're imagining or a mix of both is implemented, then the result will be ... um ...
in the coming collapse of this nation
Historically either what I'm actually talking about, or what you're signalling against because you're holier than I am, and those two topics may or may not have much if anything in common, regardless it has never been a nation or civilization ending problem. Civilizations have fallen for a lot of reasons, but not that. Either way, it sounds very "sky is falling". Better to worry about gun control or global warming or ozone holes or Russian hacking or whatever other imaginary boogeymen and things the go bump in the night. Or bad diet, lack of exercise, chemical contaminants, smoking, etc.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 09 2017, @10:25PM
As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Despite this high death toll, mass shootings in America show no sign of disappearing.
This came from the BBC? There are several things to note here. First, between a third and half [theatlantic.com] are due to the War on Drugs. Second, mass shootings killed only 475 [bbc.com] of those people. So why discuss a factor that is responsible for a bit over 4% of gun deaths rather than a factor which is responsible for quite a bit more gun deaths (including some of those mass shootings)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:39AM
> So why discuss a factor that is responsible for a bit over 4% of gun deaths rather than a factor which is responsible for quite a bit more gun deaths (including some of those mass shootings)?
Well, we as a nation have utterly lost our collective shit over terrorists that have killed about 200 civilians over the last 15 years out of more than 210,000 murders.
If less than 0.1% of murders is worth trillion dollar expenditures and constant weekly, if not daily, news coverage, that 4% is surely worth discussing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:43AM
Well, we as a nation have utterly lost our collective shit over terrorists that have killed about 200 civilians over the last 15 years out of more than 210,000 murders.
While I agree that it's an overreaction, we need to remember that low probability risks are the huge problem with modern societies (with terrorism being unusual in having so many parties, both government and terrorists themselves trying to make it look worse than it is, a high rate of terrorism/paramilitary activity is a genuine problem (for example, Iraq and Algeria of recent times had a much higher murder rate than the US), and you're deliberately excluding 9/11 which by itself would add another 3k people (and is far larger than any mass shooting in the US).
You don't want terrorism to get bad enough to justify the cost or to spur paramilitary vigilantism. But most of what's going on now is rather irrelevant to terrorism, such as the TSA gropefest or Bearcat armored vehicles for cops.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Monday January 09 2017, @10:25PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 09 2017, @10:42PM
Why are you so opposed to free speech, jdavidb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:04AM
"Free speech" is not about holding your audience captive.
If one party wishes to have a debate and the other does not, there is no debate. Freedom of Association cuts both ways: association and disassociation.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:52AM
Hey, AC! Come just a little closer! You say you have an opinion on this? Great! Come over here and tell us what it is! So we can grab you and throw you in the loonie bin, as you deserve, you crazy elusive biatch! This is the problem, the crazy has become savvy enough to stay out of the madhouse, and now infect both the Republican party and a large segment of SoylentNews. C'mon, AC! Give us your username! And your real name. Address? Lat und Long? We will have people there to help you in a matter of minutes! The entire point of getting Trump elected is to be able to identify the crazies, before they go all Ft. Lauderdale on us. Just a bit closer, AC! C'mon!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:08AM
Defense against kidnappers is just one of many reasons the Second Amendment was written in plain language in the Bill of "Keep your Damned Hands off these" Rights.
I don't need a stack of deceased criminal stupid cluttering up my porch, which is what I'd get should I give you what you're asking for.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:52PM
Not a large segment, a loud segment.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:22PM
- those who want complete detachment, and is A/C all the way;
- those who want the protection of A/C posting, but have an account such that they can shit-mod their favourite antagonists;
- those who mostly post logged-in, but just occasionally require some shade for posting on a delicate topic.
You shouldn't bundle them all together, they are three different classes of people.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:15AM
Good of you to come right and admit that you require a safespace before you will participate.
We'll get right on that!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:08PM
There are a lot of shitshows I refuse to grace with my presence. The barker at the shitshow ticket stand flinging taunts at me is not likely to encourage me to reconsider.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:28PM
"As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence".
The more, the merrier.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:46PM
There was an interesting article I read years ago, although I can't find it anymore so I'll need to paraphrase it. The idea is that the gun culture and attitude in the US is driven a lot by cultural mythology (read: "stories which are thought to be important," which may or may not be true).
The concept in the US is that, "anybody can be the hero. All it takes is having the right tools at the right time." Look at all of the various hero stories, such as Die Hard, Rocky, Rambo, or even Forrest Gump. An ordinary person (no divine spark, reincarnation of a famous person, or anything "special" outside of grit and determination) who happens to have the right tools can work miracles. Also, note that these are generally individuals.
This was written in contrast with Japanese culture, in which, "true power comes from the chosen few, who are special from birth, and work as a team to get stuff done." This can be seen in things like the sentai [tvtropes.org] type stories (e.g. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Sailor Moon, etc), Naruto, or similar. Only the special chosen few can make a difference ("Harry, you're a wizard"), and they innately have their power rather than it being from an external tool or device. If you give a muggle a wand then at best they'll have kindling.
The love of the gun is one of numerous manifestations of this mythology. The idea is, "if the government goes rogue/communists invade/a burglar tries to violate my spouse/nuclear war happens and society breaks down/whatever, then I and my fellow neighbors can save the day."
I'll also note that the article implicitly assumes that guns are bad and "what could be done to fix those dumb Americans?" For example, in describing why guns are "still number one" in the US they didn't list a single positive reason (e.g. hunting is fun, there are lots of violent crimes and the average wait for police to respond, etc). It would be just as easy to ask, "why are Britains so scared of guns," and end the article, "Why can't Britain change its gun laws?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:54PM
Is that you ESR? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:19PM
The west has tons of stories about special people with a destiny.
Harry Potter
Nearly every superhero -- for example all the X-men are "born that way", superman, wonderwoman, even batman is special because he was born a billiionare
Jesus and half the people in the bible
All the greek and norse myths
Ayn Rand's myth of the uberman
In the east, most kung-fu movie emphasizes their enormous amount of training.
That we don't know about more says more about our cultural literacy than it does about asian mindsets
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:56AM
What, no MacGyver?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hartree on Monday January 09 2017, @10:48PM
I have a number of RKBA types/NRA members as well as a number strongly opposed to gun ownership on my facebook friends list.
The number of gun related posts from those opposed massively outweighs the number from even the most pro gun types.
Obviously, this is just anecdotal and heavily biased by the composition of my FB friends list.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Monday January 09 2017, @11:52PM
It is definitely an ideological thing. I enjoy likening it to borderline religion on both sides. Almost a creepy cult thing.
Personally, I'm mostly in favor of the right to own legal firearms, with very little weasel wording on what "legal" and "firearms" means. I understand myself to be a bit of a rarity on that as I don't actually own a gun and don't see myself getting one in spite of living in a state that has very lenient firearm laws. I don't like illegal firearms, but I understand that no matter what the laws say, illegal firearms can't get more illegal by making legal firearms illegal. Of course, I also like to chuckle at the stories about morons who shoot themselves with their own guns while cleaning them, so I guess banning them would take that pleasure away from me.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:57PM
I have a number of RKBA types/NRA members as well as a number strongly opposed to gun ownership on my facebook friends list.
The number of gun related posts from those opposed massively outweighs the number from even the most pro gun types.
Obviously, this is just anecdotal and heavily biased by the composition of my FB friends list.
This stands to reason. As the anti-establishment by definition needs to raise a fuss and the status quo doesn't. They are the status quo and win by default.
The anti-carbon environmentalists are much louder than the pro-carbon group because most of society doesn't see carbon emission as a problem. 9/11 "truthers" are more vocal as most of society doesn't think there was a substantial conspiracy in the US government for that terrorist attack. Etc.
It's not 100%, but usually the side which is the default winners from no-change are quieter than the ones who are the default losers. This has nothing to do with their obsessiveness and everything to do with what they are trying to achieve.
Gun-owning advocates aren't ecstatic with the current laws, but they can live with them and so don't need to agitate for change. Gun-control advocates are trying to affect change, so they need to be more vocal.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:31PM
That and there are *seeds* for the vocal pro-change group's posts to social media in the newspapers. Is it 7 mass (4+-victim) shootings already this year in the US? A reduction in the number of those seeds would be followed by a reduction in the number of posts, I'm sure.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Monday January 09 2017, @11:42PM
One of the reasons I am so adamant on having a firearm or 3 is the fact that I am located at a point where the soonest emergency response might be 25 minutes if I am lucky. I have an very well stocked first aid kit for the same reason. I was a cop earlier in life and the idea of defending myself is ingrained. I also just plain enjoy target shooting and firearms in general. I think the American attachment to muscle cars is another culturally unique tradition.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:06AM
You have to prove how "manly" you are by the amount of guns you own. Any idiot that thinks they are going to overthrow the government with their AK-47/AR-15 deserve what they get. The U.S. Military will use your house for target practice when you start nonsense. A few mortars through the roof, and then an M-1 Abrams through your front door. Problem solved.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:44AM
I will not disagree there are gun owners out there like that.
Some are interested in the 'sport of it'. They collect them like pokemon cards. They will never use them all.
Others like the 'idea' of it. They are exercising their right.
Others want one for the utility of it. Commit a crime or defense.
Others want to stop those who want to commit a crime of it.
Others fear the 'idea' of it. That there is a device designed to kill.
Others dislike the idea of materialism and hording.
Others dislike the idea of showing off.
Others also like to use the lack of gun ownership to control others. As the idea you can lose a right means you have none. The KKK was very good at its propaganda. It echos on till this day.
Bottom line is it is 'enshrined' in the constitution. The guys who put it there did have an idea or two about brutal regimes. They were both practitioners of it and victims of one. Why did they do that? If you dig into that reason you will have a better idea why it is a good idea to keep it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:50PM
That might work the first time. The trouble with turning your military on the citizens who support and arm it is they tend to stop supporting and arming it, and even begin to fight it. Then you have soldiers in the military who wonder why they're dropping cluster bombs on their cousin's neighborhood in Pittsburgh, and crushing daycares full of children with their tanks. Some of them then find they can't obey those orders, that their commanders are in the wrong and need to go. End result: civil war.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:13AM
Guns were the tools of revolution, and the overthrow of an unjust government. Removing guns from the hands of the people(as would be a violation of the US Constitution) is simply a way to repress them and make sure they can't do anything about whatever injustice is done to them. Guns were guaranteed in the constitution not for some "sporting purpose" nonsense, but as a tool to be used in defence of the people.(Possibly against the government)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by joekiser on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:27AM
The British asking Americans why we need the right to personal self defence is like Saudis asking why we need freedom of religion or North Koreans asking why we need free speech.
In all three cases, it says more about the state of the people asking the question than anything else, and should be properly answered with "Go fuck yourself."
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:32AM
Removing guns from the hands of the people make[s] sure they can't do anything about whatever injustice is done to them.
Oy, weak and cowardly Americans! No wonder they are so easily terrorized! Boo! Little scared American!! So now we see why India is still a British Colony, and it is being forced to Brexit: Gandhi didn't have no guns!!! Free dumbs!! Free dum-dums! Americans!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:24PM
On the contrary - it was the English who were weak. They allowed some ragamuffin of a leader to defeat them with little more than words.
Ghandi? Show of hands: How many are aware that he was really a racist? Or, that he served in South Africa, squashing those horrid black people found there?
"No longer able to pledge allegiance to the British government, Gandhi returned the medals he earned for his military service in South Africa and opposed Britain’s mandatory military draft of Indians to serve in World War I."
http://www.facts4u.co.in/mahatma-gandhi/ [facts4u.co.in]
That knobby headed old dude had some admirable traits, but he wasn't the man portrayed by the media. Ghandi wasn't a pacifist by choice - he used pacifist ways because an unjust foreign occupier denied him weaponry.
"'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Good reading here - http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/2/Kemp184-186.html [vho.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:14AM
"Why are Americans so obsessed with freedom?"
And if you cant understand why on your own, no one will be able to explain it to you.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:28AM
When an army was a band of men months from home fighting with the same tools as the rebels, say in the 1700s, that makes sense.
If $BAD_PRESIDENT decides to send in the militarized police force in (let alone an army of drone warfare) to somewhere like Waco/Malheur/Wherever, what will you do? It's been a long time since owning a private arsenal will protect you from the government.
Even if the bulk of the military didn't get involved and planes and drones were grounded, at most you'd be able to turn the US into Syria.
(Score: 2) by joekiser on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:50PM
What kind of argument is that to take away the right to personal self defense?
The government has supercomputers that can break encryption, and backdoors in everything commercial; should we give up the right to privacy and ban personal encryption keys? Some say yes, and cite the use of encryption by ISIS as justification.
The government controls the narrative and is in bed with the major media networks; should we give up the right to free press and ban smaller publications? Some say yes, and cite the rise of "fake news" and the "alt right" as justification.
Our nation decided a long time ago that 1) it gets its authority from the consent of the governed, 2) the idea that there are certain inalienable rights for all citizens that are intrinsic to being human. The codified right to personal self defense was unique to the United States at the time; eventually, it inspired the UN Charter, Article 51.
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:19PM
What kind of argument is that to take away the right to personal self defense?
It's not, it's an argument that saying having guns is important to fight the government is anachronistic.
cite the use of encryption by ISIS as justification.
ISIS inspired attacks (ISIS barely have a command and control network in the middle east, let alone in the rest of the world) don't use encryption. And your country doesn't believe that human rights are inalienable for all human beings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:18PM
Chris Dorner's botched plan begs to differ (and the Beltway "Snipers", and the Metcalf attacks...). The lady doth protest too much for the "anachronistic" argument to have merit.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:44PM
It seems to me that said drones and weapons are built by Americans, and employed by Americans. If the government chooses to make war on Americans, then said Americans would likely stop building and employing those weapons for the government. I suspect the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina gives us a window into how well the government would handle a turn of events where the citizens actively fight it instead of trying to help it. That is, it would go badly for them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:45PM
If $BAD_PRESIDENT decides to send in the militarized police force in (let alone an army of drone warfare) to somewhere like Waco/Malheur/Wherever, what will you do? It's been a long time since owning a private arsenal will protect you from the government.
Wanna bet?
What'll I do? I'll talk to $RELATIVE_WITH_BETTER_GUNS_AND_TACTICAL_TRAINING_THAN_I, $FRIEND_WHO_I_KNOW_IS_ARMED, $EX_ARMED_FORCES_SQUADMATE, and $RANGE_SHOOTING_BUDDY_ACROSS_TOWN_MORE_ACCURATE_THAN_I. They'll each be talking to three other already Armed folks as well. I think we'll figure out a way to handle the situation. And you'll probably be surprised at the outcome..... just hope that when we're through that you, $UNARMED_LOSER, still have a voice in that order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:52PM
Addition to above: You might think I might die in such an endeavor. And yeah, you'd probably be right.
First, this is all hypothetical anyway.
Second, twenty nine years ago I swore an Oath. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I'm no longer under the direct orders of the President, officers appointed over me, or UCMJ. But you can pretty much believe that if necessary I'll still die to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I still bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
I'm not the only one. And there are more of us than persons in active government service.
We aren't there yet. But we're watching, waiting, and hoping that day will not pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:29PM
Are they? I remember them being happy to have many freedoms removed after 9/11 …
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:41PM
It's more accurate to say people are OK with freedoms being taken away from others, rather than their own freedoms being taken away.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by timbim on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:55AM
Because white Americans have made guns a part of their identity. There's no empathy for anyone as long as you got yours. That's America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:32AM
That's because americans have such small dicks, they must augument them with guns in order to feel confident.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:02AM
This contains no actual news, is off topic for this site, and is irrelevant to the international audience.
Who thought this "story" was a good idea?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:15AM
The gun culture is something to do with people, and SoylentNews is people, so it's on topic.
The rest of the world wants to ensure it keeps avoiding the same mistakes that the US has made so it's good for an international audience.
I used to agree with you, however SN is a cesspit of rightwing political discourse, which I like as it attempts to challenge my own leanings. I go to hackernews for tech stories.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:39PM
Submit more tech stories here, and there will be more tech stories. Comment more with non-rightwing comments, and there will be more balance. You are the solution you're looking for.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Fishscene on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:43PM
I can't recall a topic where most of the replies above my threshold are so useless, Statistically irrelevant, or just plain dumb.
This is an opinion piece. Let's get some real opinions on the matter, shall we?
Here's my reason's why I think we like guns:
- We like to take care of our own. In a land BY the people, FOR the people, WE are the defenders of personal freedom. Anyone who tramples on our freedom to life should expect the their own life to be trampled on. This is true in all kinds of situations, from muggings to bank robberies. The fact that some places (such as California) are trying to make it a crime to exercise your right to life is a bastardization of everything the United States stands for.
- The handling of guns should teach 2 things: Responsibility and respect. Not just for the firearm, but for people in general as well. One of the reasons why we (should) respect police officers is that they are trained to handle escalations all the way to taking a person's life to defend others are protect the freedoms of others. Now imagine if most adults had that same training and/or mentality. Many *do* have this view, but you only hear about them briefly, if at all on the news. They are the unsung heroes who rose to a situation when they could have cowered.
- Guns help equalize power. The "bad guys" are always going to strive to have the upper hand. So yes, they will go to lengths to acquire firearms, knives, shiv's, whatever it takes to get the upper hand. The "good guys"? Yea, lets take away access to things that help them defend.
- We have a history of rebellion against corrupt power. So much so, that we are called to overthrow our own government if need be. When governments are overthrown, it's usually peaceful, with lots of pens, paper, and parades. Oh wait, no, that's not quite right, it takes great acts of courage (however displaced it may be) and blood.
...which brings me to my last point, which I've said before:
Life is dangerous. Safety is NOT guaranteed in any situation. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a hypocrite (they have armed protectors) and doesn't believe the lies they spew from their own mouth, has an agenda to screw people over, or is just plain ignorant of reality and should probably try living outside their safe zone before they advocate for taking away the liberties of good people.
Speaking of good people, there are more "good people" who own firearms than "bad people". If we had a gun problem, we wouldn't have a country. If we had a people problem with guns, we wouldn't have a country either.
So why do we like guns? Because they help equalize power in the hands of "the good guys". It helps with acquisition of food through hunting. It teaches respect, responsibility, and consequences - something many of our leaders, children and adults need to learn. It allows us to have a fighting chance against a tyrannical government if need be. And to be truthful, they're a nice hobby and some are really cool and fun. Some people have a fear of guns - honestly, I don't care. Your fear of something not harming you is no reason to remove my rights to carry in whatever safe fashion I choose. If I fear people who try to take away my rights, does that mean we should remove those people? or stop them from having a voice or opinion on the matter? No!
Also, don't you dare think or twist my words to say killing people is a cool, fun, hobby.
As for mass shootings, I recon there are several factors:
- Lack of love and respect for your fellow man. Entitlement plays a role here.
- People disarming themselves, preventing an adequate response when the danger is at its highest.
- Mass shooters aren't stupid - they know people aren't going to be prepared to respond to them in time.
- Injustice towards the mass shooter before the mass shooting event. ("zero tolerance" and such)
- The best places for a mass shooting are usually the same ones that ban "good people" from defending themselves and others.
- People that teach guns are bad. It creates a kind of black market mentality - which naturally encourages the "good guys" to acquire them and keeps the "bad guys" wary of such things. Err... other way around.
- We have a "justice" system that blames almost anything but the perpetrator. These days, we like to hold guns responsible for mass shootings. We are stupid beyond belief in this regard. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a mass shooter got away scott-free because the gun did the killing - not him. And I equally wouldn't be surprised if he was a US state-actor with an agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @09:19AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/arizona-good-samaritan-kills-man-beating-trooper/ [cnn.com]