Gun control, which side wins?

[MigL]

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

People who identify as all conservative tend to want a system that separates the deserving from the non-deserving. They want laws that supposedly apply to all, but are only enforced on the non-deserving.

I think we can all agree that the deserving would be police, armed forces and farmers with long guns.
The non-deserving would be criminals, mentally ill, and most anyone else living in cities.

I guess that makes you a conservative Phi.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, the only viable argument (for a civilian in a world of supermarkets) for having a gun is, in the words of Jim Jefferies, "fuck off, I like guns".

 

Not true. It is absolutisms like this that make it so easy for gun supporters to deflect the actions of gun control advocates.

[Phi for All]

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess that makes you a conservative Phi.

My brushes have never been that wide. I acknowledge my conservative leanings when it comes to several areas, as well as my liberal leanings in others.

Wrt guns in the US, I'm a gun owner who would happily participate in a national buyback program with the aim of removing all the guns. I'd also support Japanese style background checks done by the police for anyone who claims to need a gun. I think that's extremely liberal (for the US).

I'd pay for all the extra police work by moving their funding around and instituting passive radar checks and automatic ticketing for running red lights, which actually enforce the law on vehicles and don't care what color/gender/other privilege flavor you are. I think that's extremely conservative, but I'm not interested in being exempted from punishment just because I'm normally a lawful driver.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Not true. It is absolutisms like this that make it so easy for gun supporters to deflect the actions of gun control advocates.

There's a reason why an excuse is not good enough...

[StringJunky]

This Smithsonian gun control  history article seems to paint a different picture to the current Right-wing narrative of it becoming more restrictive with time. It seems it's actually the reverse.

Quote

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery, but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

More https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

 

 

[TheVat]

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This Smithsonian gun control  history article seems to paint a different picture to the current Right-wing narrative of it becoming more restrictive with time. It seems it's actually the reverse.

 

 

Glad you posted this.  Deadwood, which I live thirty miles from, had the "coat check" policy the article mentions.  Municipalities didn't worry about parsing the Constitution, they just did what was necessary to keep the peace.  And it worked most of the time.

Deadwood, these days, is a boring tourist trap.  There is little I would say is interesting, except the neutrino lab a few miles south in Lead (down in the former Homestake gold mine).  

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My brushes have never been that wide. I acknowledge my conservative leanings when it comes to several areas, as well as my liberal leanings in others.

Wrt guns in the US, I'm a gun owner who would happily participate in a national buyback program with the aim of removing all the guns. I'd also support Japanese style background checks done by the police for anyone who claims to need a gun. I think that's extremely liberal (for the US).

I'd pay for all the extra police work by moving their funding around and instituting passive radar checks and automatic ticketing for running red lights, which actually enforce the law on vehicles and don't care what color/gender/other privilege flavor you are. I think that's extremely conservative, but I'm not interested in being exempted from punishment just because I'm normally a lawful driver.

+1

[zapatos]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's a reason why an excuse is not good enough...

I can't tell. Are you admitting your were wrong?

[MigL]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I acknowledge my conservative leanings when it comes to several areas, as well as my liberal leanings in others.

My bad.
Should have used some emojis for that joke.
( or maybe it was a 'dig', like the following )

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My brushes have never been that wide.

From you perspective.
From other's perspective, you've often used a roller.

[Alex_Krycek]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  - Second Amendment to the US Constitution

It should be noted that this amendment was written when the US had no standing army to protect itself (the founding fathers were opposed to a professional military, seeing it as a threat to liberty).  Instead, Militias, informally assembled of the common man, were seen as more trustworthy protectorates of freedom.

Nowadays one might question the relevance of a "well regulated militia" to the "security of a free State" when said "free state" has the most formidable military in the world.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell. Are you admitting your were wrong?

Maybe I am wrong, I don't know...

But when I examine my own situation; a gun lover/owner, with a supermarket in walking distance, a few chickens, duck's and geese in the garden and a mild vermin problem.

Since there are a number of way's to tackle the vermin problem, including not killing them, (even if my excuse is target practice, because an air rifle with limited power is perfectly adequate); I'm forced to conclude that I have no reason to own a gun that's capable of killing people, just excuses.

[iNow]

There’s been at least one mass shooting in the US every single week of the year this far. 

It’s only May, and already 8,000 people have been killed by guns this year. 

[Alex_Krycek]

A very powerful speech by Matthew McConaughey, who is from Uvalde, Texas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD1EC48TTO0

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 6/4/2022 at 10:35 AM, Phi for All said:

I agree that capitalism has a big part to play, but I do think modern conservatism is also to blame. People who identify as all conservative tend to want a system that separates the deserving from the non-deserving. They want laws that supposedly apply to all, but are only enforced on the non-deserving. They want benefits that the non-deserving don't get. They want their guns and the ways they use them to be protected while the non-deserving have their guns taken away and are thrown in jail. I think right-wing beliefs are definitely part of the problem.

Certainly some of the beliefs generally categorized as right wing are a huge part of the problem. The one you keyed in on certainly has it's issues, but it's pretty low on the list with regard to gun control IMO.

[iNow]

19 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

A very powerful speech by Matthew McConaughey, who is from Uvalde, Texas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD1EC48TTO0

I’d heard snippets, but not yet watched that in its entirety. Thanks for sharing. 

[Sensei]

On 6/5/2022 at 3:10 PM, iNow said:

There’s been at least one mass shooting in the US every single week of the year this far. 

It’s only May, and already 8,000 people have been killed by guns this year. 

Graph comparing homicide/suicide rates per 100,000 population in several high-income countries:

 

People here who are gun enthusiasts and lobby for loosening gun ownership laws argue that people who want to kill/commit suicide would use a knife instead of a gun.... so maybe someone should also include data on homicides/suicides/suicides with a knife (?!) in such a graph..

..or even better make animated graph (one or a couple seconds, one year stats)

Let's make one constructive thread in the history of scienceforums.net... Gather data... use Open Office Spread Sheet/Excel, render to animation using e.g. VirtualDub2, compress it to mp4 and animgif and animpng, upload mp4 to YouTube, and edit Wikipedia to include it for eternity.. Put the project on GitHub so people can edit and recompile it year after year to include new records..

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Sensei

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Sensei said:

People here who are gun enthusiasts and lobby for loosening gun ownership laws argue that people who want to kill/commit suicide would use a knife instead of a gun

Yes, some do argue that, and their argument is wrong.

Sure, a fractional handful might reach for a knife instead of a gun, but the body count after would be far lower.

Also, this argument ignores basic human psychology. The gun tends to make impulse decisions easier. It removes friction from the process and thus makes it more probable. Something that would’ve been little more than a passing ephemeral thought transforms instead into a tragic reality far more frequently once a gun is merely present or nearby amd accessible. 

Some also argue that the gun is just a tool. Well, okay, but some jobs take far longer or never get completed at all as a direct result of lacking the “right tool for the job.”

Edited June 9, 2022 by iNow

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Certainly some of the beliefs generally categorized as right wing are a huge part of the problem. The one you keyed in on certainly has it's issues, but it's pretty low on the list with regard to gun control IMO.

It might be low on the list... until the undeserving start buying legal guns at the same rate as the deserving. That's probably when you'll see some form of gun responsibility bill get passed.

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Also, this argument ignores basic human psychology. The gun tends to make impulse decisions easier. It removes friction from the process and thus makes it more probable. Something that would’ve been little more than a passing ephemeral thought transforms instead into a tragic reality...

Well said.   Most non-ballistic weapons (except maybe the crossbow) require getting up close and personal.  It is much harder to walk up to a person and stab them, than stand at some distance and basically squeeze a lever on a killing machine.  For all the "patriotic" macho talk we hear from gun enthusiasts, their weapons are the tool of choice of cowards and the emotionally fragile.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

For all the "patriotic" macho talk we hear from gun enthusiasts, their weapons are the tool of choice of cowards and the emotionally fragile.

To be fair, they are also the weapons of choice for the brave and stable.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It might be low on the list... until the undeserving start buying legal guns at the same rate as the deserving. That's probably when you'll see some form of gun responsibility bill get passed.

Exactly. Not the factor you claimed. Just a shot at conservatives that does nothing to focus on the problem.

I'm sure the NRA appreciates that type of unintended support.

Edited June 9, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly. Not the factor you claimed. Just a shot at conservatives that does nothing to focus on the problem.

I'm sure the NRA appreciates that type of unintended support.

It's EXACTLY the factor I claimed, since arming the "deserving" is at the heart of the whole "control" problem. And I don't need to take a shot at conservatives as long as they're openly declaring that the Uvalde shooter was within his rights to make the purchases he did, and actively defend those rights into the future. Conservatives in the US are allowing shots to be taken at our children, FFS.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 Conservatives in the US are allowing shots to be taken at our children, FFS.

Americans in the US are allowing shots to be taken at their children.

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

To be fair, they are also the weapons of choice for the brave and stable.

I don't doubt that.  Just addressing the subset of those who obtain such weapons because that's the only way they can perform heinous acts.  Other categories of gun bearers, say Ukrainians fending off the Russian assault, may be quite brave and of amazing mental toughness.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Americans in the US are allowing shots to be taken at their children.

Nope.  It's pretty much the Far Right.   I'm American and mos def did not have any part in allowing this madness.  In fact I've marched in a demonstration against lax gun laws and received insults and taunts from conservative bullies riding up and down past the marchers all along the route.  While exercising my first amendment freedom, they displayed zero respect for it, and made considerable effort to intimidate us with barely veiled threats.  (And THESE are the people whining about cancel culture??) At another demonstration (different theme) some of these same fine upstanding citizens shot at people with paintball guns.  

[zapatos]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It might be low on the list... until the undeserving start buying legal guns at the same rate as the deserving. That's probably when you'll see some form of gun responsibility bill get passed.

It's happened before.

Quote

Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”

The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.

“The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans,” says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms. “Including the Gun Control Act of 1968, which adopted new laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns, providing for beefed up licensing and inspections of gun dealers and restricting the importation of cheap Saturday night specials [pocket pistols] that were popular in some urban communities.”

In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.

 

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act