Grath wrote:Not ALL gun owners!
Am I the only one seeing this?
Rooty-tooty point and shootys
-
nosimpleway
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
Am I the only one seeing this?
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
nosimpleway wrote:Grath wrote:The people you're talking about are a small, but highly visible, minority of total assdouches
Am I the only one seeing this?
Fixed that for you.
-
MarsDragon
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:30 pm
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
Turns out you can't just apply a cheap meme to every situation, because in the real world we have things like context and nuance.
The internet will now suffer critical cognitive dissonance and self destruct in 3...2...1...
The internet will now suffer critical cognitive dissonance and self destruct in 3...2...1...
-
Bongo Bill
- Imperisaurus Rex
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:23 pm
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
MarsDragon wrote:The internet will now suffer critical cognitive dissonance and self destruct in 3...2...1...
Sorry, I had to intervene to prevent this from happening. I need the internet, I have lost all my survival skills and don't know how to get porn anywhere else.
...but is it art?
-
Mongrel
- Posts: 21332
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
nosimpleway wrote:Grath wrote:Not ALL gun owners!
Am I the only one seeing this?
I don't think it's particularly noteworthy that Grath owns guns?
-
nosimpleway
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
Well no, but Grath seems to be pointing out that the threatened feeling from people in a group to which he does not belong should not feel threatened at all by the group to which he does belong, because he personally dislikes the people who are being threatening. Right?
-
nosimpleway
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm
Re: CHAT DUMP (and Quotes)
All right, I got out of bed for this.
Forget what I said. I was on my phone and not wanting to type out a long response on the shitty keyboard. I wasn't clear. It was a bad move, and Mars might never get all the sand out of her vagina for it.
Here's how I understand it:
There are maniacs who like taking guns into public places and shooting people. That's happening a lot lately. These are Bad Guys.
There are people who carry weapons with them in public places. They do this in response to the threat from aforementioned bad guys. They are allowed to do this by the Constitution. They are the Good Guys with Guns, championed by the NRA.
There are people who, instead of carrying weapons in self-defense, carry weapons as a political statement, to thumb their noses at a government they fear will try to take their guns from them. As a part of this political statement, they act like Complete Jackasses. No one is arguing this point.
From the viewpoint of people who are not a Bad Guy, a Good Guy, or a Complete Jackass: there's no distinction between the three groups. It doesn't matter whether they're carrying handguns or longarms, automatic or single-shot, concealed or open. There are People With Guns, and they are Scary, because there's no telling whether they are going to Shoot You.
This is aside from whether or not Bad Guys are deterred by Good Guys or Complete Jackasses in the first place, or the chance of Good Guys and Complete Jackasses shooting each other in the panic and confusion caused by a Bad Guy going on a rampage, or any of the other arguments against public carry. Or Stand Your Ground, which is a whole new can of worms. The people you hate are a small, extremely visible group of assdouches, but as far as anyone knows, you're one of them too!
(It may be topical to point out that the Aurora theater shooting happened eight miles from where I live. This is the kind of thing people talk about here.)
Forget what I said. I was on my phone and not wanting to type out a long response on the shitty keyboard. I wasn't clear. It was a bad move, and Mars might never get all the sand out of her vagina for it.
Here's how I understand it:
There are maniacs who like taking guns into public places and shooting people. That's happening a lot lately. These are Bad Guys.
There are people who carry weapons with them in public places. They do this in response to the threat from aforementioned bad guys. They are allowed to do this by the Constitution. They are the Good Guys with Guns, championed by the NRA.
There are people who, instead of carrying weapons in self-defense, carry weapons as a political statement, to thumb their noses at a government they fear will try to take their guns from them. As a part of this political statement, they act like Complete Jackasses. No one is arguing this point.
From the viewpoint of people who are not a Bad Guy, a Good Guy, or a Complete Jackass: there's no distinction between the three groups. It doesn't matter whether they're carrying handguns or longarms, automatic or single-shot, concealed or open. There are People With Guns, and they are Scary, because there's no telling whether they are going to Shoot You.
This is aside from whether or not Bad Guys are deterred by Good Guys or Complete Jackasses in the first place, or the chance of Good Guys and Complete Jackasses shooting each other in the panic and confusion caused by a Bad Guy going on a rampage, or any of the other arguments against public carry. Or Stand Your Ground, which is a whole new can of worms. The people you hate are a small, extremely visible group of assdouches, but as far as anyone knows, you're one of them too!
(It may be topical to point out that the Aurora theater shooting happened eight miles from where I live. This is the kind of thing people talk about here.)
Re: GUNS
nosimpleway wrote:Here's how I understand it:
There are maniacs who like taking guns into public places and shooting people. That's happening a lot lately. These are Bad Guys.
Would it surprise you to hear that gun crime is down something like 12% over the past ten years? (Approximately - I don't remember the exact stat.) Gun crime reporting is up, so people think it's getting worse while it's actually getting better.
nosimpleway wrote:This is aside from whether or not Bad Guys are deterred by Good Guys or Complete Jackasses in the first place, or the chance of Good Guys and Complete Jackasses shooting each other in the panic and confusion caused by a Bad Guy going on a rampage, or any of the other arguments against public carry. Or Stand Your Ground, which is a whole new can of worms. The people you hate are a small, extremely visible group of assdouches, but as far as anyone knows, you're one of them too!
I own two guns: a 22lr rifle (suitably weak for children to use/when used for hunting, you hunt rabbits and squirrels with it) and the other is a four-foot long 8.8 pound bolt-action with a non detachable 5-round magazine that uses all of the latest technology from when it was designed in 1891. I don't carry (although I am looking into a concealed carry permit, because that's the only way to own handguns in New York State,) my guns a are stored unloaded with a lock through the action. There are plenty of gun owners who don't carry publicly, and their guns are only for home defense and/or sport shooting/collecting.
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Now that it's gotten more talky, I almost agree with R^2 more.
I mean, part of the point of belittling the defense "not all men" is that it's a red herring when talking about the continuing problem sexism against women/rape culture/etc. "Not all gun owners!" Is a somewhat reasonable interjection into a discussion about gun violence and controls.
The problem is that at the end of the day, gun owners are a prerequisite for gun violence. It's never a question of how responsible gun owners are, or how very few of them believe this to be the "old west". The question is what amount of violence do we feel comfortable enabling to protect access to firearms?
Remember: another reason to disparage the "not all men" nonsense is that the banal interjection attempts to carve out an exception for someone the speaker cares about in a discussion of unsettling shit. To try and explain why whatever the person they care about is different to these people causing the problem and minimize that person's contribution to the problem. As someone who supports firearm access of any kind, you are tacitly saying that access is worth whatever increase in firearm violence it can be linked to (which some case studies have suggested is a lot?). There's no magic, perfect control to firearm access. Any scheme chosen (that does anything, anyway) is going to cause some change in the amount of gun violence we see, and it's irresponsible to support access without also owning up to that violence.
We may not have been responsible for the Aurora shooting, but its victims died because our firearm access was protected.
I don't think you're trying to say "not all gun owners", but I hope you can see how trying to assuage someone that these open carry demonstrators are unpopular, unliked and mostly imagining wider support could sound like one of those cowardly dodges. I also hope you can see that it's not super reassuring when a prominent political organization like the NRA seems to agree with them.
As an addendum:
iirc, back in the late 90's, a source I read suggested that illegal arms sales were negligible to the rolls of violent crimes involving firearms. What we're looking at is a system where "All gun owners" is a superset of the set of "people with guns" that R^2 is concerned about. Grath, but for the fact he is not an assdouche, is much closer to being the kind of assdouche R^2 is preoccupied with than R^2 himself is. No matter what we might conclude about R^2's assdouchey levels. The same is true for more immediate firearm violence.
I mean, part of the point of belittling the defense "not all men" is that it's a red herring when talking about the continuing problem sexism against women/rape culture/etc. "Not all gun owners!" Is a somewhat reasonable interjection into a discussion about gun violence and controls.
The problem is that at the end of the day, gun owners are a prerequisite for gun violence. It's never a question of how responsible gun owners are, or how very few of them believe this to be the "old west". The question is what amount of violence do we feel comfortable enabling to protect access to firearms?
Remember: another reason to disparage the "not all men" nonsense is that the banal interjection attempts to carve out an exception for someone the speaker cares about in a discussion of unsettling shit. To try and explain why whatever the person they care about is different to these people causing the problem and minimize that person's contribution to the problem. As someone who supports firearm access of any kind, you are tacitly saying that access is worth whatever increase in firearm violence it can be linked to (which some case studies have suggested is a lot?). There's no magic, perfect control to firearm access. Any scheme chosen (that does anything, anyway) is going to cause some change in the amount of gun violence we see, and it's irresponsible to support access without also owning up to that violence.
We may not have been responsible for the Aurora shooting, but its victims died because our firearm access was protected.
I don't think you're trying to say "not all gun owners", but I hope you can see how trying to assuage someone that these open carry demonstrators are unpopular, unliked and mostly imagining wider support could sound like one of those cowardly dodges. I also hope you can see that it's not super reassuring when a prominent political organization like the NRA seems to agree with them.
As an addendum:
iirc, back in the late 90's, a source I read suggested that illegal arms sales were negligible to the rolls of violent crimes involving firearms. What we're looking at is a system where "All gun owners" is a superset of the set of "people with guns" that R^2 is concerned about. Grath, but for the fact he is not an assdouche, is much closer to being the kind of assdouche R^2 is preoccupied with than R^2 himself is. No matter what we might conclude about R^2's assdouchey levels. The same is true for more immediate firearm violence.
-
nosimpleway
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Well, it probably doesn't help much that there are at least three subjects going on in this thread. One is that 'assault rifle' is a meaningless term, okay sure. Another is about the legality and ethics of private gun ownership, such as Garth's locked-up-and-not-loaded rifles. I've got no argument with that either, I've got friends who are also responsible collectors/hunters. The only counter-consideration I I have to that is the oft-debated old saw that guns in your house for home defense are more likely to end in the injury or death of your own loved ones than any home invader.
The bit I latched onto was Garth's complaint that second-Amendment militants, the Complete Jackasses mentioned above, are doing more harm than good by being obnoxiously loud in their declaration of their right to carry publicly. To this my response is: there is no war for public opinion, because if you're carrying in public you've already made the decision that today you might need a device designed to explode hunks of metal at people until they die. That's something that scares the normals, no matter what your reason for carrying actually is.
(I think I got all the typos and autocorrect fuckups. You see why I tend to limit myself to easily-misconstrued flippant comments on my phone?)
The bit I latched onto was Garth's complaint that second-Amendment militants, the Complete Jackasses mentioned above, are doing more harm than good by being obnoxiously loud in their declaration of their right to carry publicly. To this my response is: there is no war for public opinion, because if you're carrying in public you've already made the decision that today you might need a device designed to explode hunks of metal at people until they die. That's something that scares the normals, no matter what your reason for carrying actually is.
(I think I got all the typos and autocorrect fuckups. You see why I tend to limit myself to easily-misconstrued flippant comments on my phone?)
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Classic wrote:I don't think you're trying to say "not all gun owners", but I hope you can see how trying to assuage someone that these open carry demonstrators are unpopular, unliked and mostly imagining wider support could sound like one of those cowardly dodges. I also hope you can see that it's not super reassuring when a prominent political organization like the NRA seems to agree with them.
The NRA wrote:These open carry demonstrations are "weird" and "downright scary".
nosimpleway wrote:One is that 'assault rifle' is a meaningless term, okay sure.
Assault Rifle is a very meaningful term. An assault rifle is an individual, shoulder-fired weapon, which is select fire, firing intermediate cartridges (less power than traditional full-size rifle cartridges, such as .223 / 5.56 versus traditional .30-06, .308, etc) out of a detachable magazine.
Assault WEAPON means "It looks scary and we want to confuse people into thinking that we're banning machine guns when we're just banning cosmetic features".
See this image for a graphical example of what exactly an assault rifle means. See also this image for two AR-15s: The one on top is an assault weapon in New York State, the one below isn't. The essential functional parts are identical.
-
nosimpleway
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Yeah, that's what I meant. Assault weapon. I can't even blame that one on my phone.
-
Mongrel
- Posts: 21332
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
I think that's probably enough about the semantic argument over "assault [term]". To be quite honest, I've seen that come up in detail many times elsewhere and didn't think it would be much of an issue here, but hey.
It's not that it's not relevant, but it IS something of a sidetrack and is usually used by firearm owners as a "gotcha" distraction move during arguments over gun rights (Grath, I am not saying you're doing that - you were clearly only correcting a definition error and treated that as it's own smaller point).
If we're going to discuss this, I think we're all civil enough with each other that we can agree to at least let the usual red herrings slide.
It's not that it's not relevant, but it IS something of a sidetrack and is usually used by firearm owners as a "gotcha" distraction move during arguments over gun rights (Grath, I am not saying you're doing that - you were clearly only correcting a definition error and treated that as it's own smaller point).
If we're going to discuss this, I think we're all civil enough with each other that we can agree to at least let the usual red herrings slide.
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Grath wrote:The NRA wrote:These open carry demonstrations are "weird" and "downright scary".
The Houston Chronicle wrote:The head of the NRA's lobbying arm said Wednesday that the gun rights organization should not have called open carry advocates in Texas "weird" and "scary" for holding demonstrations in which they carry automatic rifles into restaurants and other public places.
"An alert went out that referred to this type of behavior as weird or somehow not normal and that was a mistake," said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. "It should not have happened. I've had a discussion with the staffer that wrote that piece and expressed his personal opinion."
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Grath wrote:Classic wrote:I don't think you're trying to say "not all gun owners", but I hope you can see how trying to assuage someone that these open carry demonstrators are unpopular, unliked and mostly imagining wider support could sound like one of those cowardly dodges. I also hope you can see that it's not super reassuring when a prominent political organization like the NRA seems to agree with them.
These open carry demonstrations are "weird" and "downright scary".
Except that's apparently not the official stance (anymore)?
CBSNews wrote:NRA official: Shaming open-carry Texas gun groups was "a mistake"
In fact, I can't find the words you've quoted on the page you've linked, instead I find this:
The NRA wrote:"Unequivocally, we support open carry. We've been the leader of open carry efforts across this country."
Of course, this is a red herring side topic to this discussion. And what the NRA thinks is crazy by the estimation of a slight majority of firearms owners. So I don't have any idea why you'd bother trying to defend the NRA on this one.
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Can I just briefly mention that I love the title of this thread
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
NO SIDE TOPICS!!!!
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Mothra wrote:Can I just briefly mention that I love the title of this thread
You're welcome. I figured it fit with the general naming conventions on this forum better than the original split topic title of "GUNS".
Mongrel wrote:I think that's probably enough about the semantic argument over "assault [term]". To be quite honest, I've seen that come up in detail many times elsewhere and didn't think it would be much of an issue here, but hey.
It's not that it's not relevant, but it IS something of a sidetrack and is usually used by firearm owners as a "gotcha" distraction move during arguments over gun rights (Grath, I am not saying you're doing that - you were clearly only correcting a definition error and treated that as it's own smaller point).
If we're going to discuss this, I think we're all civil enough with each other that we can agree to at least let the usual red herrings slide.
Fair enough.
Classic wrote:So I don't have any idea why you'd bother trying to defend the NRA on this one.
I wasn't trying to defend the NRA - I had just remembered hearing that even the NRA (who are indeed towards the extreme end already) had said these guys were whackjobs, and didn't see the update yet where they backpedaled.
-
beatbandito
- Posts: 4305
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:04 am
Re: Rooty-tooty point and shootys
Keeping my input to a minimum since my opinion-laden rants can only add to the side topics.
I am still interested in hearing Grath's thoughts on R^2's actual statements on open carry though. Not that some gun owners are totally responsible with their weaponry, not that even (some) members of the NRA think there are kooks out there, but the fact that no matter the reason or mindset of the person taking advantage of open-carry every other human being that sees them only sees a person that chose to carry an item that is used for killing. That is, can be, and should be terrifying.
I am still interested in hearing Grath's thoughts on R^2's actual statements on open carry though. Not that some gun owners are totally responsible with their weaponry, not that even (some) members of the NRA think there are kooks out there, but the fact that no matter the reason or mindset of the person taking advantage of open-carry every other human being that sees them only sees a person that chose to carry an item that is used for killing. That is, can be, and should be terrifying.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Mongrel and 14 guests