2nd amendment discussion + taking tweets to task (Split from news thread)

[Icelandic]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

A Democratic representative from California threatening to nuke it's own citizens for the sake of gun control. The fact that Democratic politicians can say this kinda crap and no one cares is insane.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21

^The tweet straight from the source.^

[Beorning]

Well, from I see, it's his interlocutor that threatened war with the government... Still, a stupid thing to say from a politician.

On another hand - when will this American obsession with right to bear arms end? As a non-American, I honestly wonder: how many more mass shootings do US government and the US citizens en masse need to understand that the American laws regarding arms are too lax?

[Shekinah]

Well, from I see, it's his interlocutor that threatened war with the government... Still, a stupid thing to say from a politician.

On another hand - when will this American obsession with right to bear arms end? As a non-American, I honestly wonder: how many more mass shootings do US government and the US citizens en masse need to understand that the American laws regarding arms are too lax?

Agree with that, they threaten to start a war if they even try to touch their guns.
The representatives reaction wasn't smart to it at all.
Though also have to read further on where he says it was sarcasm and person reacts to it with;

Eric, I get that your use of "nukes" was sarcasm, and, yep, twitter doesn't do nuance.

But understand how many of us gun clinging Americans recoil at the word "confiscation" and will do whatever we have to do to defend our guns against a government that would take them. Thanks

The fact that they recoil at the word confiscation and actually threaten to whatever we have to defend our guns, makes me more scared.

Like Beorning says, as a non-American I also don't understand why some Americans need to have a gun. And don't tell me you need it to be safe. because if you need a gun to feel/be safe, then there are bigger issues that need handling.

But yeah that's just my opinion and it probably is completely different compared to someone raised in America itself.

[RedRose]

I understand it being legal in (parts of) America.
I don't understand how it became a right as opposed to just being legal if you are found fit for owning a gun.
I'm familiar with a few other countries where you can own a gun. It's not easy peasy and perhaps because of that the shootings are very rare. People I know there also do not worship their guns. It's a responsibility more than a right. Heck, I've had relatives who legally (or not…) had a gun for various reason from their job, to their personal history. In most cases I didn't even KNOW. My dad who is pro gun enough to teach me to shoot as a kid, never wanted me to know he owned one at home.

[Regina Minx]

As a non-American, I honestly wonder: how many more mass shootings do US government and the US citizens en masse need to understand that the American laws regarding arms are too lax?

After Sandy Hook, I realized something. We saw 20 dead children as the result of a mass shooter, and we did nothing to prevent the next mass shooting after that. It’s not that Americans don’t understand that our gun laws are too lax. It’s that we’ve decided that cost of free and ready access to these things is worth the occaisional school full of dead children.

[Tolvo]

I'm gonna be honest, I think Sandy Hook is actually the worst defense of Gun Control. Because the level of gun control that would have been required to ensure that didn't happen would have been very extreme. Lots of other shootings could have been prevented with even more moderate gun control, but Sandy Hook was nearly unpreventable. The only real better bet would have been better healthcare, because the gun control required to prevent it would be not allowing guns in the house of anyone who has any mental illness or mental disorder. And most shootings are done by people without mental illnesses or disorders. While with better healthcare there would have been more warning signs to pick up on if he was in therapy or seeing a regular doctor and perhaps with better treatment he would not have gone on his shooting spree.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/authorities-find-rocket-launcher-pipe-bomb-massive-florida-white-supremacist-sting/

So there was a sting operation done on some Neo-Nazis due to them dealing drugs but basically they turned out to be armed like a rebel movement featuring a rocket launcher.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/us/navy-seal-edward-gallagher-isis.html?smid=tw-nytnational&smtyp=cur

Also a Navy SEAL is being tried for war crimes. Honestly I'm very critical of the military, but I'm glad to see SEALs actually working against such a terrible person within their ranks to save lives. Those people trying to stop his slaughter are heroes.

[Lustful Bride]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

A Democratic representative from California threatening to nuke it's own citizens for the sake of gun control. The fact that Democratic politicians can say this kinda crap and no one cares is insane.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21

^The tweet straight from the source.^

And this kind of shit Is what makes the NRA and Gun Crazies think they are legitimate in their fears and extreme views on guns. Every little dirty thing or screw up the government does only makes them go further into their crazy holes, and i say this as someone who happilly goes to the range on occasion and is pro gun (to an extent).


I'm not gonna say much else because i'm tired of arguing about guns with Americans and Non Americans. I'm mentally drained by it and emotionally broken that our system is broken and allows many of these attacks to happen and we sit on our hands because the two parties in power only want extreme solutions to it and cant pull their thumbs out of their own asses for five seconds to actualy get anything done and work to better the country.

[legomaster00156]

It's pretty obvious to me that he wasn't actually threatening use of nuclear weapons, but pointing out the stark reality that, yeah, any war with a nuclear power would be a short one. That said, that was very poorly worded.

[Regina Minx]

I'm gonna be honest, I think Sandy Hook is actually the worst defense of Gun Control. Because the level of gun control that would have been required to ensure that didn't happen would have been very extreme.

Banning high capacity magazines is not extreme.

[Icelandic]

It's pretty obvious to me that he wasn't actually threatening use of nuclear weapons, but pointing out the stark reality that, yeah, any war with a nuclear power would be a short one. That said, that was very poorly worded.

In all likelihood, it was probably a bit of both. The representative in question is a bit of an anti-2nd Amendment fanatic, but I hope he was joking. Even then however, representatives joking about killing millions of their constituents is not funny.

Also, he allegedly is running for president in 2020.

[Icelandic]

And this kind of shit Is what makes the NRA and Gun Crazies think they are legitimate in their fears and extreme views on guns. Every little dirty thing or screw up the government does only makes them go further into their crazy holes, and i say this as someone who happilly goes to the range on occasion and is pro gun (to an extent).

This is not a rare occurrence. In the past few years, the American left has largely transitioned to a full on 'repeal the second amendment' policy in regards to guns. If you are 'pro gun' as you claim, this sorta stuff should worry you.

Banning high capacity magazines is not extreme.

What do you consider 'high capacity'?

[Lustful Bride]

This is not a rare occurrence. In the past few years, the American left has largely transitioned to a full on 'repeal the second amendment' policy in regards to guns. If you are 'pro gun' as you claim, this sorta stuff should worry you.

Both sides worry me. I want a weapon to protect myself but at the same time I don't want every random yahoo on the street being handed an AR with a grenade launcher attatched to it because the NRA is bending over backwards for a weapon manufacturer. :P

[TheVillain]

This is not a rare occurrence. In the past few years, the American left has largely transitioned to a full on 'repeal the second amendment' policy in regards to guns. If you are 'pro gun' as you claim, this sorta stuff should worry you.

I disagree, look into John Brown Gun Clubs. The Left actually has a pretty diverse opinion on Guns. The fact that they don't immediately shut up the ones that do have such an extreme anti-gun position doesn't help, but the vast majority are willing to concede that at the very least guns need to be kept legal because if you let the right-wing extremists have all the guns they'll use them to kill people.

In fairness, one thing the Right is very good at doing is dominating the terminology of political arguments so the whole idea that the left is very anti-gun is a common belief. I'm just pointing out that - for the most part - it's just a lie from right-wingers.

[TheVillain]

There's actually several issues like that now that I think about it - that what the common perception of "the typical left-wing position" is on the issue was actually made up by the right-wing to smear their opponents. But that's the only one relevent to the discussion at present.

[Tolvo]

Depends on the particular group on the left. Keep in mind Gun Control is more popular in the center and liberal sphere. Authoritarian leftists are more of the ones in favor of gun control after establishing an Authoritarian Left Wing government. But otherwise a lot of the left actually aren't too fond of gun control. Especially given how many left wing anarchists there are. We see left wing militant groups as well, usually they are policed more heavily than right wing ones. As well many who are even in support of gun control think that our current government would not apply it justly or fairly, such as targeting mostly marginalized people(Who are not commonly mass shooters) as opposed to people who aren't(Who are more often mass shooters).

The NRA is pretty much just shit, they care more about their capitalist ventures than lives. I wouldn't oppose people who care about the lives of people who fight for the rights of gun owners, but the NRA aren't that. They just care about money.

Also regarding Private Firefighters that's actually a very old concept and is how they actually became widely popular in Rome for instance. It was a racket where you basically would show up and if the person wouldn't agree to your incredible price you wouldn't put out the fire.

[Icelandic]

Depends on the particular group on the left. Keep in mind Gun Control is more popular in the center and liberal sphere. Authoritarian leftists are more of the ones in favor of gun control after establishing an Authoritarian Left Wing government. But otherwise a lot of the left actually aren't too fond of gun control. Especially given how many left wing anarchists there are. We see left wing militant groups as well, usually they are policed more heavily than right wing ones. As well many who are even in support of gun control think that our current government would not apply it justly or fairly, such as targeting mostly marginalized people(Who are not commonly mass shooters) as opposed to people who aren't(Who are more often mass shooters).

I have not too much to say about that, although funny enough, mass shooters by race actually mirror the general population pretty evenly. It's almost always a male, but the myth of it always being white is, well... A myth. (I got links too if you want.)

I disagree, look into John Brown Gun Clubs. The Left actually has a pretty diverse opinion on Guns. The fact that they don't immediately shut up the ones that do have such an extreme anti-gun position doesn't help, but the vast majority are willing to concede that at the very least guns need to be kept legal because if you let the right-wing extremists have all the guns they'll use them to kill people.

In fairness, one thing the Right is very good at doing is dominating the terminology of political arguments so the whole idea that the left is very anti-gun is a common belief. I'm just pointing out that - for the most part - it's just a lie from right-wingers.

I'm not so sure about all of that. It's almost a weekly occurrence where a democrat politician openly advocates for policies that blatantly violate the second amendment. r/NOWTTYG (no one wants to take your guns) documents these kinda things regularly.

Also, the left is the one dominating terminology. They use purposefully vague terms for non-existent things like 'assault weapon' and 'black rifles' to fool the everyday person into thinking that they are dealing with AK47s and what-not. When 'assault weapons', depending on where you go, can even just be a pistol.

Similar is the term 'high capacity'. In some places, that's just five rounds.

[TheGlyphstone]

IF you take the position of the NRA that literally even the slightest attempt to regulate gun ownership is any fashion is a violation of the Second Amendment, claiming it happens every other week would definitely be true. Otherwise, that does seem like fairly extensive hyperbole, so I'm curious what your personal definition of 'violates the Second Amendment' is that you're basing that on.


Similarly, I'm curious - who, and at what time, defines pistols as an 'assault weapon'? I've never even heard of 'black rifles', and have no idea what it's meant to refer to.

[TheVillain]

So, that's the problem with the NRA and the right-wing side in general. A LOT of what they say is based on hyperbole and lies. If the NRA was a genuine gun-rights advocacy group I'd be one of their biggest fans, but if you watch what they actually do in a given situation and you very clearly see that they're only really interested in selling guns, too the point of being willing to cash in on racists to do it.

[Tolvo]

This is also again, confusing Democrats for the Left. Democrats are largely not very left at all, and are closer to the Right. But their position is seen as Center. Typically you're not going to be seen as Left Wing when you are very supportive of Capitalism, since the Left Wing is born out of Anti-Capitalist ideas and views. For as much as people think Bernie Sanders was an extreme leftist, among leftist groups he'd barely register.

There is some very loose use of terms by those who don't know guns. Assault Rifle is pretty well defined but Assault Weapon is not. High Capacity Magazine typically also means for handguns over 10 rounds. Or anything that is a modification to a magazine to allow it to hold more bullets than is standard.

As far as I can see the stats still show the majority of Mass Shooters are white men. It depends on how loosely you define Mass Shooter as well. Because the basic definition is just four or more people were shot. The higher the body count required, the more white the numbers become. But the very broad definition includes a lot of gang related violence while the higher body count includes more of the type of Mass Shooter Killing Sprees.

[TheGlyphstone]

So, that's the problem with the NRA and the right-wing side in general. A LOT of what they say is based on hyperbole and lies. If the NRA was a genuine gun-rights advocacy group I'd be one of their biggest fans, but if you watch what they actually do in a given situation and you very clearly see that they're only really interested in selling guns, too the point of being willing to cash in on racists to do it.

I don't even think it's that - from what I remember the last time I looked this up, a relatively small percentage of the NRA's revenue comes from the firearms industry compared to fundraising and membership dues. What the NRA is exclusively interested in is maintaining their political power; there is no group in the USA on either side of the political line with the ability to singlehandedly destroy a politician (of their side's) political prospects like the NRA can. It's not even about lobbying funds, plenty of special interest groups can out-spend the NRA in absolute terms - but their membership borders on fanatical in terms of making their voices heard politically, so they are an extremely visible and vocal constituency. When the NRA says Jump, every ROP politician in Congress can only answer 'how high?'; if they permit compromise of any sort on gun control, that implicitly weakens them and starts a potential domino effect. One of those dominos is membership fees, which is indeed money indirectly, but they are a non-profit organization and no reliable source I've seen supports the idea they are secretly embezzling funds or something for profit.

[TheGlyphstone]

That's "GOP politician", not "ROP politician". Not sure how I goofed there.

[Icelandic]

This is also again, confusing Democrats for the Left. Democrats are largely not very left at all, and are closer to the Right. But their position is seen as Center. Typically you're not going to be seen as Left Wing when you are very supportive of Capitalism, since the Left Wing is born out of Anti-Capitalist ideas and views. For as much as people think Bernie Sanders was an extreme leftist, among leftist groups he'd barely register.

There is some very loose use of terms by those who don't know guns. Assault Rifle is pretty well defined but Assault Weapon is not. High Capacity Magazine typically also means for handguns over 10 rounds. Or anything that is a modification to a magazine to allow it to hold more bullets than is standard.

As far as I can see the stats still show the majority of Mass Shooters are white men. It depends on how loosely you define Mass Shooter as well. Because the basic definition is just four or more people were shot. The higher the body count required, the more white the numbers become. But the very broad definition includes a lot of gang related violence while the higher body count includes more of the type of Mass Shooter Killing Sprees.

Again, not finding too much I disagree with here. (I'm surprised! ;P)

The point about white men making up the majority of shootings is that white men also make up the majority of men in America. So it's more then any other demographic, but not disproportionately so. I'll link an article about the topic.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/oct/06/newsweek/are-white-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/

IF you take the position of the NRA that literally even the slightest attempt to regulate gun ownership is any fashion is a violation of the Second Amendment, claiming it happens every other week would definitely be true. Otherwise, that does seem like fairly extensive hyperbole, so I'm curious what your personal definition of 'violates the Second Amendment' is that you're basing that on.


Similarly, I'm curious - who, and at what time, defines pistols as an 'assault weapon'? I've never even heard of 'black rifles', and have no idea what it's meant to refer to.

Certainly. I'm not an extremist in my views (I don't think at least), and I understand the need to heavily restrict genuine military-grade weapons. But civilian weapons of any type (including the AR-15) should be untouched from outright bans or restrictions that place an unreasonable burden on the gun owner, including making it unreasonably difficult to defend ones self with their legally owned firearm.

I likely have never seen anyone directly say an assault weapon is a pistol. But when people refer to an assault weapon as any semiautomatic firearm, that means literally anything from an AR-15 to a pistol, as they are all semiautomatic.

'Black Rifles' literally just means a rifle that is big, scary, and black. So like, AR-15s for example. That one just comes from ignorance more then anything else, as some seem to think that the color of the rifle indicates how dangerous it is.

Funny enough, I'm not even a gun-nut or anything like that. I just hate that some politicians are so willing to violate the constitution so blatantly.

[Tolvo]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

[Lustful Bride]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

We have actually done this many times, but it ends up just becoming a circular argument with everyone just getting mad at one another and no progress one way or the other :/

[Icelandic]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

Eh, I'm probably just gunna head to bed instead. I'm kinda tired.

[Icelandic]

We have actually done this many times, but it ends up just becoming a circular argument with everyone just getting mad at one another and no progress one way or the other :/

It wouldn't be politics if people agreed. >:3

[gaggedLouise]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

I recall once or twice when people from the site team have exclaimed, "Oh no! not another gun debate thread!"  :P There's been a few of them already.

[TheGlyphstone]

Again, not finding too much I disagree with here. (I'm surprised! ;P)

It's almost like when reasonable, intelligent people discuss their differences with rationality, they can find common ground instead of flinging fistfuls of buzzwords and hostility at each other. :D Now if only we elect more people who understood that, we might see positive movement on this.

I likely have never seen anyone directly say an assault weapon is a pistol. But when people refer to an assault weapon as any semiautomatic firearm, that means literally anything from an AR-15 to a pistol, as they are all semiautomatic.

'Black Rifles' literally just means a rifle that is big, scary, and black. So like, AR-15s for example. That one just comes from ignorance more then anything else, as some seem to think that the color of the rifle indicates how dangerous it is.

So your issue isn't that they are directly violating the Constitution with their claims, but that inaccurate terminology is being used? Politicians in general tend to be a fairly ignorant breed, and I'm not going to innately concede any advantage to blue-flagged members of the species. But politicians who actually want to, say, ban pistols, are going to be much harder to find than ones who want to ban semi-automatic rifles but substitute 'weapons' as a generalization when talking about it.

[Tolvo]

Semi-automatic though would include most guns not used in active war. Unless they're bolt-action or a revolver, they're typically semi-automatic or fully automatic in nature.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46233560

Also I was just hearing about this, I don't know as much about French taxes but the fact that people have died is pretty worrying. It sounds like these protesters could learn from Black Lives Matter groups in how they allow people in emergency situations and emergency vehicles to pass. This seems like quite a mess in what is going on.

[RedRose]

Ha, and I was just going to post about it! Yes, it's a mess. I avoid demos like the plague. They turn into riots, violence or plain vandalism much of the time.
So, so very sad. I also feel for this poor mom trying to get to the ped.. only to get attacked. Of course she panicked. I had a similar thing in a foreign country and thank God the chauffeur who was a local was "used to it"... As if people didn't know Macron's style before voting, and as if mindless violence (or even non mindless demonstrating) will change that. Apparently the same type of guys who wanted to recreate The Purge in France are using this occasion to trash the country again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/17/one-killed-16-injured-yellow-jackets-protests-rising-fuel-prices/

[Deamonbane]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

A Democratic representative from California threatening to nuke it's own citizens for the sake of gun control. The fact that Democratic politicians can say this kinda crap and no one cares is insane.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21

^The tweet straight from the source.^

I'll be honest, it's a good point. It's not threatening to nuke citizens, it's telling folk that if their government decided to go to war with them, it would be very one-sided.

And it's a lot less aggressive than what GOP Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith had to say about voter suppression and public hangings.

I'm not playing the whataboutism game, but it really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/16/cindy-hyde-smith-its-great-idea-make-it-harder-liberal-folks-vote/?utm_term=.8733fb100e0d

[TheGlyphstone]

I'll be honest, it's a good point. It's not threatening to nuke citizens, it's telling folk that if their government decided to go to war with them, it would be very one-sided.

And it's a lot less aggressive than what GOP Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith had to say about voter suppression and public hangings.

I'm not playing the whataboutism game, but it really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/16/cindy-hyde-smith-its-great-idea-make-it-harder-liberal-folks-vote/?utm_term=.8733fb100e0d

Now having read the link....yeah. Saying it was a threat to nuke citizens is definitely warping the statement out of context.

[Iniquitous]

I'll be honest, it's a good point. It's not threatening to nuke citizens, it's telling folk that if their government decided to go to war with them, it would be very one-sided.

And it's a lot less aggressive than what GOP Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith had to say about voter suppression and public hangings.

I'm not playing the whataboutism game, but it really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/16/cindy-hyde-smith-its-great-idea-make-it-harder-liberal-folks-vote/?utm_term=.8733fb100e0d

Thank you. Because I read the link and could not understand what Icelandic was up in arms about.  There was not one thing said about threatening to nuke his constituents.  I honestly feel like the vast majority of people LOOK for things to get up in arms about.  They see a headline, make their judgement, and don't actually bother to understand what is being said in the article.

As for guns. I am pro second amendment and I am pro common sense gun laws. It's called finding the middle ground and it can be done.

[TheGlyphstone]

Semi-related side note, but apparently Heller vs. DC - the landmark case that actually definitively established the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing individual civilian gun ownership - is only 10 years old.

[Icelandic]

I'm not playing the whataboutism game

>Immediately plays the whataboutism game.

The difference between what you linked and what Swalwell said is that your politician in question is being held to task for her comments. Swalwell on the otherhand, has the privilege of being immune from almost any criticism due to the party that he is in.

[Icelandic]

Thank you. Because I read the link and could not understand what Icelandic was up in arms about.  There was not one thing said about threatening to nuke his constituents.  I honestly feel like the vast majority of people LOOK for things to get up in arms about.  They see a headline, make their judgement, and don't actually bother to understand what is being said in the article.

As for guns. I am pro second amendment and I am pro common sense gun laws. It's called finding the middle ground and it can be done.

I did read the article. In fact it sounds like I know more about the background to this then you do.

The representative in question is a anti-2nd amendment fanatic. And his prior advocacy for forcible disbarment of legal gun owners makes his comments all the more concerning.
 

[Oniya]

I would personally recommend that anyone interested in this should look up Stonekettle Station - particularly the series of entries titled 'Bang Bang Crazy'.  The writer is both a veteran and a gun owner, and makes some excellent points.

[Iniquitous]

I did read the article. In fact it sounds like I know more about the background to this then you do.

The representative in question is a anti-2nd amendment fanatic. And his prior advocacy for forcible disbarment of legal gun owners makes his comments all the more concerning.

Again, you are getting bent out of shape over nothing.  1. He wasn't threatening anyone. He was responding to someone saying that he wanted a war over guns ... his response was that it would be a short one because the government has nukes. A) he is factually correct - the government has nukes.  I would certainly hope they'd never be used on us american citizens, but yes, the government does indeed have nukes. B) He also said “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

I seriously look at this as a case of people looking to get pissed at anything they can.  I do not think he misspoke - he is factually correct, it would be a very short war if our government decided to nuke us.  Likely to happen? No.  Is it possible that it could happen? Sure.  Anything can happen.

As for his stance on gun ownership - he has the right to his belief, he can yell it from the rooftops.  He can try to get legislation passed - but I suspect that the minute he tried his political career would be over.  Now, if he wants to discuss common sense gun regulation? I am all for that.

[Deamonbane]

>Immediately plays the whataboutism game.

The difference between what you linked and what Swalwell said is that your politician in question is being held to task for her comments. Swalwell on the otherhand, has the privilege of being immune from almost any criticism due to the party that he is in.

In your original post, you asked why people weren't up in arms about what the Swalwell said. I gave you an example of why.

On your end, you have a tweet that makes a good point, and only people who are looking for a fight would find it offensive. One the other, you have someone talking about what a good idea it would be to make sure that liberals can't vote. Tell me which one is the cause for overreaction?

[RedPhoenix]

Threadsplit for 2nd amendment debate plz. :)

[Blythe]

Gimme a sec, folks, and I'll be splitting off the 2nd amendment stuff shortly

[Blythe]

And thread is now split off to its own topic. I left a link to this new thread in the What's In The News thread since quite a few posts were split off. 2nd amendment/tweet dialogue can resume here in this thread.

[Tolvo]

Also since when does being a Democrat protect anyone from criticism? Like, have you see any political discourse or debates?

Frankly I think the guy really undersold it. The government would probably not nuke its own citizens even if there was a revolution, it wouldn't have to. Ignoring nukes, the disparity between civilian and military power is so vast it is ridiculous. If every militant group and civilian with a gun attempted an uprising together they would not even stand a chance. It is why historically a lot of revolutions require a massive number difference or military personnel breaking rank and joining the revolution. Even the American Revolution was that way, George Washington and many fighting for independence were British military.

[RedPhoenix]

Also since when does being a Democrat protect anyone from criticism? Like, have you see any political discourse or debates?

It doesn't. At all.

There are entire subcultures of Americans who do nothing but criticize Democrats or liberals for existing at all, regardless of what they do. In fact those people are, oddly enough, the same ones that spread this idea that democrats are immune from criticism.

I literally received mail labeled as "Public Health Warnings" with biohazard signs from political organizations - the warning was that democrats were running for office. I got this and similar other "everything will be aborted and killed by terrorists if you vote democrat" letters daily for the past three months.

Every time a GOP politicians speaks they blame everything on Democrats. Their followers repeat it ad nauseam.

There are entire "news" services that do nothing but criticize liberal politicians and celebrities.

Hell just go read our President's twitter if you want to see a never-ending stream of "DEMS BAD."

That you could see all this and somehow conclude Democrats are immune from criticism is pretty strange.

[RedPhoenix]

That was a generic "you" not you personally Tolvo. I should have said "one".

[Skynet]

Forgive me if I just weigh in with a link, but I did a pretty lengthy discussion on how gun rights in America are being championed mostly by people who do not care about civil rights at all. This is not to say that gun rights aren't important or a smokescreen, but that most Republicans and conservatives who champion it do not have the American peoples' best interests at heart.

[QuackKing]

Forgive me if I just weigh in with a link, but I did a pretty lengthy discussion on how gun rights in America are being championed mostly by people who do not care about civil rights at all. This is not to say that gun rights aren't important or a smokescreen, but that most Republicans and conservatives who champion it do not have the American peoples' best interests at heart.

I dunno, mang. I mean it is true that gun lobbyists aren't necessarily paragons of virtue, but to paint them as almost being malicious makes it creep eerily close to concern trolling. They serve as a voice for something, which is important in the creation of public policy.

I mean, I personally think that people should be able to have even more guns with even fewer restrictions, because the 2nd Amendment was created to allow the gamers people to rise up against a tyrannical government and be able to properly protect their claim to land/freedom. So while I may not agree with gun lobbyists on all issues, their beliefs are sometimes tangentially related to my own.

[Tolvo]

Skynet seems pretty accurate. The NRA are quite different from hunting and sport enthusiasts who want protections for gun owners. They're also deeply in bed with various people like Trump. They also make more money every time there is a mass shooting, gun sales in general go up after every mass shooting with how they stoke fear and people feel the need to stock up in case the government finally comes for their guns. Money matters more than lives to them.

[TheGlyphstone]

More or less. Lobbyists are lobbyists, and while I despise the breed entirely regardless of what specific issue they are shoveling cash into a congresscritter's pockets to promote, they're an endemic fact of life in politics by this point. But gun advocates and gun lobbyists are two very different groups for me despite their similar activities; the former are indeed serving as a voice for the people, the latter are just legalized bribery. The NRA specifically I have extremely deep-seated issues with on several levels, at least as far as their political presence goes*. They are a fundamentally extremist group, whose 5 million members are only a tiny fraction of the 100+ million gun owners in America, and their official policy platforms don't even align with the majority of their own membership base in some cases. Whatever they started as, the organization now acts to justify its own existence, which they do through stocking fear and paranoia to a fever pitch while exploiting tragedies to further solidify their power.


*The NRA's non-political wings are an entirely different story. They run hunters' safety classes and have a legal assistance fund for people accused of gun-related crimes, for instance, both respectable and beneficial activities. I've been told that before the 60's or 70's it was an almost militantly apolitical organization, until an internal leadership coup by its own extremist wing hijacked the organization's platform and has kept it ever since.

[TheGlyphstone]

(addendum, my advocate/lobbyist distinction should apply to any major issue, not simply guns. Health care, food subsidies, whatever. Lobbyists are dumb and a huge part of the problem with modern politics.)

[Tolvo]

Well you know, Lobbyists don't have to be a problem. If we just, ya know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKzesTq0Wo

(Just kidding I'm not that sort of Communist, also Socialism would protect against that too).

I'm trying to remember, didn't the NRA rise to power off the backs of gun activists who were fighting for sporting and hunting rights? Like they co-opted the movement and took it over.

[Icelandic]

Skynet seems pretty accurate. The NRA are quite different from hunting and sport enthusiasts who want protections for gun owners. They're also deeply in bed with various people like Trump. They also make more money every time there is a mass shooting, gun sales in general go up after every mass shooting with how they stoke fear and people feel the need to stock up in case the government finally comes for their guns. Money matters more than lives to them.

I kinda wanted to avoid this thread due to how it was mentioned that this kinda thread keeps popping up buuuuuuuuut...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

[TheGlyphstone]

I kinda wanted to avoid this thread due to how it was mentioned that this kinda thread keeps popping up buuuuuuuuut...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

My father is an avid NRA member and supporter, and I still remember an issue of the monthly magazine that was sitting on the counter table when i visited pre-election - a picture of Clinton yelling about something with the headline 'Your Last Chance to Get These Guns That Hillary Wants To Ban'. I remember it so vividly because it was a perfect example of the fearmongering they deliberately stir up.

[Icelandic]

My father is an avid NRA member and supporter, and I still remember an issue of the monthly magazine that was sitting on the counter table when i visited pre-election - a picture of Clinton yelling about something with the headline 'Your Last Chance to Get These Guns That Hillary Wants To Ban'. I remember it so vividly because it was a perfect example of the fearmongering they deliberately stir up.

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

[Yvellakitsune]

In reference to the original article, I see the argument made a lot and I have to laugh every time.  It shows that whoever is making the argument, in this case a politician, doesn't know the US Military.

The military is not a thing.  It is people.  In the USA, the majority of the people in the military actually support the Second Amendment.  If it came to a "war," it is a questionable assumption there would still be a military or that the anti-2nd Amendment Government Side of this hypothetical war had control of what force there was.  In the US Civil War, the military fractured and the Union Army had to be reconstituted with volunteers and drafts.  The main effort of the Union Army was essentially untrained and humiliated for the first half of the war.  It would probably be a fight just to control military equipment and facilities before action against any opposition could take place by the government.  Especially since a war like this wouldn't be based on geographical location from the onset like it was in 1860.       

So I don't share this politician's opinion that it would be short or his assumption that the military as it is would support it.  I served 20 years in US Army myself from team level up to a joint headquarters. The people in the military would split like the population or sit it out as best they could if a civil war happened. 

[Deamonbane]

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

Sources?

[Skynet]

I dunno, mang. I mean it is true that gun lobbyists aren't necessarily paragons of virtue, but to paint them as almost being malicious makes it creep eerily close to concern trolling. They serve as a voice for something, which is important in the creation of public policy.

I mean, I personally think that people should be able to have even more guns with even fewer restrictions, because the 2nd Amendment was created to allow the gamers people to rise up against a tyrannical government and be able to properly protect their claim to land/freedom. So while I may not agree with gun lobbyists on all issues, their beliefs are sometimes tangentially related to my own.

It's not trolling when you cite multiple sources like I did in my link or point out their hypocritical behavior. If they weren't malicious, then why is the NRA explicitly making it harder for law enforcement to track down and prosecute actual criminals, like in this link?

And why didn't they invoke the 2nd Amendment to defend Philando Castile, whose spokeswoman instead implied he deserved to be shot because the police officer smelled marijuana in his car?

I kinda wanted to avoid this thread due to how it was mentioned that this kinda thread keeps popping up buuuuuuuuut...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

If they're not fearmongerers, then why did their spokeswoman claim that Thomas the Tank Engine having a more diverse cast was on the same moral level as the KKK?

[Deamonbane]

In reference to the original article, I see the argument made a lot and I have to laugh every time.  It shows that whoever is making the argument, in this case a politician, doesn't know the US Military.

The military is not a thing.  It is people.  In the USA, the majority of the people in the military actually support the Second Amendment.  If it came to a "war," it is a questionable assumption there would still be a military or that the anti-2nd Amendment Government Side of this hypothetical war had control of what force there was.  In the US Civil War, the military fractured and the Union Army had to be reconstituted with volunteers and drafts.  The main effort of the Union Army was essentially untrained and humiliated for the first half of the war.  It would probably be a fight just to control military equipment and facilities before action against any opposition could take place by the government.  Especially since a war like this wouldn't be based on geographical location from the onset like it was in 1860.       

So I don't share this politician's opinion that it would be short or his assumption that the military as it is would support it.  I served 20 years in US Army myself from team level up to a joint headquarters. The people in the military would split like the population or sit it out as best they could if a civil war happened.

Might You say that the argument is as laughable as the concept of the US actually banning weapons, or going to war with their citizens over the right to bear arms, as these militias seem to believe will happen?

[Icelandic]

Sources?

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/26/hillary-clinton-gun-rights-second-amendment

[TheGlyphstone]

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

I just don't think those are reasonably founded fears at all. You say 'don't stick your hand in a hornet's nest because it might hurt', I hear 'don't stick your hand in a hornet's nest because it might be full of AFRICAN KILLER BEES!!!!". I'm sure a hypothetical Clinton presidency wouldn't have been entirely great for gun sales, but 4-8 years later the 2nd would have still been there exactly like it was before.

Clinton's actual record on gun issues, which I did read up on, is remarkably spotty and inconsistent (machine politician, hello). She was strongly anti-gun in 2001, much softer and pro-gun/hunter in 2008, and more strident in 2016. But she was still repeatedly quoted on the record as supporting the individual mandate:

"I think what the court said about there being an individual right is in line with constitutional thinking," Clinton said about two weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday," affirming individual gun rights.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-gun-control-second-amendment/index.html
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/hillary-clinton-quotes-on-guns/

BUT backing up a bit to your previous point in general, rather than derailing this into a Clinton argument (she's severely wrong in a few other ways, like removing the ban on suing gun manufacturers when their product is used in a crime)...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

I have no doubt that such politicians exist. In a country this big, if someone combs through enough newspapers, interviews, and tweets, they will have no problem finding people who have said something which can interpreted that way. But I'm equally certain that if someone else put similar effort into looking for evidence of republican politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the first amendment - prayer in public schools, public teaching of creationism, suppression of hostile press, etc. - you'd be able to find it. That doesn't mean said politicians represent the majority of their electorate, or even that they represent the majority of their colleagues. When pundits and special interest groups who benefit from stirring up their supporters use those quotes blown out of proportion to further their ends, that's the fearmongering I'm decrying.

The quote that started this whole thing off, for example. If I look at it with an angle of 'how can I take offense at this man's words', I can fairly easily imagine a tone of rather smug condescension. 'His side' has the biggest toys and will win any real fight, so 'the other side' might as well just give up now and negotiate instead of struggling. As other people in-thread have said this idea is in itself ludicrous, any hypothetical US civil war will be Military vs. Military, not Military vs. Militia. But that's still a very long way from twisting his words into 'we're gonna nuke American citizens!" the way Ben Shapiro did.

[Deamonbane]

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/26/hillary-clinton-gun-rights-second-amendment

Clinton had dodged giving a clear answer about her opinion of the ongoing case during a presidential primary debate in early 2008, though she suggested that the supreme court would probably find a full ban on handguns unconstitutional. But in 2015, the Washington Free Beacon reported, Clinton told an audience at a private event that “the supreme court is wrong on the second amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

I'm going to go ahead and take what the Washington Free Beacon has to say about democrat politicians with a grain of salt.

The rest of the article has nothing of substance to say that would prove that Hillary would ever find herself in a position to actually try and 'take guns away'. I'm not saying that in defense to her, mind. I still think she's a trashy person.

Any sources on this comment?

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before *snips*

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm going to go ahead and take what the Washington Free Beacon has to say about democrat politicians with a grain of salt.

The rest of the article has nothing of substance to say that would prove that Hillary would ever find herself in a position to actually try and 'take guns away'. I'm not saying that in defense to her, mind. I still think she's a trashy person.

Any sources on this comment?

That specific quote's legit (The one about the SC), I found it in the sources I linked as well.

[Tolvo]

She specifically said that the Supreme Court is wrong on assault weapons, though that definition can be murky. She basically wanted semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines banned in the leaked audio.

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them…. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/08/11/proof-that-hillary-does-want-to-make-the-second-amendment-meaningless/#209e2ad1297c

[Deamonbane]

Fair enough. I stand by my thoughts on the Washington Free Beacon though. Call it a difference of opinion.

Edit: Hearing her say assault weapons still makes me cringe.

[Icelandic]

I'm going to go ahead and take what the Washington Free Beacon has to say about democrat politicians with a grain of salt.

The rest of the article has nothing of substance to say that would prove that Hillary would ever find herself in a position to actually try and 'take guns away'. I'm not saying that in defense to her, mind. I still think she's a trashy person.

Any sources on this comment?

The Washington Free Beacon has the audio right in the link of the private fundraiser in question.

I've linked you an article that gives several examples of Clinton's fast-and-loose beliefs on the second amendment. The topic I was responding to was about whether or not people were right to be worried about a Clinton presidency from a second amendment standpoint. Let's not forget that she nearly became the president.

And for your second source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4590516/hillary-clinton-lauding-australia-uk-gun-control-laws

And before you go "Oh that's just buybacks". The program she is talking about was a mandatory buyback.

[Deamonbane]

The point is conceded :D

Thanks for the sourcing.

[Yvellakitsune]

Might You say that the argument is as laughable as the concept of the US actually banning weapons, or going to war with their citizens over the right to bear arms, as these militias seem to believe will happen?

True. The whole scenario is highly unlikely. 

It is a right.  Doing an amendment like that is nearly impossible with how we have grown.  Even just mandatory background checks are going to be nearly impossible.  A background check means you are asking government permission.  If you have to ask government permission, it’s not a right anymore, it’s a government granted privilege.  That’s why any change will be an uphill legal battle. 

[Deamonbane]

Honestly, it would be a step in the right direction just to have mandatory gun safety and use lessons beforehand, if only to reduce accidental deaths and the like. Something similar to what's required for, say, owning and driving a car? It is a right, anyone above a certain age can take the test and then be allowed to own weapons. More advanced weapons require more advanced tests, like when you want a license for driving a truck or a van, or something like that.

Not sure how drivers' licenses work, but in some countries, licences have expiration dates and you are required to take the test again to have your license reinstated.

Similarly, if you are caught misusing the weapon, you have your license revoked for a certain period of time/ How long depends on the severity of the crime.

I'm not a gun owner, so I ask folks who are gun owners: Does this seem like a reasonable system? Do you feel like it imposes on your rights? Would you, as a gun owner, feel comfortable under a system similar to this?

[Deamonbane]

Double post edit for the above post: Not sure how drivers' licenses work in the US.

[Yvellakitsune]

Again the issue is a right versus a privilege.  Driving is a government granted privilege, not a right.  That is why there is no issue in the USA to change requirements for a driver’s license.  In fact that is why it is a driver’s license, the government gives you a privilege and the license is the proof.  Since the bearing arms is a right, the government’s hands are tied on it.  To change it would require an amendment to the Constitution. 

When the USA’s Constitution was written, the Bill of Rights was a list of limitations the government had, things it could not deny citizens.  That’s why Obama called them “negative rights” and wanted positive rights such as healthcare as an example, something the government provides.  The term for it would actually be entitlement. 

That’s the legal issue with the driver’s license concept.   

[Tilt]

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

I've yet to meet anyone on the "far-left" who sincerely believes in banning all forms of fire arms in the United States. I myself do applaud both Australia and Great Britain for implementing gun control laws which have helped to save countless lives. I also oppose that ruling, because I feel like it was politically fueled and helped to contribute to a toxic gun culture. However, I personally don't advocate for a complete ban on firearms. America is just too different from Great Britain and Australia.

So it is fully possible to applaud Australia and hate DC vs Heller, and still not want to burn all guns. And when you look at Clinton's actual proposals, none of them state she wants to ban guns altogether. Her actual proposals tend to be that she wants to prevent gun lobbyists from influencing policy, get military-grade weaponry off the streets, and expand background checks so known abusers and people with serious mental health conditions can't own guns. None of which are extreme positions.

And look, it's a fact that America has to face sooner or later, our gun culture is out of control. We are valuing the right to own deadly machines with literally no other purpose than to kill, above the lives of people who are killed by these weapons. There is literally no reason why anyone needs to own a semi-automatic rifle. But despite the fact that semi-automatic rifles tend to be used heavily in mass shootings, any time anyone talks about even keeping these weapons away from people we know are dangerous, the far right throws a collective tantrum.

Just last year, one man killed almost 50 people and injured 851 more - 422 by gunfire. That's about 1,000 victims, total. He did so a thousand feet from his target, locked in a room, and it took him about ten minutes. Had he had tracer rounds, which he could have gotten easily and legally, far more people could have died. There was literally nothing anyone could have done to stop him from the moment he opened fire. Not the police, not security, not a good guy with a gun. He legally owned weapons that made it possible to target people so far away he couldn't even see them and all they could do was run. As of right now, there are some people who won't even support banning bumpstocks.

We have to do something about these shootings, because thoughts and prayers aren't working. Blaming Clinton for appreciating that other countries have actually passed laws isn't working, either.

[Tolvo]

The irony is currently not lost on me that while posting this there is reportedly an active shooter within an hour of me and I'm messaging people I know there to check if they're alive. Just thought, for some perspective ya know. It's actually hard to have a debate about guns in the USA without an actual mass shooting happening during it.

[Icelandic]

Oooooh I like this one. There is a lot to unpack here. I'm probably not gunna quote point by point though because I'll be spending far too much time doing that.


If you know Hilary Clinton. You already know someone who supports the idea of a total firearm ban. DC vs Heller established that the second amendment means the right for individuals to own firearms. Disagreeing with that necessarily means you disagree with the right to own firearms. believing in the right to possess firearms and that the supreme court was mistaken in DC vs Heller is to believe in two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

Beyond that, do you know how rare mass shootings are? Especially compared to gun violence not involving semi-automatic rifles? You have roughly the same chance of dying from a lightning strike as dying from a mass shooting. And as far as non-mass shooting firearms deaths go, firearm homicides have decreased in the US by 50% since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline. Not tighter gun laws.

Look. I do know that mass shootings are horrific, especially when the media actively promotes them. But like any other complex and nuanced issue, it's not smart to instantly react to it out fear every time something bad happens. That's not how good policy is made.

[Icelandic]

The irony is currently not lost on me that while posting this there is reportedly an active shooter within an hour of me and I'm messaging people I know there to check if they're alive. Just thought, for some perspective ya know. It's actually hard to have a debate about guns in the USA without an actual mass shooting happening during it.

It does fucking suck. Believe me I don't like how it is either. I just disagree with many here about how to solve that issue.

[Deamonbane]

Again the issue is a right versus a privilege.  Driving is a government granted privilege, not a right.  That is why there is no issue in the USA to change requirements for a driver’s license.  In fact that is why it is a driver’s license, the government gives you a privilege and the license is the proof.  Since the bearing arms is a right, the government’s hands are tied on it.  To change it would require an amendment to the Constitution. 

When the USA’s Constitution was written, the Bill of Rights was a list of limitations the government had, things it could not deny citizens.  That’s why Obama called them “negative rights” and wanted positive rights such as healthcare as an example, something the government provides.  The term for it would actually be entitlement. 

That’s the legal issue with the driver’s license concept.

It seems more like a right that you have to show yourself responsible enough to earn rather than a priviledge, but I understand the legal problem with it. Anyways, I digress.

Again, I'm not sure how the license thing works in the states, so this is based on my knowledge of the process in the countries in which I have lived.

The laws as I've seen them are that you are allowed to own a car and drive it on your own private property or on locations in which it is allowed (autodromes, and the like) without a license, hence there are professional drivers that are underage. Examples include the likes of Max Verstappen, who drove a F1 car at 17 years of age. There are special licenses for that too, but the point stands that you don't need a government-issued license for it.

So perhaps the license law could apply to the likes of open and concealed carry, since carrying you are carrying a firearm somewhere where improper use or care could result in injury to the public.

In short, you can own a weapon and use it on your property or in a location where the open use of it is permitted like a shooting range (though those locations have the right to ask for you to be certified first), but to be able to carry a firearm in public requires safety certifications of both the weapon and the owner.

Would that be acceptable? I'm not being intentionally thick, or sarcastic. It's something that I've been thinking about some and would like to know if my thoughts are feasible or not.

[headshot]

I reckon America in all this turmoil because of its two-party system. If you're a republican, you have to defend the alt right nutters and if you're democratic you have to defend the crazy anti-vaccers. If politics wasn't such a money game in the US, if equal air time was given to all parties with a genuine people might be able to come to some middle ground.

That being said, I believe this type of toxic politics only adds to the gun situation. That democratic politician is clearly an imbecile to say what they did - especially considering his party wants to curb access to guns to save lives- but again we see this two-party system where democrats panic when even one of their politicians say something stupid because apparently that person shares ALL the values that every single Democrat has.

Also, if people insist on continuing to buy guns, then at least vet who can get them, or limit where they can be openly fired. People say gun control policies don't work all the time. Of course they don't always work. But they help fight the problem and they can be made more effective over time.

[Deamonbane]

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

In fact, the most recent government report on crime trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.

[Tolvo]

Oooooh I like this one. There is a lot to unpack here. I'm probably not gunna quote point by point though because I'll be spending far too much time doing that.


If you know Hilary Clinton. You already know someone who supports the idea of a total firearm ban. DC vs Heller established that the second amendment means the right for individuals to own firearms. Disagreeing with that necessarily means you disagree with the right to own firearms. believing in the right to possess firearms and that the supreme court was mistaken in DC vs Heller is to believe in two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

Beyond that, do you know how rare mass shootings are? Especially compared to gun violence not involving semi-automatic rifles? You have roughly the same chance of dying from a lightning strike as dying from a mass shooting. And as far as non-mass shooting firearms deaths go, firearm homicides have decreased in the US by 50% since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline. Not tighter gun laws.

Look. I do know that mass shootings are horrific, especially when the media actively promotes them. But like any other complex and nuanced issue, it's not smart to instantly react to it out fear every time something bad happens. That's not how good policy is made.

You can disagree with DC vs Heller and still be against broad bans. Keep in mind DC vs Heller also ruled against laws requiring certain types of guns such as shotguns to be unloaded when not in use or have trigger locks(Though from what I hear trigger locks are pretty useless).

As for your numbers on homicide rates and gun violence in the USA I'd like to see some sources. Because I'm finding things contradicting your numbers.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png

Mass shootings are a small percentage of gun related deaths in the USA, but they aren't happening infrequently, and it is not uncommon to be in a community effected by them. I say while dealing with the fear in my community currently of a mass shooting that just happened.

[Tilt]

Oooooh I like this one. There is a lot to unpack here. I'm probably not gunna quote point by point though because I'll be spending far too much time doing that.


If you know Hilary Clinton. You already know someone who supports the idea of a total firearm ban. DC vs Heller established that the second amendment means the right for individuals to own firearms. Disagreeing with that necessarily means you disagree with the right to own firearms. believing in the right to possess firearms and that the supreme court was mistaken in DC vs Heller is to believe in two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

Beyond that, do you know how rare mass shootings are? Especially compared to gun violence not involving semi-automatic rifles? You have roughly the same chance of dying from a lightning strike as dying from a mass shooting. And as far as non-mass shooting firearms deaths go, firearm homicides have decreased in the US by 50% since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline. Not tighter gun laws.

Look. I do know that mass shootings are horrific, especially when the media actively promotes them. But like any other complex and nuanced issue, it's not smart to instantly react to it out fear every time something bad happens. That's not how good policy is made.

Firstly, no. It doesn't. You are defining how someone else feels on an issue, and in doing so you are bound to be wrong. The problem with that court case wasn't that it protected the rights of hunters and people who want a bedside pistol (Preferably unloaded), but that it failed to define what either of the above meant. By conflating, 'That ruling is a problem because it allows lobbyists room to dance around the law and act as though a pistol and an AR 15 have the same level of danger and there's no current legal distinction' with, 'I believe the only people who should own guns should be well-regulated militia members' is a gross misrepresentation.

Secondly, I have a problem with that conjecture because it is only partly true. Violence in Great Britain has gone up and down, but homicide rates in Australia have been on a sharp decline. There was a recent report out of Australia about their homicide rates over the past 25 years, and they are down. WAY down. Guns were banned in 1996, and the homicide rate didn't IMMEDIATELY diminish, but it started sharply dropping in about 2002 and hasn't risen since. It's now down 22% since guns were banned.

Thirdly, there have been 307 mass shootings this year. Not all of them have been incredibly massive, but that is hardly rare. When there is a mass shooting almost every single day in a year, it's pretty hard to step back and say that it's not worth being concerned about. I also find the general attitude of, 'We can't overreact every time something bad happens' to be very dismissive of how dangerous these mass shootings are. Or of how common shootings are in general. When nearly a 50,000 people die to gun violence a year, it is extremely disrespectful to treat that like the other side is overreacting. I'd provide a number to exactly how many people die to mass shootings, but I just can't find that number.

And the problem is, the other side doesn't want anything done. This isn't a matter of one side wants to ban all guns forever and the other side wants simple and safe gun policy. It's that one side wants simple and safe gun policy and the other side wants us to shut up about it. Anytime any legislation is put forward on the most uncontroversial of topics, the far right explodes. They support no policy. And I don't see how doing nothing is smarter and better policy than doing something. We can't even discuss what good gun policy is, without the NRA shouting about Hillary Clinton wanting to personally tear hunting rifles out of the hands of honest Americans. Which just isn't true.

[Tolvo]

Finding good numbers on mass shooting deaths is kind of tricky because for the current year more will keep happening and each year they can fluctuate very wildly in scope, deaths, targets, etc. Especially when there are different kinds of mass shootings and all the different definitions of what is considered a mass shooting.

I actually always wonder how much gun control could help with lessening fatal suicide attempts. Given how other forms of suicide are much less likely to be fatal. It's a really depressing thing to consider, as since mental health is usually unrelated to gun homicides but is related to gun suicides.

[Icelandic]

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

I dunno what the purpose of you posting that is. That article helps my point that homicide rates have not risen or fallen dramatically. If you measure that decline since 2003 by per year per 100,000 inhabitants, that's less then a one person difference.

So, even if I were to be VERY generous and say that the post-2003 decline was all the result of the gun ban. That (almost) saves a whopping one person per year per 100,000.

You can disagree with DC vs Heller and still be against broad bans. Keep in mind DC vs Heller also ruled against laws requiring certain types of guns such as shotguns to be unloaded when not in use or have trigger locks(Though from what I hear trigger locks are pretty useless).

As for your numbers on homicide rates and gun violence in the USA I'd like to see some sources. Because I'm finding things contradicting your numbers.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png

Mass shootings are a small percentage of gun related deaths in the USA, but they aren't happening infrequently, and it is not uncommon to be in a community effected by them. I say while dealing with the fear in my community currently of a mass shooting that just happened.

My response above was to Daemonbane, but it fits for what you said as well. Your first link helps prove my point, with the homicide rate only going down by almost one person per 100,000 on average.

The second link is measuring gun homicides by overall population. Of course it had risen, as did our population. But if you look at it once again through per-capita (let's say, per 100,000 people), that statistic changes drastically.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.7889a6067bd3

Firstly, no. It doesn't. You are defining how someone else feels on an issue, and in doing so you are bound to be wrong. The problem with that court case wasn't that it protected the rights of hunters and people who want a bedside pistol (Preferably unloaded), but that it failed to define what either of the above meant. By conflating, 'That ruling is a problem because it allows lobbyists room to dance around the law and act as though a pistol and an AR 15 have the same level of danger and there's no current legal distinction' with, 'I believe the only people who should own guns should be well-regulated militia members' is a gross misrepresentation.

The rulling established that people had a right to firearms. In the same way people have the right to free speech, neither are absolute. It was simply an outline. And I'm not defining how people are feeling on it. Disagreeing with DC vs Heller and agreeing with the right to bare arms is logically impossible. It's like a square-circle.

Secondly, I have a problem with that conjecture because it is only partly true. Violence in Great Britain has gone up and down, but homicide rates in Australia have been on a sharp decline. There was a recent report out of Australia about their homicide rates over the past 25 years, and they are down. WAY down. Guns were banned in 1996, and the homicide rate didn't IMMEDIATELY diminish, but it started sharply dropping in about 2002 and hasn't risen since. It's now down 22% since guns were banned.

Per 100,000 people, the homicide rate dropped so far by an amazing almost one person per year. It's a modest drop and I talk about that more in this post responding to other people.

And the problem is, the other side doesn't want anything done. This isn't a matter of one side wants to ban all guns forever and the other side wants simple and safe gun policy. It's that one side wants simple and safe gun policy and the other side wants us to shut up about it. Anytime any legislation is put forward on the most uncontroversial of topics, the far right explodes. They support no policy. And I don't see how doing nothing is smarter and better policy than doing something. We can't even discuss what good gun policy is, without the NRA shouting about Hillary Clinton wanting to personally tear hunting rifles out of the hands of honest Americans. Which just isn't true.

We were able to pass some fairly decent laws in the 90s regarding gun control, but the difference was that the democrats in power respected the basic right to bare arms while doing so. The left now simply does not. The policies they offer on this matter are now often blatantly unconstitutional and need to be challenged at every single turn.

[Deamonbane]

In fact, the most recent government report on crime trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

Did you read the link?

[Icelandic]

Did you read the link?

Yes. And I cross-referenced it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#2000s

It's very easy to say that homicide is at it's lowest rate in however many years, and have it sound amazing. But without going into detail, that difference could mean the world. 

[Tolvo]

Uh Icelandic your own links disagree with you. As does this. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

I can't read the Washington Post one though due to it requiring a sub.

But from what I can find in the USA per capita it is also increasing though slowly. And your wikipedia list also mentions that healthcare is a major factor because more people are surviving being shot.

[Icelandic]

Uh Icelandic your own links disagree with you. As does this. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

I can't read the Washington Post one though due to it requiring a sub.

But from what I can find in the USA per capita it is also increasing though slowly. And your wikipedia list also mentions that healthcare is a major factor because more people are surviving being shot.

Which link and in what way? And my wikipedia list does not even mention healthcare. What are you even talking about?

Also, 'mortality' can mean both homicide and suicide. Just last post you were talking about homicide alone. (Also for the Washington Post article, open it up in Incognito and thank me later ;) )

[Yvellakitsune]

So perhaps the license law could apply to the likes of open and concealed carry, since carrying you are carrying a firearm somewhere where improper use or care could result in injury to the public.

In short, you can own a weapon and use it on your property or in a location where the open use of it is permitted like a shooting range (though those locations have the right to ask for you to be certified first), but to be able to carry a firearm in public requires safety certifications of both the weapon and the owner.

The reason why even just driving in the USA may seem confusing is that driving laws are up to the state level of government.  Where I live, minors can get a driving permit at 14 but it is limited to school, work, and farming.  Next state over, they cant start driving until 16.  Different states have different insurance requirements too. 

With firearms, states do have some ability to influence gun laws like concealed carry, open carry, hunting is also primarily done at the state level.  The main issue with the right to bear arms is mainly at the federal level and with sales because that starts to get into interstate commerce.  California and New York have stricter laws than other states.  Even at the city level cities can have some sway in it.  The problem again is that some of these state and city laws start to trample the individual right.  So a state cannot make laws specifically to make it difficult own a firearm.  They can't make the laws to have an effect like a poll tax that limits people's ability to vote.  But they can put limits on carrying, hunting and even type/capability of the firearm to some degree.   

Something twisted with this is that in general, the people who want to subject people to background checks for the right to bear arms oppose ID checks for voting, and vice versa, the people who want ID checks on voting in general oppose background checks on firearms. 

Another reason for the distrust on the pro-Second Amendment side is that a lot of people, to include people in this forum, say they only want to limit certain types of firearms like "assault rifles" or just want background checks.  And they very well may believe that.  But there are others that want the Australia type confiscation too.  The reason why many don't want to compromise is that the people that only want certain limits disappear when the next wave tries to go further.  They don't stand up and say, "wait, wait, we only agreed on 'assault rifles.'"  They just stay silent if they don't join in.  So for the pro-Second Amendment people, the fight doesn't end with the compromise.  When the 1993 Assault Rifle Ban happened, the next movement wanted all pistols banned in the 1990's because of gang violence killing primarily teenagers.  The people who only wanted the Assault Rifle Ban didn't oppose them.  So that's why the pro-Second Amendment people don't want to give an inch.  The people who are willing to compromise are generally not willing to oppose the people further left of them.


I have met people who want total bans and confiscations.  I have even met people who claimed it was "common sense" to ban all veterans from owning firearms because of the POTENTIAL of PTSD and because we were "trained to kill."  People have said that to my face. They obviously don't represent what most people think, but people in the middle don't oppose them either.  Like Headshot said, "I reckon America in all this turmoil because of its two-party system. If you're a republican, you have to defend the alt right nutters and if you're democratic you have to defend the crazy anti-vaccers."  Its not just money, it's votes only going to 1 of 2 sides also.   

[Tolvo]

Your wikipedia link says it right at the top.

The Washington Post article seems like just a lot of speculation without anything to really show. Especially the issue of more police when these stats don't include violence done by the police.

It is still weird this illusion that the further left someone is the more they want gun control, when again, gun control is more of a center position. Also the anti-vaccination movement is more popular among people who are pretty well off which typically the further left people are not.

[RedPhoenix]

I reckon America in all this turmoil because of its two-party system. If you're a republican, you have to defend the alt right nutters and if you're democratic you have to defend the crazy anti-vaccers.

...what?

the alt-right is rejected by many right wing politicians and the anti-vaccers are claimed by nobody.

[Skynet]

We were able to pass some fairly decent laws in the 90s regarding gun control, but the difference was that the democrats in power respected the basic right to bare arms while doing so. The left now simply does not. The policies they offer on this matter are now often blatantly unconstitutional and need to be challenged at every single turn.

It is still weird this illusion that the further left someone is the more they want gun control, when again, gun control is more of a center position. Also the anti-vaccination movement is more popular among people who are pretty well off which typically the further left people are not.

I think this is a case that many Americans have a different definition of leftist thought than much of the world.  Framing left vs. right as "More government intervention vs less government intervention."

Even in the US context this is a fallacious definition, as Republicans are incredibly Big Government when it comes to social issues, foreign policy, law enforcement, etc.

Most anarchists and non-tanky Communists want zero gun control so the working class can more easily overthrow the ruling class.

As for the Democrats, they haven't been left-wing as even most Republicans view the term. Clinton helped draft NAFTA and said he wanted workfare, not welfare. Or Obama's troop surge for Afghanistan. Or Hillary Clinton soliciting funds from Goldman-Sachs. Or how the Democrats ousted Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist to the left of Hillary and Obama.

If the Democrats were actually leftist they wouldn't solicit funds from billionaires, not even "Cultural Marxist" bogeyman George Soros who actually funded anti-Communist groups in the Soviet Union in favor of liberal democracy.

[Tilt]

Yes. And I cross-referenced it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#2000s

It's very easy to say that homicide is at it's lowest rate in however many years, and have it sound amazing. But without going into detail, that difference could mean the world.

I'm sorry, normally I don't have that much of a problem with people getting information off of Wikipedia, but in this case that is ridiculous. I cited a recent research paper documenting homicide rates, and your response is that you would rather listen to WIKIPEDIA? Come on. Let's be real here. The article I cited was designed to compare homicides in a way that Wikipedia does not. Those aren't equatable.

The rulling established that people had a right to firearms. In the same way people have the right to free speech, neither are absolute. It was simply an outline. And I'm not defining how people are feeling on it. Disagreeing with DC vs Heller and agreeing with the right to bare arms is logically impossible. It's like a square-circle.

Secondly, that is a twisted view of DC vs Heller. Partly because, as another user pointed out it didn't JUST apply to redefining what the second amendment meant, it also allowed for vague and broad rulings about how guns can be handled. And to be clear, you can believe that the second amendment does not apply to recreational use of firearms, hunting, or self-defense, and still not want a complete ban on guns. DC vs Heller was not a case of whether or not people should own guns, it's whether or not the second amendment applies to how guns are used today.

It's very possible for something to not be constitutionally protected, not yet not be taken away. Cars aren't constitutionally protected, but no one is banning them. It's just because cars aren't deemed as a constitutional right, we're able to apply easy and simple legislation to ensure people know how to use them safely, and can quickly identify those who don't. People who break the rules can get their license taken away. None of which is very possible with how we treat guns now, because we treat getting a gun license as a violation of constitutional rights.

Per 100,000 people, the homicide rate dropped so far by an amazing almost one person per year. It's a modest drop and I talk about that more in this post responding to other people.

Thirdly, I am noticing a trend in your behavior, where you are diminishing the value of life. 307 mass shootings a year is rare. 50,000 deaths a year to firearms isn't worth overreacting to. Dozens of lives saved isn't worth the effort.

We were able to pass some fairly decent laws in the 90s regarding gun control, but the difference was that the democrats in power respected the basic right to bare arms while doing so. The left now simply does not. The policies they offer on this matter are now often blatantly unconstitutional and need to be challenged at every single turn.

Fourthly, I am going to have to disagree with you that the problem is how the left approaches gun control. Because time and again, there is a mass shooting, the left says, 'We need to talk about this' and the right goes, 'Shut the fuck up, let's just mourn for once!' which continues until the next the next shooting, rinse and repeat. I can't even remember the last time the Republican party actually supported, much less drafted, any form of gun control legislation.

If the problem is that the Left makes bad gun control policy, then the right should step up and show us how it's done. How they would implement gun control which actually works.

Instead, the Right has been loosening gun control. In the wake of some of the worst acts of mass violence this country has ever seen, the right has made it legal to conceal carry across state lines, refused to hold hearings to even discuss gun control, failed to criminalize bump stocks, and proposed a bill that would slash funding to background check systems.

[TheGlyphstone]

Lots to read through while I was gone for the day...but can I just take a moment to highlight how much I appreciate that we've been able to continue a rational, polite discussion and exchange of opposing viewpoints on this issue for four pages and change? E by its core nature tends to self-populate towards the left side of the political spectrum, which makes political debates difficult in general and more so when the rare right-leaning member comes in feeling outnumbered and un-listened to. People are citing sources and backing their opinions, and I haven't seen a single person accuse another of committing a fallacy of some kind. I can't imagine this will last forever, but it's nice as a change of pace and I just felt it should be pointed out.

[Tolvo]

I do wonder what everyone in the thread thinks would actually solve a lot of these issues. For instance what levels of gun control. Because it has been mentioned that people are afraid of certain concepts, like full confiscation. I just wonder where everyone does stand on solutions in totality.

Personally I'm not against full confiscation, though I don't think that'd really be easy in the USA and that actually doing that would be very hard. In general I see gun control as more of a bandage, that a lot of these problems stem from our culture and systems. How poverty, toxic masculinity, gun culture, are in the USA. That gun control at various levels could help lessen numbers of deaths, from suicide or homicide, but that it also is not a long term solution unless we really work on improving our society.

[Icelandic]

I do wonder what everyone in the thread thinks would actually solve a lot of these issues. For instance what levels of gun control. Because it has been mentioned that people are afraid of certain concepts, like full confiscation. I just wonder where everyone does stand on solutions in totality.

Good question. I think considering there are other places in the world with relatively high gun ownership rates, but not equivalent gun crime, and when those nations (mainly looking at European ones here) also have very good healthcare systems, the answer is clear.

I support some form of universal healthcare, preferably a Scandinavian version of one as they seem to be able to actually do it right. And fully fund mental health services. Especially for young men who need it most in the country.

[Icelandic]

Your wikipedia link says it right at the top.

The Washington Post article seems like just a lot of speculation without anything to really show. Especially the issue of more police when these stats don't include violence done by the police.

It is still weird this illusion that the further left someone is the more they want gun control, when again, gun control is more of a center position. Also the anti-vaccination movement is more popular among people who are pretty well off which typically the further left people are not.

Oh, and I missed your earlier response.

I did notice the mention on the top of the Wikipedia article. And to be fair if medical care for gunshot wounds has gotten better, then that does not help argue that lack of guns had caused the (very minor) homicide rate decline in Australia. In fact it might even make the gun confiscation argument even worse. So uh... Thanks! :D

Also the Washington Post article gives plenty of sources, and surely you can't say that gun homicide went down because of less guns in America?

I'm sorry, normally I don't have that much of a problem with people getting information off of Wikipedia, but in this case that is ridiculous. I cited a recent research paper documenting homicide rates, and your response is that you would rather listen to WIKIPEDIA? Come on. Let's be real here. The article I cited was designed to compare homicides in a way that Wikipedia does not. Those aren't equatable.

You know Wikipedia cites sources as well, right?...

If the problem is that the Left makes bad gun control policy, then the right should step up and show us how it's done. How they would implement gun control which actually works.

I'm not really gunna respond to the other points made because I would just be repeating myself. But I'm curious as to why not just enforce our current gun laws first? The Parkland shooting would never have happened if the government enforced their own laws in the first place.

[Tolvo]

I'm not sure if there is really a point to continuing. We seem to disagree on very basic facts and the reality and history presented in our sources. And I'm not sure what you are arguing anymore Icelandic, whether you believe gun violence in general or gun related homicides are impacted by people not owning guns or what anything really means to you. And it seems you really want to put words in other people's mouths.

[Tilt]

You know Wikipedia cites sources as well, right?...

It's still a secondary source. The link I provided was to a direct comparison of gun-related deaths over the past twenty-five years.

Like I said, the problem isn't that I hate Wikipedia. I don't. But when it comes to topics as serious as this one, you should prioritize where you get your information.

I'm not really gunna respond to the other points made because I would just be repeating myself. But I'm curious as to why not just enforce our current gun laws first? The Parkland shooting would never have happened if the government enforced their own laws in the first place.

There's a LOT that I want to say to the first part of this point, especially after you spent multiple posts telling me what people like myself believe when they don't support DC vs Heller. Rather than debate the points that we actually make, you just seem more content to make up what we believe and then act shocked and offended at those imagined slights against gun ownership. It's very hard to have a sincere debate with someone who will just make something up and expect it to be taken as fact.

What I will say is that it is very frustrating that the far-right regularly cuts the ability for gun control to work, and then says that if people enforced current gun control that everything would be fine. Current gun control laws are like a tattered butterfly net that we're told to catch bullets with. When the bullets fly through, well that's proof that gun control doesn't work. It's a completely circular argument. It also ignores all the shootings where the shooter got their guns legally and there's nothing that modern gun control could have done to prevent it (Want to say the Las Vegas shooting fits that criteria).

The entire problem is that current gun control doesn't work. They aren't properly enforced, and even if they were they wouldn't prevent many of the mass shootings that we see almost every single day. We need a better system because this one isn't working.

Now if the far-right has any ideas it would like to share, I am all ears. Propose some solutions. Draft some legislation. Make the hard calls. But until your side of the isle makes some teensy attempt to stand against the epidemic of gun violence, it doesn't have any right to take the moral highground. As much as you would like to bash the left, at least we're making an effort.

I am going to agree with Tolvo. There's really no point in arguing with someone who puts words in my mouth.

[Tolvo]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/20/chicago-shooting-nra-blasted-telling-docs-stay-their-lane/2064406002/

Also in relation to the NRA, keep in mind that recently the NRA told doctors to stay in their lane and that gun violence was not their problem or territory. Because a lot of doctors wanted more research to be done on gun violence, something the NRA is fiercely against. Cue a shooting in a hospital soon after.

[Tilt]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/20/chicago-shooting-nra-blasted-telling-docs-stay-their-lane/2064406002/

Also in relation to the NRA, keep in mind that recently the NRA told doctors to stay in their lane and that gun violence was not their problem or territory. Because a lot of doctors wanted more research to be done on gun violence, something the NRA is fiercely against. Cue a shooting in a hospital soon after.

This one really infuriates me because it's so clearly a ploy to redefine who gets to be an expert on complex issues. Not trained researchers, not doctors who save lives, but just... Gun owners. Gun owners are the experts on gun violence and everyone else should defer to them.

It shouldn't need to be said that this is a conflict of interest.

[Oniya]

With regards to Wikipedia, I find it very useful to use it as a way to find sources - then I take the added step of going to the source (usually hyperlinked in the footnotes) and read it in the primary form.  It takes out that one level of 'filter' caused by the interpretation of whoever added that particular source to the article.

Then, when I'm making my contribution to the discussion, I link to the primary source instead of the Wikipedia article.  ^_^

[Tilt]

With regards to Wikipedia, I find it very useful to use it as a way to find sources - then I take the added step of going to the source (usually hyperlinked in the footnotes) and read it in the primary form.  It takes out that one level of 'filter' caused by the interpretation of whoever added that particular source to the article.

Then, when I'm making my contribution to the discussion, I link to the primary source instead of the Wikipedia article.  ^_^

Yeah, that's a good way to do it. Otherwise, I don't even know which reference he's talking about. Some articles have dozens of references and not all are created equal.

[Tolvo]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nra-just-reported-losing-dollar55-million-in-income?ref=scroll

Recently the NRA has been on the financial decline, though they still do make a lot of money, it seems like they are getting less and membership is going down.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/taking-names-scott-maxwell/os-ne-nra-florida-concealed-carry-gun-permit-scott-maxwell-20181128-story.html

Also some news relating to the NRA's hold in Florida.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/11/27/its-a-twitter-war-doctors-clash-with-nra-over-gun-deaths/

And more on doctors responding to the NRA and advocating for better gun control.

I'm also trying to see if they said anything about the black man who was recently shot by police for holding a gun he legally owned and was allowed to carry. Like it seems standard, when it is a black person who was a gun owner killed they don't seem to care. Instead they're posting about how mass shootings where an armed citizen intervened were stopped or impeded 94% of the time. Though clearly not this one, and also that doesn't mean the armed citizen did anything. Amid begging for donations.

https://twitter.com/timothywjohnson/status/1067826530103902213

I decided to check after seeing a clip of Chuck Holton on NRATV seemingly fantasizing about how people he hates would be helpless during a mass shooting, something he has a history of fantasizing about.