Rooty-tooty point and shootys

[Mongrel]

Actual screenshot from Fox News:

[Grath]

Surprisingly reasonable proposal, focusing on root causes of violence (domestic violence, crisis intervention) and a handful of things that generally aren't the problem but aren't good ideas anyways (the "gun show loophole" where people who are routinely selling guns will need to be licensed dealers who are mandated to do background checks) while not doing things that have no impact except pissing off legal gun owners making them more resistant to all gun control (assault-weapon bans.)

[Mongrel]

I agree with the point several people have made, which is that any progress is progress, and often leads to more progress.

Like, just getting the GOP to break the absolute dead refusal to pass *literally anything* which could be perceived as anti-gun is an achievement.

[Thad]

Like, just getting the GOP to break the absolute dead refusal to pass *literally anything* which could be perceived as anti-gun is an achievement.

I'm gonna wait until they actually achieve something before I celebrate.

[Mongrel]

Fair. Saying they'll pass it and actually passing it are two separate things.

But so far it seems like they have the senators they need on board.

[Mongrel]

Just a small thing from the apprehension of Abe's assassin, but this picture of the assassin being grabbed by one of Abe's security detail really struck me. (not linking directly for obvious reasons, though Abe's not in the image)

It's just an amazing image. The agent's suit is flapping open to nearly perfectly reveal that he's armed, yet not only is his gun is still holstered, he didn't even bother to unbutton the strap.

I get that the assassin is already in the midst of dropping his homemade gun, but it seems like even in countries where gun violence is low, laws are stringent, and the authorities aren't always armed, this is still wild to see. If there's ever a time to legitimately draw a gun, seems like standing next to an active assassin who might still have explosives or other weapons would be it.

I don't mean this as either a positive or negative comment on Japanese society, it's just fascinating to see see such an incredible photo showing such clear example of a seemingly (to us western dorks) superhuman level of restraint.

I suppose other members of the security detail might have been in the process of pulling out their guns (or not) and this guy just lunged since he was so physically close that tackling the guy was clearly quicker than trying to draw his gun, and he's taking this huge personal risk because that's his job. In that respect, his actions are perfectly sensible, heroic even. Maybe just seeing that level of dedication and courage feels unexpected to me.

Anyway, that's certainly a candidate photo for the World Press Awards photojournalism competition.

[Grath]

Moving this to the correct thread.

I agree, and improving society to have less right-wing terrorists means having less guns.

I don't believe that access to guns actually has a correlation to the number of right-wing terrorists, unless you have a source to cite on that which addresses how Switzerland's able to have (in some cases outright more than the US) access to guns with basically no right-wing terrorist problem. Also just to be clear, I'm not saying that all gun control is bad and useless - actually taking domestic violence seriously and closing loopholes around it would disarm most to all mass shooters (and 40+% of cops, if you can also address the Blue Wall of Silence), while not substantially impacting law-abiding citizens.

[KingRoyal]

This isn't a debate about reducing right-wing terrorists, we're already on agreement there. This is about reducing gun violence, which kills Black people disproportionate to their rate in the population

Also just to be clear, I'm not saying that all gun control is bad and useless

Great, then we're in agreement, so let's discuss things that are effective, such as limiting the manufacture and sale of certain types of weapons, restricting ammo access to gun clubs, red flag laws and things we can do to actually lower the amount of gun violence without restricting people's rights to bear arms.

[Upthorn]

I agree, and improving society to have less right-wing terrorists means having less guns.

I think having less guns in circulation is a consequence of having less right-wing terrorists -- if right-wingers don't want to do terrorism, they won't buy guns.

I also think that having less guns in circulation is a good stop-gap measure to having less right-wing terrorism -- if right-wingers can't easily get guns to do their terrorism, they are less likely to do terrorism.

What Grath is pointing out is that, historically, and presently, police don't enforce laws when they don't feel like it. And they generally don't feel like stopping right-wing terrorists from doing right-wing terrorism. And it ain't fucking matter what kind of laws we got on the books if nobody's actually enforcing them against the people they need to be enforced against.

So, like, while this problem is super easy to solve under the demonstrably false assumption that "laws are universally enforced," the fact that cops don't cop people who like cops really throws a huge fucking wrench into the works. So like, given that cops love gun lovers, cops love white people, and cops love right-wing extremists, how you gonna write a law that actually prevents guns from getting into the hands of gun-loving white right-wing extremists?

Maybe if we could somehow reverse the post-9/11 style realignment of FBI priorities, so they were focused on political and business corruption, and we did ammo-control laws aimed at the manufacturers and sellers, we could see some actual progress towards reducing terrorist mass-shooting incidents? But that's a hugely unrealistic scenario.

Maybe if the public perception were to shift so that, y'know, people thought of "mass shootings" as "terrorism", the police might be more inclined to stop these fucking terrorists? But probably we'd just see the FBI running their entrapment scams on white guys instead.

[Mongrel]

FWIW, Switzerland being INCREDIBLY WHITE and (arguably more importantly for this particular comparison) having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, might not be the best example of a society that can get along fine with huge numbers of guns.

I wasn't even going to bother saying anything, but my thought process basically went:

"Well, that doesn't matter, surely there's other examples... wait... uh... there's Canada? But we have right-wing white terrorists and mass shooting too, just on a lesser scale. I guess there's Finland? ... but wait they're even more white and homogeneous than Switzerland and they stay armed because RUSSIA... Well, there's... uh...

Hm."

Which isn't to say it's not possible for a country to have reasonable and healthy gun ownership, but that this may be impossible past a certain (high) per-capita saturation point. But then it's chicken-and-egg about that saturation being a symptom or cause. I'd agree with Grath that that's more likely a symptom given what we know.

But who knows, maybe past it certain point that also just doesn't matter because



only with guns.

[Mongrel]

Incidentally, I always thought those were cabbages.

[Cait]

So like, given that cops love gun lovers, cops love white people, and cops love right-wing extremists, how you gonna write a law that actually prevents guns from getting into the hands of gun-loving white right-wing extremists?

Cops ARE the gun-loving white right-wing extremists. They're the first people who should have regulated and restricted access to firearms.

[Grath]

This isn't a debate about reducing right-wing terrorists, we're already on agreement there.

Well, your sentence read like "reduce access to guns to directly reduce right-wing terrorists" to me. I may have been mistaken.

such as limiting the manufacture and sale of certain types of weapons

Please elaborate what regulations you think are actually effective here, because "Assault Weapon" bans are not among them. Neither of these are Assault Weapons under at least most Assault Weapon bans, despite sharing substantial parts compatibility with conventional AR-15s. The left one is exactly as lethal as any other standard-caliber AR-15 and has no limitations that make it worse for shooting lots of ammo beyond some slightly awkward ergonomics on reloading, but because it's missing any of the "military-style" features which New York bans it's not an Assault Weapon. The one on the right can be the Fallout: New Vegas Service Rifle (minus one of the US military's dumber ideas...) because it has a non-detachable magazine which exempts it from New York's Assault Weapon ban. Assault Weapon bans are just an exercise in "what's the loophole this time?" - California's handgun roster has fostered a thriving market in otherwise-illegal-to-buy guns that police officers are allowed to buy which they then re-sell (at substantial mark-up for thousands of dollars of profit) to the extent that they've had to actually implement policy restrictions on how many times cops can do that per year.

restricting ammo access to gun clubs,

Does restrict people's rights to bear arms, as the right-wingers will have access to arms/ammo and the cops will be minutes away when seconds count, unconcerned with your safety, and/or the direct threat to your safety.

red flag laws

The only problem with these are that the implementations tend to lack any due process on how to restore rights in the event of people who aren't actually presenting a danger.

and things we can do to actually lower the amount of gun violence without restricting people's rights to bear arms.

I agree, we should fix the social safety net, stop harassing women and non-cishet people, reduce income inequality, and teach children to respect each other and handle conflict in healthy manners.

FWIW, Switzerland being INCREDIBLY WHITE and (arguably more importantly for this particular comparison) having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, might not be the best example of a society that can get along fine with huge numbers of guns.

Which is why I'm advocating for addressing income inequality as one of the ways we could reduce violence, gun and otherwise. Because a gun-free America isn't possible, even if you could legally ban all the guns. If you could match Australia's pace on confiscating guns (which I would doubt, between cops not cooperating, dramatically increased right-wing terrorist activity, and "oh, I lost it in a boating accident" in response to the government actually coming to take their guns) you'd spend a decade just on AR-15s.

[Mongrel]

Just ONE decade?

Heh, yeah nah. Confiscation in the US will not happen in our lifetimes*.

*Barring a fascist coup. Which,

[Upthorn]

So like, given that cops love gun lovers, cops love white people, and cops love right-wing extremists, how you gonna write a law that actually prevents guns from getting into the hands of gun-loving white right-wing extremists?

Cops ARE the gun-loving white right-wing extremists. They're the first people who should have regulated and restricted access to firearms.

I agree with you on that 100%. But like, police are also the ones who enforce regulations and restrictions, so... like... how?

[Mongrel]

Replace them. It's time to question the existence of police as we know them.

It's time. It's long past time.

Maybe we'll still have an organization we refer to as "police" afterwards, but it should look almost nothing like what it does now.

[beatbandito]

Remember that time DeBlasio said maybe there should be a little less stop & frisk in NYC, so the entire NYPD made a public statement that they were going to stop doing their jobs, all turned away from the mayor in unison at a speech, while making threats towards him online, and the chief of police doxxed his daughter saying he hoped nothing happened to her while the police were doing nothing since they're not allowed to assault black teens in the street?

Yeah anyway we should just replace them, it'd be easy.

[KingRoyal]

This isn't a debate about reducing right-wing terrorists, we're already on agreement there.

Well, your sentence read like "reduce access to guns to directly reduce right-wing terrorists" to me. I may have been mistaken.

such as limiting the manufacture and sale of certain types of weapons

Please elaborate what regulations you think are actually effective here, because "Assault Weapon" bans are not among them. Neither of these are Assault Weapons under at least most Assault Weapon bans, despite sharing substantial parts compatibility with conventional AR-15s. The left one is exactly as lethal as any other standard-caliber AR-15 and has no limitations that make it worse for shooting lots of ammo beyond some slightly awkward ergonomics on reloading, but because it's missing any of the "military-style" features which New York bans it's not an Assault Weapon. The one on the right can be the Fallout: New Vegas Service Rifle (minus one of the US military's dumber ideas...) because it has a non-detachable magazine which exempts it from New York's Assault Weapon ban. Assault Weapon bans are just an exercise in "what's the loophole this time?" - California's handgun roster has fostered a thriving market in otherwise-illegal-to-buy guns that police officers are allowed to buy which they then re-sell (at substantial mark-up for thousands of dollars of profit) to the extent that they've had to actually implement policy restrictions on how many times cops can do that per year.

I'm glad you asked, instead the regulation would dictate the type of features that are legal to sell, not to try and ban certain types of guns. Note: The right to bear arms would not be restricted since people would still have access to arms

restricting ammo access to gun clubs,

Does restrict people's rights to bear arms, as the right-wingers will have access to arms/ammo and the cops will be minutes away when seconds count, unconcerned with your safety, and/or the direct threat to your safety.

You keep throwing the threat of PoC being killed as some anti-gun control argument, while ignoring that right now Black people are baring the brunt of gun violence, even with unrestricted access to guns. The only thing the current system does is help right-wing terrorists to easily be able to get more guns. If you truly think right-wing terrorism is a threat, why do you keep advocating for them to have exactly what they want?

red flag laws

The only problem with these are that the implementations tend to lack any due process on how to restore rights in the event of people who aren't actually presenting a danger.

Okay, then we agree. The issue of how to appeal is a serious one but beyond the scope of the current conversation.

and things we can do to actually lower the amount of gun violence without restricting people's rights to bear arms.

I agree, we should fix the social safety net, stop harassing women and non-cishet people, reduce income inequality, and teach children to respect each other and handle conflict in healthy manners.

Fixing society to get rid of violence is not only a more expensive but a much longer solution to gun violence. And I'm all for it, let's do that. In the meantime, we should focus on the much easier and simpler goal of reducing the amount of guns and how easy it is to acquire and shoot them in public.

FWIW, Switzerland being INCREDIBLY WHITE and (arguably more importantly for this particular comparison) having one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, might not be the best example of a society that can get along fine with huge numbers of guns.

Which is why I'm advocating for addressing income inequality as one of the ways we could reduce violence, gun and otherwise. Because a gun-free America isn't possible, even if you could legally ban all the guns. If you could match Australia's pace on confiscating guns (which I would doubt, between cops not cooperating, dramatically increased right-wing terrorist activity, and "oh, I lost it in a boating accident" in response to the government actually coming to take their guns) you'd spend a decade just on AR-15s.

I'm not sure what country it is where you seem to think fixing income inequality is somehow easier than just restricting gun manufacture and sale, or making people account for the ammo they get from gun clubs. You keep saying, "I'm not against gun control, but..." and then attempt to shut down any conversation about gun control. People losing their lives en masse to gun violence is a greater loss of freedom than not being able to buy high powered rifles with large magazines.

And frankly, I'm sick of these pro-gun arguments. You have the world you're advocating for right now. Guns flow freely, there's no regulations, there's no wait times, people can buy as much as they want and you see the results. Gun violence is the number one killer of children in this country, Black people (and, the indigenous as well) are way more likely to be the victims of gun violence than their percentage of the population would suggest. You won, you got what you wanted. Does a world with more guns than people seem better to you?

[Grath]

I'm glad you asked, instead the regulation would dictate the type of features that are legal to sell, not to try and ban certain types of guns. Note: The right to bear arms would not be restricted since people would still have access to arms

Please define "the type of features" that you would like to ban, and how it would actually have any effect. Assault weapon bans are usually phrased as banning features, rather than specific models. New York has one of the stricter "type of features" bans in the country, and it did nothing to stop the Buffalo shooter from illegally modifying his gun after purchase. (SCOTUS has told lower courts to reconsider upholding assault weapon bans and magazine capacity limits as of June 30th, indicating that they're likely to be thrown out as unconstitutional if/when those cases make it back to SCOTUS.)

You keep throwing the threat of PoC being killed as some anti-gun control argument, while ignoring that right now Black people are baring the brunt of gun violence, even with unrestricted access to guns. The only thing the current system does is help right-wing terrorists to easily be able to get more guns. If you truly think right-wing terrorism is a threat, why do you keep advocating for them to have exactly what they want?

I'm reminding you that right-wing terrorists are going to have access to guns either way (because they're white and not broke, or they just get a job as a cop where they get exemptions from all gun control and as a bonus their crimes get swept under the rug) and asking how preventing their targets from having access to force helps.

Fixing society to get rid of violence is not only a more expensive but a much longer solution to gun violence. And I'm all for it, let's do that. In the meantime, we should focus on the much easier and simpler goal of reducing the amount of guns and how easy it is to acquire and shoot them in public.

I'm not sure what country it is where you seem to think fixing income inequality is somehow easier than just restricting gun manufacture and sale, or making people account for the ammo they get from gun clubs. You keep saying, "I'm not against gun control, but..." and then attempt to shut down any conversation about gun control. People losing their lives en masse to gun violence is a greater loss of freedom than not being able to buy high powered rifles with large magazines.

And frankly, I'm sick of these pro-gun arguments. You have the world you're advocating for right now. Guns flow freely, there's no regulations, there's no wait times, people can buy as much as they want and you see the results. Gun violence is the number one killer of children in this country, Black people (and, the indigenous as well) are way more likely to be the victims of gun violence than their percentage of the population would suggest. You won, you got what you wanted. Does a world with more guns than people seem better to you?

I'm not sure what America it is where you think that substantially reducing the amount of guns is a practical possibility within our lifetimes, particularly given the recent ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Even if you could de-Calvinball-law SCOTUS and get them to reverse NYSRPA v. Bruen and DC v. Heller today, you'd be looking at probably a decade of work just to confiscate AR-15s if you didn't touch any other model of firearm. I'm advocating for the difficult but actually possible remedy, which as a bonus addresses the underlying causes of the violence especially the 2/3rds of gun violence which is suicide rather than homicide, rather than fucking around with laws that drive Republican voter turnout up and then get thrown out by SCOTUS.

[KingRoyal]

Please define "the type of features" that you would like to ban, and how it would actually have any effect. Assault weapon bans are usually phrased as banning features, rather than specific models. New York has one of the stricter "type of features" bans in the country, and it did nothing to stop the Buffalo shooter from illegally modifying his gun after purchase. (SCOTUS has told lower courts to reconsider upholding assault weapon bans and magazine capacity limits as of June 30th, indicating that they're likely to be thrown out as unconstitutional if/when those cases make it back to SCOTUS.)

Sure then, ban specific models. Whatever makes you happy. Just make sure manufacturers federally can't make certain weapons or specific features, and that retailers can't sell them either. Or if you prefer, why don't you help on this one? You said you support gun control, help me understand what it would take to keep magazine sizes small and for weapons to not be able to kill 19 children in about a minute

I'm reminding you that right-wing terrorists are going to have access to guns either way (because they're white and not broke, or they just get a job as a cop where they get exemptions from all gun control and as a bonus their crimes get swept under the rug) and asking how preventing their targets from having access to force helps.

I'm talking about more than just right-wing terrorism, since gun violence overall isn't a product of that.

The targets of right-wing violence already have easy access to guns and they are currently also the highest victim rates of gun violence. When Black People are actually asked about, they prioritize gun violence as a real problem.

And you repeatedly ignore that women are victims of gun violence as targets of domestic violence, which isn't a right-wing terrorism issue. The highest killer of children is gun violence, and that has nothing to do with right-wing terrorism. RIght-wing terrorism is one threat, and it is made worse by our lack of gun control.

I'm not sure what America it is where you think that substantially reducing the amount of guns is a practical possibility within our lifetimes, particularly given the recent ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Even if you could de-Calvinball-law SCOTUS and get them to reverse NYSRPA v. Bruen and DC v. Heller today, you'd be looking at probably a decade of work just to confiscate AR-15s if you didn't touch any other model of firearm. I'm advocating for the difficult but actually possible remedy, which as a bonus addresses the underlying causes of the violence especially the 2/3rds of gun violence which is suicide rather than homicide, rather than fucking around with laws that drive Republican voter turnout up and then get thrown out by SCOTUS.

In what America is fixing income inequality actually more feasible than gun control? Remember, the last president to actually sign gun control legislation gutted welfare, and it's been drastic cuts to all services since then. Not only does it seem unlikely that any meaningful changes to income equality would be passed under this regime, even if some did make their way through, it would take years before such societal change would be felt.

In the meantime, buying back guns, restricting the manufacturer and sale of new ones, restricting and accounting for ammo, and proper background checks and waiting periods would do a lot to reduce gun violence. It's effective in other countries, it'll work here