Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Dauric » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:23 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
cphite wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:This would be an ideal opportunity for the extreme left and right wings to come together here...


"look, we realized we're both crazy, and we've decided to not be that..."

Yeah, I'm not gonna hold my breath.


I for one agree with Sardia. We need to get these people together, all of them, all in one place... and then cover that place with concrete.

This isn't about convincing the moderates. The fat left and the far right both are skeptical of government intrusions in the name of security. If you can seize that under current, you'll have a majority on killing the list.


Ehhh... The Far Right is currently trying to keep the "terrorists" out of the country by building walls, I doubt they're terribly uncomfortable violating the rights of people that they think shouldn't get 'Murican Rights in the first place.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:31 pm UTC

sardia wrote:This isn't about convincing the moderates. The fat left and the far right both are skeptical of government intrusions in the name of security. If you can seize that under current, you'll have a majority on killing the list.


That's...a very broad label that SOUNDS good, but they ultimately place different values on different things. The far right might be skeptical of the government, sure, but that doesn't mean they give a shit about, say, refugees.

While the far left may be skeptical of the government, they sure don't give a shit about gun rights.

So despite a superficial similarity, they want very different things.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:00 am UTC

That's what they said about prisoners, but look where we are now. Not that anyone is doing it, but the support is there, just buried under "Oh me yarm the darky terrorirsts are coming"

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby jewish_scientist » Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:59 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The fat left and the far right both are skeptical of government intrusions in the name of security.

This is probably a typo, but part of me wishes that it is not.

Vahir wrote:Okay, who here, by a show of hands, supports the no-fly list in its current state?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "nobody".

You do realize that changing the No-Fly List from its current state could mean getting rid of it altogether, or adding restrictions to people on it. It could also mean removing people from the list, or adding more people to the list. Even if everybody 'raised their hands' not much would be said. On almost any issue, persons (not people, look up the difference) want to change something; more/less business regulations, more/less military action against terrorism, more/less funding for public libraries. Asking 'who wants X to change' is almost synonymous with 'who has an opinion on X.'
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:11 pm UTC

I suspect precisely zero people in this conversation only want the no fly list extended, and essentially everyone has concerns over the lack of due process. A list may be necessary, and that's all well and good, but maximizing civil protections for such a thing seems...at least commonly accepted as good here. This may not be universally accepted elsewhere, however. This forum isn't really a cross section of the US.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby jewish_scientist » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:17 pm UTC

I agree; I was just pointing out that taking that kind of poll is pointless. Imagine that the poll was, 'Who thinks the laws regarding contraception and abortion should be changed?' I would bet the 90% of pollers would answer yes, but no significant information has been gained. You do not know what parts of those laws persons want to change or how those laws should be changed. Maybe if you wanted to measure how controversial an issue is you could do a poll like this; otherwise I think that no good could come from it.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's sort of a seperate question. And, frankly, everyone is on board with *some* restrictions, as even gun owners are pretty okay with violent criminals losing gun ownership rights. But it's not quite as simple as "anything that restricts guns is good". This way is particularly harmful to due process, and frankly, even if you're for restricting guns overall, it provides you fairly little gain in that. The tradeoff is pretty horrible.


I think there's a simple solution to this. Tie all gun control bills to abortion control bills. Any restrictions placed on someone's access to an abortion are also applied to someone's access to firearms, and any liberalization on firearm access yields a corresponding liberalization of abortion law.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:24 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's sort of a seperate question. And, frankly, everyone is on board with *some* restrictions, as even gun owners are pretty okay with violent criminals losing gun ownership rights. But it's not quite as simple as "anything that restricts guns is good". This way is particularly harmful to due process, and frankly, even if you're for restricting guns overall, it provides you fairly little gain in that. The tradeoff is pretty horrible.


I think there's a simple solution to this. Tie all gun control bills to abortion control bills. Any restrictions placed on someone's access to an abortion are also applied to someone's access to firearms, and any liberalization on firearm access yields a corresponding liberalization of abortion law.


I do think the two situations are comparable, and I have similar suspicions whenever someone proposes "reasonable" restrictions on abortions, in that I believe they primarily want abortion ended, and view any restrictions as a means to that end.

However, I have severe doubts that, as a practical measure, such a thing could work. Even if you could get everyone to agree to do it, no mean feat, agreement would no doubt immediately break down when trying to figure out what the equivalent gun thing is to a given abortion law.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Dauric » Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:However, I have severe doubts that, as a practical measure, such a thing could work. Even if you could get everyone to agree to do it, no mean feat, agreement would no doubt immediately break down when trying to figure out what the equivalent gun thing is to a given abortion law.


Restrictions on magazine capacity just goes to some unpleasant places....
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 25, 2015 4:49 pm UTC

Didn't Tyndmyr say restrictions on magazine capacity was just an inconvenience?


Anyway, the CDC has issued a rare study on gun violence. The findings are interesting, but I'm surprised they even did it. Congress has made clear the gun lobby does not want to glean any facts from the data, and leave us with unproven assumptions forever. You know, just in case any plank in the gun lobby platform could ever be possibly proven wrong at any point which might be used to start legislation. The gun lobby claims this is justified paranoia, but I hear echos of the cigarette lobby here. They are suppressing research in a (successful) attempt to freeze the public discourse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cd ... ngton.html

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files ... t10315.pdf
Original Source
Spoiler:
The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime. Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need
to prevent violence involvement . This could potentially help prevent the subsequent violent crime that affects individuals, families, and neighborhoods throughout Wilmington.
Link has a handy chart of risk factors that combined have a 83% chance of predicting gun violence. Intriguing but needs more research $$$.

User avatar
libra
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:50 am UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby libra » Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:54 pm UTC

The general assumptions here are that (i) if it's in the Constitution, it must be good; (ii) we can trust you lot with guns; (iii) we can trust you lot to ask yourselves "Why do people think of us as bloodthirsty monsters all the time? Is it to do with the fact that we can't seem to even go to the toilet or talk about the weather without taking out a gun and waving it about?"; (iv) we can trust you lot, full stop.

All these assumptions are false.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6894
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby ucim » Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:21 pm UTC

There's another assumption:

"Government has our best interests in mind, and is the best arbiter of our mind." It is from the falsity of that assumption that all the rest came about. And after upending the constitution in the name of {insert catchphrase}, that assumption will still be false. So tread at your peril.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby elasto » Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:43 am UTC

ucim wrote:There's another assumption:

"Government has our best interests in mind, and is the best arbiter of our mind." It is from the falsity of that assumption that all the rest came about. And after upending the constitution in the name of {insert catchphrase}, that assumption will still be false. So tread at your peril.


I don't think anyone would argue against new constitutional amendments limiting present day government abuses. For example, I think end-to-end encryption of private correspondence, encryption of communication metadata and so on should be constitutional rights, and, for example, arrests should be invalidated without bodycam evidence signed off by an independent, non-political third-party body (in many countries that would be the judiciary, but the judiciary is politicised in the US, so you guys might need to build a new non-partisan body from the ground up)

All people are saying is that the constitution should be updated to reflect present-day realities - and the second amendment should not be exempt from such re-evaluation.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6894
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby ucim » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:00 pm UTC

elasto wrote:All people are saying is that the constitution should be updated to reflect present-day realities - and the second amendment should not be exempt from such re-evaluation.
No, not all people are saying that. Some people are saying that. And I know you meant that "People are only saying that..." but a similar point holds... re-evaluating the constitution is a bag of worms. People use one thing to push for another. Thing A happens, thing B could not have prevented it but is something that some interest group has been itching for, so in "Think of the children!" manner, it gets trotted out as the solution.

While not sacred, overall the (US) constitution is pretty well thought out. It is more well thought out than most politics today. And the overarching flavor in it is limiting government power and retaining that power locally ("to the states, or to the people"). Being a federal document, it's about federal power, but the idea is the same.

Firepower is an important aspect of federal power over the populace; it's how the populace is subdued when government wants to put us down. Just read the police abuse thread for samples. However, it's also how government defends us Good Guys against the Bad Guys - I don't want to have to defend myself with force wherever I go... that's kind of the point of civilization to begin with. Pretty much by definition, the Good Guys are not the problem - in fact they are part of the solution. Clearly, laws should keep guns away from the Bad Guys, while allowing the Good Guys to have all the guns they want.

But that's tricky. And the nose in the tent is that Government is not one of the Good Guys, yet is necessary to keep the Bad Guys at bay.

Most of the rhetoric does not address this. Instead it uses "Think of the Children!" reasoning to push their agenda regardless of whether it would have the argued-for effect.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

The Constitution itself came about by hi-jacking. They were there to fix the previous document. Having said that, too much fear of the bad things, can lead you to the position that you never try anything new, because it might go bad. I struggle with this in relationship to technology. The idea that an armed populace can protect itself from the government is a little bit of a fantasy. The Civil War in the US is a case in point. The South did precisely that, took armed militia and went to war. They lost.
ucim wrote:Clearly, laws should keep guns away from the Bad Guys, while allowing the Good Guys to have all the guns they want.
There are no good guys. What you mean is you think you are, and that people who think like you are. I may not think like you. Government keeps us apart. Yea! The Second Amendment isn't going away in any case. There is no political will to do so.

ijuin
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby ijuin » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:51 am UTC

The problem is not the guns so much as the attitude of treating them as a Golden Hammer. If the only weapon that one has is a lethal one, then it is psychologically easier to jump to believing that lethal force is justified in any given situation--or to believing that merely threatening the use of such force (i.e. brandishing) will convince opponents to back down. Of course, if BOTH parties in a conflict have such an attitude, then it becomes even more likely that once the second person draws a weapon, the first person will believe their paranoia to be justified and will fire.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Dauric » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:32 pm UTC

libra wrote:The general assumptions here are that (i) if it's in the Constitution, it must be good; (ii) we can trust you lot with guns; (iii) we can trust you lot to ask yourselves "Why do people think of us as bloodthirsty monsters all the time? Is it to do with the fact that we can't seem to even go to the toilet or talk about the weather without taking out a gun and waving it about?"; (iv) we can trust you lot, full stop.

All these assumptions are false.


Re: the bold italicized.

I'm not sure how serious you are in that bit, or if you include that as one of your 'False Assumptions', but seriously firearms aren't that prevalent in the U.S. I can see how someone overseas might think we "wave guns about while going to the toilet and talking about the weather" based on news coverage, but keep in mind that to get eyeballs "News" often sensationalizes the rare and frightening. If it's frightening the announcers can use tones of voice and trigger words that have the demonstrated ability to keep people paying attention. If the events are rare they can emphasize the frightening aspects without their audience realizing just how little actual danger there is in that event happening to them. And of course the farther away you are from the source of the news the more reasonable it sounds as you have less contact with people in that area.

I live in Colorado, definitely in the "West". My parents have 40 acres out in the rural eastern plains of Colorado. When I lived out there I never saw anyone packing a firearm on their hip and gun racks were less than 5% of all vehicles (and most of those were empty).

Now that I'm living in the Denver Metro, people carrying firearms that aren't police is essentially nill.

Keep in mind Colorado is an Open Carry state (It's legal to carry as long as it's openly visible on your person), but even with that as the case us "Gun-Crazy Americans", even those of us living out in the "Wild West", don't take advantage of that.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:48 pm UTC

Basic Google search show 1/3 of Americans own guns.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:56 pm UTC

The original quote mentioned "taking out a gun and waving it about" which implied more than just owning a gun.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:58 pm UTC

libra wrote:The general assumptions here are that (i) if it's in the Constitution, it must be good;


For some perhaps... But for many of us, the general assumption is that having a government that is bound by a Constitution is good. A very large part of the idea of the founding of the USA was government of the people; not government of this bloodline or that bloodline, or government because God said so, or government of the guy with the most weapons, and so forth. The idea was the we'd have a government of the people, where it was clearly defined what that government could or could not do.

And the core of the idea is that our government be bound to the Constitution. If the Constitution needs to change, so be it... there are processes in place to do that. Those processes are intentionally difficult, because any changes to the Constitution are supposed to reflect the will of the people as a whole.

So back to the original topic... if enough people in the USA wanted to revoke or adjust the Second Amendment, there is a process in place for doing that. I don't see that happening any time soon - and until it does, the Second Amendment will remain. And as long as the Second Amendment is there, we have a right as a people to keep and bear arms. I for one am glad of that right.

(ii) we can trust you lot with guns;


But see, your trust issues aren't our problem. We have a right, as law abiding citizens, to keep and bear arms. Our rights are not defined by the personal hangups of a handful of people, they're defined by our Constitution. Which is an example of the system working as intended.

(iii) we can trust you lot to ask yourselves "Why do people think of us as bloodthirsty monsters all the time? Is it to do with the fact that we can't seem to even go to the toilet or talk about the weather without taking out a gun and waving it about?


Perhaps you should ask yourself "Should I be using straw men and ridiculous hyperbole if I want to be taken seriously?"

(iv) we can trust you lot, full stop.


Look, that whole revolution thing was a long time ago... can't we just let bygones be bygones?

All these assumptions are false.


Assumptions often are. Assumptions about assumptions, even more so.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Didn't Tyndmyr say restrictions on magazine capacity was just an inconvenience?


It's mildly annoying in my state, because I have to drive across the border to MD to buy larger mags. An extra twenty minute drive counts as an inconvenience, I think.

However, Dauric's pointing out that making an abortion analogy for this ends up being...messy.

Anyway, the CDC has issued a rare study on gun violence. The findings are interesting, but I'm surprised they even did it. Congress has made clear the gun lobby does not want to glean any facts from the data, and leave us with unproven assumptions forever. You know, just in case any plank in the gun lobby platform could ever be possibly proven wrong at any point which might be used to start legislation. The gun lobby claims this is justified paranoia, but I hear echos of the cigarette lobby here. They are suppressing research in a (successful) attempt to freeze the public discourse.


CDC can go focus on useful things, like dealing with anti-vaxxers and shit.

Integrating data systems and such is probably fine, but the caution exists because there was a campaign by the anti-gunners to co-opt the medical system into pathologizing gun ownership. So, yeah, you get this sort of mistrust and blowback.

libra wrote:The general assumptions here are that (i) if it's in the Constitution, it must be good; (ii) we can trust you lot with guns; (iii) we can trust you lot to ask yourselves "Why do people think of us as bloodthirsty monsters all the time? Is it to do with the fact that we can't seem to even go to the toilet or talk about the weather without taking out a gun and waving it about?"; (iv) we can trust you lot, full stop.

All these assumptions are false.


Who, in this is the "we", and who precisely is "you lot"?

Because guns are not EVER going away entirely in the US. It's merely a question of who has them and why. I, and many others favor a fairly egalitarian approach. I can own guns, the cops can have guns, but if it's something that average people generally can't have, the cops maybe don't need that either. Others favor a super-law and order approach, where they're really, really big on cops having firepower, and anyone who is the wrong sort(defined variously, but often including anyone with a criminal record for life, which brings up some interesting implications) shouldn't.

Very, very few people in the US actually want to get rid of all guns. Even those who are the biggest proponents of gun control and/or confiscation are often noted to possess firearms and carry permits themselves.

elasto wrote:
ucim wrote:There's another assumption:

"Government has our best interests in mind, and is the best arbiter of our mind." It is from the falsity of that assumption that all the rest came about. And after upending the constitution in the name of {insert catchphrase}, that assumption will still be false. So tread at your peril.


I don't think anyone would argue against new constitutional amendments limiting present day government abuses. For example, I think end-to-end encryption of private correspondence, encryption of communication metadata and so on should be constitutional rights, and, for example, arrests should be invalidated without bodycam evidence signed off by an independent, non-political third-party body (in many countries that would be the judiciary, but the judiciary is politicised in the US, so you guys might need to build a new non-partisan body from the ground up)

All people are saying is that the constitution should be updated to reflect present-day realities - and the second amendment should not be exempt from such re-evaluation.


Go nuts. Repeal of the second amendment is not an actual danger, because it isn't really a political possibility. Amendments are hard in the first place, and the political environment is such that it's an impossible task. The real concern isn't this, but that folks will try to work around and subvert the second amendment as much as possible.

But yeah, other amendments might be a good idea.

morriswalters wrote:The Constitution itself came about by hi-jacking. They were there to fix the previous document.


In part. It also came about as a reaction to England. The whole ball of wax was heavily tied to various English abuses that were more or less unpopular. Gun control literally being the flashpoint of the war, of course it features.

Personally, I would rather we not settle our politicial differences with civil wars. It's messy and kind of wasteful. So, no, I don't really want the Constitution hijacked in such a manner. It seems obviously undesirable.

Dauric wrote:I'm not sure how serious you are in that bit, or if you include that as one of your 'False Assumptions', but seriously firearms aren't that prevalent in the U.S. I can see how someone overseas might think we "wave guns about while going to the toilet and talking about the weather" based on news coverage, but keep in mind that to get eyeballs "News" often sensationalizes the rare and frightening.


Nobody has that kind of attitude about Norway, and they have the highest gun ownership in Europe. They're not considered particularly violent, gun happy, or anything. This is tied part and parcel to the US as kind of ignorant, getting involved in other people's stuff steriotypes. Which..those people do exist, to some degree. The US is biiiig. The culture in Baltimore is very distinct to the culture in western MD, and that's even within the same state.

The people that use guns violently are an almost entirely distinct subgroup from the actual gun culture. You won't actually see cowboys waving guns above their heads in the street or anything...it's all just somehow an image that everyone understands, regardless of if it ever actually happens. If you look a bit closer, you see that, sure, a ton of the US does own guns, but there are some distinct demographic and cultural ties there, and owning a gun doesn't carry the same baggage it apparently does in other cultures. Mine just, for the most part, sit in the closet. They don't get displayed any more than I'd display a socket set. Nobody cares.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby elasto » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody has that kind of attitude about Norway, and they have the highest gun ownership in Europe. They're not considered particularly violent, gun happy, or anything.

That's because they're not. The Norwegian authorities aren't shooting vast numbers of other country's citizens, aren't shooting vast numbers of their own citizens, and there aren't vast numbers of Norwegian citizens shooting each other.

To be fair, it's not just US citizens that need disarming via a repeal of the second amendment, it's the US government! Norway has shown itself mature enough to handle firearms from top to bottom; The US? Not so much...

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Dauric » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:38 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:The original quote mentioned "taking out a gun and waving it about" which implied more than just owning a gun.


This.

In my experience most gun owners don't have their weapons anywhere other than at home, or at the range, much like Tyndmyr. I live in a state that is probably significantly higher than that 1-in-3 ownership average (The Tanner Gun Show is a monthly event in Denver alone, they have other shows in Pueblo and Loveland on similar schedules), yet people actually carrying those weapons where they can "Wave them about" for any reason is significantly lower than 33%. I can walk outside my office in downtown Denver or go get groceries out in the Denver suburb where I live and never see a firearm except those carried by a police officer. If I go and visit my parents out in their rural town I can go to the supermarket or shop in the local "mom-and-pop" stores and -if- I see someone carrying openly it will be a distinctly memorable event, it's certainly not anywhere close to 1-in-3 actually carrying weapons in public.

As far as concealed carry permits (y'know those people that I would'n know if they were packing or not for my anecdote), which are fairly easy to get in Colorado (the federal background check to buy the weapon is more stringent than the concealed carry permit): The state population is a little over 5.4 million, there are since June 2003 307,602 concealed carry permits in Colorado (as of November 2015). That's about 5.6% of the state who have concealed carry permits, again not nearly 1-in-3. This is also just a count of people with permits to carry concealed, it doesn't mean that they actually are packing heat 24/7 (my parents got permits when they were taking up exploring old ghost towns as a hobby, you can meet some very not-nice animals and people in those old buildings. They don't carry day-to-day going to work or to get groceries).
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

ijuin
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby ijuin » Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:56 pm UTC

Take note that the 1 in 3 statistic refers to individuals who own firearms, not households. Among those who own guns for personal protection/home defense, often a single gun owner covers the whole household--i.e. only Mom or Dad has a gun, not necessarily both of them or any other family members. Also note that the statistic does not exclude those who are too disabled or too young to operate a firearm (legal/liability issues aside, I think that few people would want a kid younger than about six to be firing a live weapon--if they're not old enough to fully comprehend death, then they're not old enough to be given lethal weaponry), so it's closer to forty-odd percent of people who can reasonably use guns owning one.

As for concealed carry, it's the guys who DO walk around with their weapon loaded and holstered (as opposed to put in a carrying case) 24/7 who are the ones to worry about. If somebody is not in a line of work or living in a neighborhood where the threat of violence is high, then having their weapon handy at all times implies a certain mindset--the person feels threatened in their daily life and believes that a situation calling for lethal force (or brandishing the weapon in order to get an opponent to back down) is likely to happen. Sure most people are responsible with their weapons--it's the one in six thousand Americans per year who will shoot somebody in a legally unjustified manner (i.e. would be charged with homicide).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:19 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:Take note that the 1 in 3 statistic refers to individuals who own firearms, not households. Among those who own guns for personal protection/home defense, often a single gun owner covers the whole household--i.e. only Mom or Dad has a gun, not necessarily both of them or any other family members. Also note that the statistic does not exclude those who are too disabled or too young to operate a firearm (legal/liability issues aside, I think that few people would want a kid younger than about six to be firing a live weapon--if they're not old enough to fully comprehend death, then they're not old enough to be given lethal weaponry), so it's closer to forty-odd percent of people who can reasonably use guns owning one.


That is correct. The number of people who have access to a firearm out of those who can is significantly higher than the percentage of people who own them.

Firearms are really common, but they're not out and about much. This is a big thing that's missed whenever folks talk about repealing the second amendment or whatever. The sheer breadth of support for firearm ownership is wildly underrated. The NRA is merely the tip of the iceberg. Granted, a 5 million person tip, whereas pro-banning groups number a few thousand at most. The NRA isn't an extreme on this issue. It's the moderate center, with most of the people distributed around it. The more fervent pro-gun groups, which *still* dominate banning groups in size, form the other "side" in practice.

This is why gun control ends up being a political third rail. Sure, you've got the folks who really care regardless, but the masses mostly don't bother to research people until the issue hits center stage. Bring up gun control, and you've just shoved in everyone's face that you're in the extreme, trying to limit what they can do. It fails predictably over and over again.

One wonders what the republicans and democrats would accomplish if they weren't perpetually tilting at the windmills of gun control and abortion control.

As for concealed carry, it's the guys who DO walk around with their weapon loaded and holstered (as opposed to put in a carrying case) 24/7 who are the ones to worry about. If somebody is not in a line of work or living in a neighborhood where the threat of violence is high, then having their weapon handy at all times implies a certain mindset--the person feels threatened in their daily life and believes that a situation calling for lethal force (or brandishing the weapon in order to get an opponent to back down) is likely to happen. Sure most people are responsible with their weapons--it's the one in six thousand Americans per year who will shoot somebody in a legally unjustified manner (i.e. would be charged with homicide).


You mean police, right? I do worry about them, and their unrealistic fear of everything.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:26 pm UTC

The fears the police have aren't any more uncommon than normal people. That's part of the problem, they're no better than a shakey kid with a gun. The other part is the higher burden of proof+ corruption. And X people siding with the cops side of the story is corruption.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:39 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody has that kind of attitude about Norway, and they have the highest gun ownership in Europe. They're not considered particularly violent, gun happy, or anything.

That's because they're not. The Norwegian authorities aren't shooting vast numbers of other country's citizens, aren't shooting vast numbers of their own citizens, and there aren't vast numbers of Norwegian citizens shooting each other.

To be fair, it's not just US citizens that need disarming via a repeal of the second amendment, it's the US government! Norway has shown itself mature enough to handle firearms from top to bottom; The US? Not so much...
There aren't vast numbers of Norwegians. My home town has a greater population than any city in Norway. There are more people in each of our three of our largest cities than there are in Norway. The comparison is apples and oranges. Large democracies are messy. There are a lot of voices. Whatever Norway is, if it were 50 times larger we might get some valid comparisons.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:02 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nobody has that kind of attitude about Norway, and they have the highest gun ownership in Europe. They're not considered particularly violent, gun happy, or anything.

That's because they're not. The Norwegian authorities aren't shooting vast numbers of other country's citizens, aren't shooting vast numbers of their own citizens, and there aren't vast numbers of Norwegian citizens shooting each other.

To be fair, it's not just US citizens that need disarming via a repeal of the second amendment, it's the US government! Norway has shown itself mature enough to handle firearms from top to bottom; The US? Not so much...
There aren't vast numbers of Norwegians. My home town has a greater population than any city in Norway. There are more people in each of our three of our largest cities than there are in Norway. The comparison is apples and oranges. Large democracies are messy. There are a lot of voices. Whatever Norway is, if it were 50 times larger we might get some valid comparisons.


+1

It would be like trying to compare the crime rates of Chicago to those of any random 1,000 person town in the middle of Nebraska... utterly meaningless. The same holds true when people try to compare things like national healthcare - for example Sanders and his comparisons to Denmark. Things don't scale like you might wish them to when you multiply the population by 50 or 60.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:13 pm UTC

So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:30 am UTC

Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.

High population requires urbanization. You can't support any significant number of people without a city, rural Utopian myths be damned. Alternatively, a high population means you have a really large country. So a gunshot wound that would be a medical emergency in a city, would be a death sentence in the country.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby morriswalters » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:01 am UTC

Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.
And you might be right. I was responding in kind to Elasto's facile statement that it has something to do with maturity. However take a state like New Hampshire and compare it to Norway.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:55 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The fears the police have aren't any more uncommon than normal people. That's part of the problem, they're no better than a shakey kid with a gun. The other part is the higher burden of proof+ corruption. And X people siding with the cops side of the story is corruption.


They claim a great deal of concern about threats to their well being with astonishing regularity, especially given actual statistics regarding such threats.

It's almost routine for them to just shoot dogs because, hey, they were there when they were busting into the place. I do not think such fears are normal, or commonly held by the population at large, who manages to somehow not murder dogs in vast quanities in the grip of unreasoning fear.

Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.


Where are weapons fetishized? Do you have evidence for this claim?

The more logical conclusion is that firearm ownership cannot be a very large factor in murder rate. If, among the most similar countries, you're seeing opposite extremes in murder rates, well, a correlation MIGHT still exist, but obviously other very large causes are in play. It becomes rapidly clear that it is not actually the goal to fix the murder rate, but that murder rate is merely a handy tool to use in service of the primary goal of banning firearms.

sardia wrote:High population requires urbanization. You can't support any significant number of people without a city, rural Utopian myths be damned. Alternatively, a high population means you have a really large country. So a gunshot wound that would be a medical emergency in a city, would be a death sentence in the country.


Reasonably similar. New Hampshire is still higher than norway, but the difference is comparatively small. New Hampshire is well below average for the US, of course.

I note that broadband access correlates strongly with murder rate as well, which is amusing. Probably just the natural consequence of both things correlating with urban living to a high degree. Anywhere with an utter lack of broadband probably has generally longer times to get medical treatment. If we're talking specifically gunshots, rapid treatment does have a ridiculously high impact on survivability. Probably true for most other forms of murder as well.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.


To a certain degree, yes. Human beings can be temperamental and volatile critters - the more of them you put together in one place, the greater the chance two or more bump together and something bad happens. Densely populated urban areas have more crime and violence than rural areas because there are more people.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.


Where are weapons fetishized? Do you have evidence for this claim?

The more logical conclusion is that firearm ownership cannot be a very large factor in murder rate. If, among the most similar countries, you're seeing opposite extremes in murder rates, well, a correlation MIGHT still exist, but obviously other very large causes are in play. It becomes rapidly clear that it is not actually the goal to fix the murder rate, but that murder rate is merely a handy tool to use in service of the primary goal of banning firearms.


I'm not sure how you'd quantify weapon festishisation, but I wasn't so much making a claim as suggesting areas I'd consider more relevant than total population (Norway does have significantly lower social inequality though). But yeah, there's definitely something a bit fetishy about gun culture in the US. For a start, you actually have such a thing as "gun culture".

Norway still has double the per-capita homicide rate of the UK and France by the way, even though it's still half of the USA's. So it's not the opposite extreme. Obviously the problem here is we're dealing with an extremely small sample size but it's still interesting to look at.


cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.


To a certain degree, yes. Human beings can be temperamental and volatile critters - the more of them you put together in one place, the greater the chance two or more bump together and something bad happens. Densely populated urban areas have more crime and violence than rural areas because there are more people.


Well the relevant factor here is population density, not total population. Also how that population density itself is spread out. This would take longer to compare properly but can be done, the US has a total population density of 90 per sq mile compared to Norway's 35 so yes, that could be a factor.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:39 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I'm not sure how you'd quantify weapon festishisation, but I wasn't so much making a claim as suggesting areas I'd consider more relevant than total population (Norway does have significantly lower social inequality though). But yeah, there's definitely something a bit fetishy about gun culture in the US. For a start, you actually have such a thing as "gun culture".

Norway still has double the per-capita homicide rate of the UK and France by the way, even though it's still half of the USA's. So it's not the opposite extreme. Obviously the problem here is we're dealing with an extremely small sample size but it's still interesting to look at.


Why does that make it a fetish? Just because a subculture exists doesn't mean it's inherently a fetishization of something.

Seriously, there's a strong effort on the part of the anti-gunners to frame it in a sexual light. Fetishes. Compensation. Lots of dick references. It's...odd. And it feels particularly tone-deaf given that the biggest rise in gun ownership at present is among women, so these arguments seem to come across as rather sexist much of the time.

I wonder sometimes what people think gun culture actually is, and if they would describe a day at the golf range as a fetish.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Dauric » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:...and if they would describe a day at the golf range as a fetish.


Have you seen those obscene clubs? All hard and knobbly at the tip, and they're just swinging them around, smacking balls in to holes...

Less flippantly, at this point someone using the word "Fetish" in an argument just makes me roll my eyes, I mean Rule 34 states that, yeah, pretty much everything is sexual in some context, from the mundanely banal to "Oh my god! There's not enough bleach in my brain!". To describe something as "fetishized" is probably just short of a Godwin at this point.
Last edited by Dauric on Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:58 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Mutex wrote:So, if you multiply a country's population by 50, they suddenly start killing each other more? There are a lot of important differences between Norway and the USA, but population is a weird one to point to as probably cause for the large difference in per-capita homicide rates. Especially without any explanation of why that makes the two places incomparable. I'd have probably pointed to differences in social equality, or how much weapons are fetishised in each country or something.


To a certain degree, yes. Human beings can be temperamental and volatile critters - the more of them you put together in one place, the greater the chance two or more bump together and something bad happens. Densely populated urban areas have more crime and violence than rural areas because there are more people.


Well the relevant factor here is population density, not total population. Also how that population density itself is spread out. This would take longer to compare properly but can be done, the US has a total population density of 90 per sq mile compared to Norway's 35 so yes, that could be a factor.


90 per square mile is an aggregate; it's taking into account sparsely populated rural areas which have far fewer people, and larger cities which have much, much higher densities. New York City has approximately 27,000 people per square mile. There are 130+ cities in the USA that have populations of over 10,000 people per square mile.

Whenever you put that many people into one place, bad shit happens. Add to this the fact that we've got a lot of racial tension and income inequality - both of which happen to be centered in those same heavily populated areas - and you have a powder keg.

I used to work security at large venues, and one thing I learned is that a certain percentage of any population consists of assholes. The bigger the population, the more assholes. The more assholes, the more problems. And it's not linear, it's exponential.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:03 pm UTC

cphite wrote:90 per square mile is an aggregate; it's taking into account sparsely populated rural areas which have far fewer people, and larger cities which have much, much higher densities. New York City has approximately 27,000 people per square mile. There are 130+ cities in the USA that have populations of over 10,000 people per square mile.

Whenever you put that many people into one place, bad shit happens. Add to this the fact that we've got a lot of racial tension and income inequality - both of which happen to be centered in those same heavily populated areas - and you have a powder keg.

I used to work security at large venues, and one thing I learned is that a certain percentage of any population consists of assholes. The bigger the population, the more assholes. The more assholes, the more problems. And it's not linear, it's exponential.


Yes and no. Sharing a wall with an asshole neighbor is indeed more trying than living half a mile away. Being nice and close to an ER is, on the other hand, very good. So, events that might be murder in a more rural area are listed as a still serious, violent crime, but a lesser one than murder, because nobody actually died.

And, it's not as if the country is entirely free from racial tensions, either. Or say, drugs. It might be less visible, simply because everyone is so spread out, but odds are those things are still there.

You're simply going to notice assholes more in a larger population because you deal with far more people on a casual basis, and the assholes tend to stick out. You remember the jackass veering everywhere in traffic, not the ten thousand that drove in a mundane fashion.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Mutex wrote:I'm not sure how you'd quantify weapon festishisation, but I wasn't so much making a claim as suggesting areas I'd consider more relevant than total population (Norway does have significantly lower social inequality though). But yeah, there's definitely something a bit fetishy about gun culture in the US. For a start, you actually have such a thing as "gun culture".

Norway still has double the per-capita homicide rate of the UK and France by the way, even though it's still half of the USA's. So it's not the opposite extreme. Obviously the problem here is we're dealing with an extremely small sample size but it's still interesting to look at.


Why does that make it a fetish? Just because a subculture exists doesn't mean it's inherently a fetishization of something.

Seriously, there's a strong effort on the part of the anti-gunners to frame it in a sexual light. Fetishes. Compensation. Lots of dick references. It's...odd. And it feels particularly tone-deaf given that the biggest rise in gun ownership at present is among women, so these arguments seem to come across as rather sexist much of the time.

I wonder sometimes what people think gun culture actually is, and if they would describe a day at the golf range as a fetish.


Oh right, you're taking the word "fetish" literally. I thought it was obvious it meant people are really "into" them a lot more than just seeing them as practical tools that are just there. Glorification would be a better word.

I notice you seem very quick to place me in the "anti-gunner" camp by the way, despite not having made any such declarations. I guess this is part of why the mods are so keen to keep this stuff to the gun control thread.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Obama finally, finally comes for your guns

Postby Mutex » Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:21 pm UTC

cphite wrote:90 per square mile is an aggregate; it's taking into account sparsely populated rural areas which have far fewer people, and larger cities which have much, much higher densities. New York City has approximately 27,000 people per square mile. There are 130+ cities in the USA that have populations of over 10,000 people per square mile.


You're still not comparing that to relevant statistics from Norway. For example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country says the urbanization rate of the two countries is pretty similar.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests