/r/progressive: If you want facts and figures on gun homicide, why don't you skip the pundits like Maddow and go straight to the peer reviewed science? Make up your own mind. (hsph.harvard.edu)

127 ups - 34 downs = 93 votes

117 comments submitted at 13:12:44 on Jan 13, 2013 by Gabour

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 23 Points
  • 15:29:03, 13 January

I'd just like to personally thank you for fighting back against the gun nuts, libertarians, and NRA shills that have overwhelmed Reddit since Sandy Hook.

This subreddit has been saturated with gun nuts claiming to be liberals and progressives, who insist that we just need to get used to the slaughter of little children, because....freedom.

No, we don't. Science is on our side. Logic is on our side. Humanity is on our side. SANITY is on our side.

  • [-]
  • Gabour
  • 20 Points
  • 16:12:32, 13 January

Thanks, that's one of my favorite sources (click around!) because the researchers specifically aimed at junk scientists from the 90s that are still often cited by people who support gun proliferation.

Well, I have been discussing gun proliferation for about 4 months now as a mod of an anti-gun proliferation sub I started long before Sandy Hook. This is going to sound ranty, but /r/guns has a zealous userbase dedicated to guns. For those that haven't been following they recently dropped their "no politics" rule, turning it into the largest active gun lobby on the internet with 100,000 subscribers. The number one issue for /r/libertarian, who are just as zealous (not saying that's a bad thing, there are passionate people across the spectrum), is gun ownership. Add in /r/conspiracy and you have hit the third rail (nearly every conspiracy involves confiscation of guns). They combine for about 300,000 users. So if you think this will see 1,000 upvotes, you are wrong.

I'm not a conspiratard, I'm just saying that through my personal experience nearly every day watching and debating in the new queue in /r/politics for gun related posts that nothing escapes there. What does escape? The NRA line. Nothing, and I mean nothing, has hit the front page since Sandy Hook that could be considered progressive, which is a conspicuous absence given our progressive bent on everything else.

Now I know you will sit back and say "Gabour you are crazy" and yada yada. But you know what the first argument of the NRA is? "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." What was the headline on /r/politics on Friday?

[2013-1-11][+2,117][/r/politics]Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. So keep dangerous people away from guns.

Right, guns don't kill people, mentally ill people kill people. We got it. I have a public list I'm maintaining right now but I don't see the point, there are too many hitting the front page. Those subscriber bases are too big.

Anyway, I am not surprised that this influence extends here. Like in the Maddow thread I made some fairly innocuous comments (just pointing out an example, I am not asking for upvotes there) that I think accurately reflect how gun makers circumvented the 1994 ban. Those comments are currently in the negative.

So yeah, it gets a little depressing at times. That's why I decided to do something about it and make a serious contribution to the debate, and the only way to do that is to establish a base. We currently have established the start of that base with some of the most active contributors to reddit, and we engage in the debate wherever and whenever it takes place. So we are pretty good at what we do - and to top it off we enjoy doing it. My dream is to frontpage an article after that base matures. Doesn't have to be a million upvotes, just enough to overcome the horde.

Edit: grammar, added a sentence.

  • [-]
  • DKamar
  • 9 Points
  • 16:19:37, 13 January

Like I've mentioned in other threads in the progressive and liberal subs, younger liberals have a strong libertarian streak. Not libertarian as in Libertarian, just anti-authoritarian.

Reddit's younger, so it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to keep pro-gun or gun-neutral opinions on top here.

edit: AGAIN. I used libertarian as a word that means the opposite of authoritarian. It does not in any way imply a connection to political Libertarianism or Ayn Rand's Objectivist drivel.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 7 Points
  • 17:03:24, 13 January

>younger liberals have a strong libertarian streak...

Do I have to say it?

  • [-]
  • DKamar
  • 0 Points
  • 17:38:10, 13 January

I specifically clarified that I didn't mean Libertarian as in the Objectivism-influenced political affiliation. I mean it in the sense that younger liberals don't like being told they can't do or have things for the greater good.

Personally, I fall into that category, but I think the debate of Freedom vs. Security is the only one in politics that actually has logical merit on both sides. I.e. the calculus of how many deaths, injuries, or other consequences we are willing to accept for the freedom to do something.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 7 Points
  • 18:16:17, 13 January

And this is the part that I don't get.

Libertarians are up in arms about how many civilians are casualties in a drone strike war against people who are real, vile, scum - people who would shoot up a school full of children, not because they are depressed, but because the children want an education, or the girls don't wear headscarves, or they are administering polio vaccines.

And yet, libertarians are perfectly willing to accept civilian casualties in the form of AMERICAN schoolchildren, in the name of some purposely misinterpreted, antiquated and irrelevant constitutional amendment.

For THAT, civilian casualties are acceptable.

  • [-]
  • Gabour
  • 5 Points
  • 16:50:21, 13 January

One of my mods owns an assault rifle. You can be pro-gun and anti-assault rifle. She is exactly that. So I understand from your comments that you said you are a single issue progressive gun owner - well if there is one thing I have learned from this debate, it is that thinking in black and white terms serves no purpose.

I know you understand that this is an incredibly deep and varied topic, and the policy choices that surround it are not served by thinking of it in that way. It is an incredibly diverse set of issues that relates to your role as a gun owner in society. The disappointing thing is the black and white mentality of some gun owners, and the seeming lack of middle ground on reddit.

It exists outside of reddit. There are tons of responsible gun owners and hunting suburbanites that see the need to stop proliferating assault rifles throughout America. But here we have the hardcore. Those who own multiple guns, gun fetishists, etc. Much tougher kind of nut to crack, no pun intended.

  • [-]
  • DKamar
  • 3 Points
  • 17:44:50, 13 January

What we really need, and I think everyone here wants, is gun control that works. Not gun control that makes people scared of guns feel better, not gun control that only helps against rare-but-high-profile incidents, but gun control that keeps criminals and idiots from shooting innocents and the mentally unsound and idiots from shooting themselves.

As long as a person can still reasonably shoot for pleasure, hunt, and defend themselves under a given set of gun control laws, I think I'd be fine with whatever.

  • [-]
  • JimmyHavok
  • 1 Points
  • 19:27:22, 13 January

The assault rifle ban is a cosmetic law. Some of the nuttier gun nuts are attracted to military-appearing weapons, but making those hard to find won't reduce their nuttiness or their access to guns. Additionally, some quite servicable hunting rifles (particularly the AK based rifles) were banned simply because of their military history.

You could never get an actual assault rifle, just one that looked like a military weapon.So banning weapons with that appearance had no effect on the availability of actual assault weapons.

  • [-]
  • darthjesus
  • -3 Points
  • 18:50:14, 13 January

So she owns a fully automatic m16 or ak47/74? How long did it take her to get her NFA tax stamp? Usually takes over five months. Good that her recent photo ID and her fingerprinting went smoothly and nothing turned up on the mandatory background check. How was getting the forms approved by the local Chief of Police or Judge? Sometimes they can be a pain to get approval from, signed, returned etc. Ask if all that was worth it to purchase an ASSAULT RIFLE.

  • [-]
  • Gabour
  • 5 Points
  • 19:05:11, 13 January

I see you have a posting history to /r/ar15, /r/firearms, and /r/guns, but no other posting history in /r/progressive. You have used an opening gambit to define an assault rifle using the NRA definition. Here is the definition that I use. We will not come to an agreement on this because this is an argument by definition. However, this definition will be the one used to stop the future proliferation of assault rifles throughout America. Yours has become irrelevant. You can have the last word, this is a dumb debate to have and reddit's obsession with it is mind numbing. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Edit to add a "."

  • [-]
  • JimmyHavok
  • 3 Points
  • 19:43:10, 13 January

Your definition of assault rifle includes the Ruger 10 22. It doesn't match the definition that was used in the law. It would ban an extremely large set of hunting guns.

But hey, you've decided you're right. Who am I to argue?

  • [-]
  • darthjesus
  • 2 Points
  • 19:26:15, 13 January

Sure, I'm into firearms and I'm also into politics. I sub to many including progressive, libertarian, socialist and anarchist. Because I don't post often in those means nothing and I find your attempts at painting with that brush childish and counter to your plea to to appeal to hard stats.

Your source of defining assault rifle is irrelevant. Use a real source such as the legal definition and you find I'm accurate in my use of the term and the requirements to obtain one. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong and simply shutting down the argument with "we'll have to agree to disagree" illustrates how indefensible your arguments are.

  • [-]
  • shinsmax12
  • 8 Points
  • 16:36:48, 13 January

I think there is something uniquely juvenile about a most gun culture which is congruent with juvenile attitudes of many redditors.

  • [-]
  • DKamar
  • 0 Points
  • 15:43:20, 13 January

I guess I have to turn in my Progressive and Liberal club cards, didn't realize disagreeing on one issue made you some sort of invader.

  • [-]
  • thesupermutant
  • 6 Points
  • 15:56:33, 13 January

Uses the word shill describing NRA members who refuse to budge on even simple safety regulations--> Rush Limbaugh.

I think your criticism makes a lot less sense than his does.

  • [-]
  • DKamar
  • 10 Points
  • 16:12:59, 13 January

I wasn't referring to NRA members alone--no way in hell I'd join the NRA, with their nutso right-wing leadership. Just to the implication that anyone not in favor of high levels of gun control should shut up.

Also, I changed my comment before you responded because the Rush thing was juvenile.

  • [-]
  • thesupermutant
  • 4 Points
  • 17:56:55, 13 January

>This subreddit has been saturated with gun nuts claiming to be liberals and progressives, who insist that we just need to get used to the slaughter of little children, because....freedom. No, we don't. Science is on our side. Logic is on our side. Humanity is on our side. SANITY is on our side.

I don't see the implication. I mean, he's right, typically progressives believe in regulation of firearms. He's not saying anyone who disagrees doesn't deserve an opinion, but rather that this sub has been invaded since the shooting by anti-gun control voices, and that those voices aren't typically aligned with the progressive cause.

Sure, someone can be anti-gun regulation and still call themselves a progressive, but the basic progressive idealogy is that common sense regulation can be used to address our social problems. Gun violence is a problem, and applying gun control regulation to address that problem seems like a common sense way forward. Perhaps not the only way to address the issue, but the most obvious and direct.

His criticism is of people "who insist that we just need to get used to the slaughter of little children", which is ultimately the point of anyone who says "Guns don't kill people", they don't even want to have the conversation about gun regulations because they see they see the debate as irrelevant, and they don't want to do anything meaningful to address our violence problem, so they're not really being all that progressive.

  • [-]
  • Otto_von_Jizzmark
  • 1 Points
  • 18:11:05, 13 January

I believe in sensible regulation, not disallowing certain firearms for their cosmetic aspects. That does nothing.

I'm also put in the rare and uncomfortable position of agreeing with NRA on one particular point--that having armed police in schools and campuses will greatly reduce the possibility of these kinds of attacks. That just makes sense.

  • [-]
  • Blacula
  • 5 Points
  • 18:23:45, 13 January

There were armed police at columbine and virginia tech. And other places too. Did nothing.

  • [-]
  • Kvothe_theKingslayer
  • 0 Points
  • 19:50:19, 13 January

Common sense is on our side!

  • [-]
  • aggie1391
  • 1 Points
  • 15:57:06, 13 January

Um, no one has suggested that we "get used" to mass murders. Not a single person. I am a gun enthusiast and I don't claim to be progressive, I am. I have suggested ways to cut down on gun violence and crime in general (mostly poor minorities, very rarely is it kids in school, I tend to focus on the common rather than the extremely rare). Don't propose bans on cosmetic features because it makes it look scarier. My pistol grip on my rifle is ergonomic, but elected representatives want to make it a factor in whether a rifle is banned. It is stupid. But, apparently, my support of firearm rights in addition to the right to marriage, choice, being able to feed your kids working a single full time job, etc, means I'm illogical and insane. Ad hominem is stupid and immature yet you just resorted to it.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 5 Points
  • 16:32:33, 13 January

Sorry, but yes, that is exactly what you are suggesting: that your right to arm yourself, supersedes the right of the rest of us to have our children attend school safe from firearms, or not in some kind of armed camp. We just have to learn to live with it.

The gun lobby believes that despite what the facts show, we need to focus on mental health or arming teachers, or target practice, or gun safety, or more cops in schools, or anything to divert our attention from the obvious.

You are carrying the water of the most powerful, extremist, racist, far right lobbying group in America into r / progressive, and you are upset that we might not welcome that. I'm sorry if you think it's ad hominein. It's not. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

  • [-]
  • aggie1391
  • -1 Points
  • 17:37:05, 13 January

Yes, because allowing specially trained teachers and administrators, or getting a couple cops or armed guards equals an armed camp. Except it doesn't. It is decidedly illogical to tell people that they must wait several minutes while cops arrive, organize and then go to take out someone armed with any weapon. It is logical to have responses ready within seconds. The "gun free zone" experiment has failed. 60 of 61 mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones". But, you'll reply, more guns isn't the answer! Why are the cops called? Because they have guns.

The facts show a large and continuing decline in crime to include gun crime. The facts show that all rifles accounted for 323 firearm deaths, and as modern sporting rifles make up a subset of rifle, account for less. But what guns are targeted? Modern sporting rifles. Despite their rare use in crime, somehow banning them is supposed to help? The VT gunman used two handguns, are those next? Or this arbitrarily picked limit to magazines to 10 rounds? The most discharged firearm at Columbine used ban legal 10 round magazines, he just brought more. Those people were mentally ill. They used guns, yes, as do around 80 million law abiding Americans who never randomly kill people. Unarmed victims are easy victims. I don't mean arm the kids, I mean a responsible adult who can stop threats. The mass shootings were not issues a few decades ago. People used to get guns of all sorts in the Sears mail order catalogs, but mass shooting weren't an issue. Millions more firearms have been sold and millions of Americans now carry concealed yet we have decreasing gun crime and deaths for decades.

The NRA is the most extremist, racist and right wing group? I guess we're ignoring the KKK, Westboro, the Tea Party, etc. I personally prefer Second Amendment Foundation, but I'm not complaining that the NRA is able to halt infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. I've actually had pro-gun comments up voted here, you make a blanket statement that all progressives must be anti-gun when many are not. Calling gun rights supporters insane because of that one view is ad hominem. Don't agree on one issue? Clearly we must have issues huh?

  • [-]
  • mr_brett
  • 6 Points
  • 18:02:38, 13 January

We dont pay teachers enough to have them act as security guards as well.

  • [-]
  • aggie1391
  • -3 Points
  • 18:05:43, 13 January

Teachers do need to be paid more period, I completely agree. A school district in Texas does it quite well, teachers who already had their CHL and took an extra training course can carry. CHL holders are statistically more law abiding by far, and as they carry regularly elsewhere they do know what to do.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 4 Points
  • 18:26:14, 13 January

Again, you can choose to align yourself with right wing extremists, racists and bigots.

That's your choice.

Next time some little kids are gunned down. It's also your choice.

  • [-]
  • aggie1391
  • 0 Points
  • 19:02:29, 13 January

Gun owners are not to blame for the actions of others simply because of the tools used by madmen.

  • [-]
  • reeds1999
  • 3 Points
  • 19:33:23, 13 January

>The NRA is the most extremist, racist and right wing group? I guess we're ignoring the KKK, Westboro, the Tea Party, etc.

I am certainly not ignoring them. I rank them right up there with the NRA.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -1 Points
  • 16:41:09, 13 January

>that your right to arm yourself, supersedes the right of the rest of us to have our children attend school safe from firearms, or not in some kind of armed camp.

You already have that right. Schools are the safest place for children. You literally cannot find a safer place for children than a school.

  • [-]
  • Anzat
  • -1 Points
  • 18:38:44, 13 January

>that your right to arm yourself, supersedes the right of the rest of us to have our children attend school safe from firearms, or not in some kind of armed camp. We just have to learn to live with it.

That's not what he's suggesting at all. He's suggesting that nobody's likely to shoot up your kid's school, and if somebody does, it won't make one bit of difference whether the shooter has a pistol grip or not.

Most of the benefits gun-illiterate people picture from banning assault weapons would only really come from banning and confiscating all guns, which would also start a second Civil War, so it's kind of a non-starter. It's a myth that there's this class of currently-legal superweapons that are much more lethal than those routinely used and constitutionally protected for self-defense and hunting. The real weapons of war are already banned, and most so-called "assault weapons" are just scary-looking editions of regular weapons.

>You are carrying the water of the most powerful, extremist, racist, far right lobbying group in America

That's like saying that when you argue against torture, you're campaigning for John McCain. Agreeing with someone on one thing doesn't make you their shill.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 3 Points
  • 16:01:58, 13 January

>Don't propose bans on cosmetic features because it makes it look scarier. My pistol grip on my rifle is ergonomic

Part of the problem is that nearly everyone who proposes this type of legislation is almost wholly ignorant about guns. Nobody would dream of proposing a ban on cars with spoilers to reduce car accidents (why do you need a spoiler anyway? to go fast of course!), yet this is exactly what the gun control crowd is guilty of doing.

  • [-]
  • Tarkaan
  • 10 Points
  • 16:10:34, 13 January

The US has three gun deaths for every one in Switzerland, the next developed country statistically. Why can't America do better? Why do Americans fight gun control policy so rabidly?

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 6 Points
  • 16:14:55, 13 January

I would guess that Switzerland doesn't have the kind of poverty and systemic racism and class oppression that we have in America. America trails western democracies in numerous metrics, not only those related to crime, but things like education and health care as well. Part of the reason Americans can't do better is because instead of fixing these problems at the source we constantly bicker about surface-level issues like gun control.

  • [-]
  • Tarkaan
  • 4 Points
  • 16:43:02, 13 January

So America is a third world country? Because you just described Liberia / Morocco / Ghana.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 12 Points
  • 16:58:38, 13 January

Not to mention that one of the biggest purveyors of racism in the country is the NRA. Because let's face it: most of the NRA message is basically "fear the dark-skinned people".

The NRA fight is overwhelmingly one of rural, southern, white, males, versus brown-skinned, city dwellers, northerners, and liberal/progressives.

  • [-]
  • Tarkaan
  • 3 Points
  • 17:02:44, 13 January

If America isn't willing to fix their third world problems in a first world manner, maybe they should start using third world techniques. Police checkpoints, random searches, things like that. They work.

  • [-]
  • redditing_god
  • 4 Points
  • 17:38:46, 13 January

Sure, it "works" for New York. It's also extremely racist and a prime example of trading freedom for security.

  • [-]
  • Tarkaan
  • 0 Points
  • 17:47:22, 13 January

I think my freedom to not get shot is more important than your freedom to not get searched, what do you say to that?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Anzat
  • 3 Points
  • 18:32:37, 13 January

Progressive gun rights supporters generally dislike the NRA as much as other progressives. The NRA is a wing of the Republican Party, and many of their ideas are stupid. Blaming video games is even dumber than blaming guns.

It's like agreeing with John McCain against torture. You don't have to like the sonofabitch. He just happens to be right about one thing.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 1 Points
  • 17:51:22, 13 January

Sorry, I don't follow.

  • [-]
  • Tarkaan
  • 3 Points
  • 18:02:04, 13 January

Probably because you've never been to a country that does this.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 1 Points
  • 20:00:47, 13 January

Does what? Sorry, still haven't a clue what the fuck liberia has to do with America's systemic racism.

  • [-]
  • JimmyHavok
  • 2 Points
  • 19:45:32, 13 January

Switzerland has guns galore, too. Most households have a military grade weapon.

Maybe Americans are crazy.

  • [-]
  • Anzat
  • -1 Points
  • 18:20:55, 13 January

None of those things are on your side. I'm a data-based, pragmatic liberal. I despise the NRA, and their stupid arguments (guards in schools won't be effective, and video games are an even dumber scapegoat than guns). Still, I think this craze to ban guns is the worst thing that's happened to progressives in years. It's going to cost us many elections already, and even more if we actually pass some sort of ban, which we probably won't. We're basically taking our political capital and burning up every penny of it.

And for what?

When you say science is on our side, and you point to "more guns = more homicides" literature, you're missing so many points. I don't deny that correlation, and I'll even concede that guns are part of the cause of those higher homicide rates society-wide. What you're missing is that a correlation between guns and violence does not make proposing an assault weapons ban the best way to reduce that violence! It only means that, if you could miraculously zap all guns out of existence in an instant, the homicide rate would probably go down. But we can't do that. We have to look at the likely consequences of the things we can actually do as a society, and as progressives with only partial control of a democratic government.

One of the biggest problems with the arguments for the assault weapons ban is that the vast majority of gun homicides aren't committed with assault weapons, but with guns that would be legal by any standard except a ban on all guns. A ban on all guns is politically impossible, unconstitutional, and it would start a second Civil War.

So, if we ban anything, it would be only some guns, the so-called "assault weapons" responsible for a small percentage of gun crimes. How do we define that? Last time around, the "assault weapons" ban was almost entirely based on cosmetic features like bayonet mounts, suppressors, and pistol grips that have no bearing on the weapon's lethality. Many of these things were banned in combination with a semi-automatic action, meaning you can fire each time you squeeze the trigger. That action probably contributes to lethality, but it also has legitimate utility for hunting and self-defense and is found in millions of guns that don't "look like" assault rifles (because they aren't) and were never banned. Even double-action revolvers, six-shooters you couldn't tell apart from something in a cowboy movie, fire every time you pull the trigger like a semi-auto. I could (like others) go through the whole ban point-by-point like this. The bottom line is that there isn't a class of currently legal guns that are dramatically more lethal than generally accepted hunting and self-defense guns. The really lethal bullet-sprayers, automatic weapons, are already illegal except for old ones grandfathered in, and they are rarely used in crimes. For currently legal weaposn, the closest thing being unnecessarily lethal would be so-called "high-capacity" magazines. That's another poorly defined term because many generally acceptable self-defense handguns can hold up to 17 rounds in a normal-sized clip in a normal-sized handle, beyond the threshold of 10 rounds for "high capacity" in the old ban. Many if not most exceed 10 rounds. Also, the number of crimes in which clip capacity makes a difference is exceedingly small, because it takes less than a second to switch to a new clip or a new gun. Once in a while that fraction of a second might give someone a window to take down a perpetrator, but it's exceedingly rare, except in movies. Most talk of a ban seems to be centered on what looks scary or effective in movies. Yes, some of these mass crimes are committed with high-capacity magazines -- but nearly all of them would still have been committed, just as effectively, with a higher number of low-capacity magazines.

And even if we were to ban high-capacity magazines or anything else, that doesn't get them off the street. There are millions in circulation already and for the foreseeable future. They were easy to get during the old ban, and they would still be easy to get, legal or not. Banning them would only make them a little bit harder to find, and their illegality certainly wouldn't deter criminals. They would find what they want, and even if they couldn't, they could still commit their crimes just as lethally with non-assault weapons.

All we could do with an assault weapons ban is put a little bump in the road of criminals, and it would save a handful of lives in cases in which a) the criminal uses a gun that would have been banned, b) the criminal would not have been acquired the gun anyway on the black market under a ban, and c) the would-be banned gun was used more lethally than an unbanned gun would have been, for example, if someone actually disabled the perp while changing clips. Those criteria might line up for a few dozen lives a decade.

And at what cost?

The political capital we've already lost by just discussing a gun ban is disastrous. We will lose many seats to Republicans over this. And with that, we lose our best chances to really reduce gun violence. Surely you realize that poverty driving people to crime causes way more gun deaths than are caused by the difference in effectiveness of "assault" weapons over regular guns. Progressive policies to economically boost the lower and middle class will reduce gun violence more than any assault weapons ban. Legalizing marijuana and taking away the income stream of drug gangs will reduce gun violence more than an assault weapons ban. Boosting our health care system (especially mental health) will reduce gun violence more than an assault weapons ban, not just by potentially reducing the number of mass shooters, but also by reducing the far greater number of single-victim suicides and homicides. All these things are put at risk when we get overzealous about banning guns and hand Republicans a huge edge in future elections.

When you consider unnecessary deaths from other factors besides guns, the political cost is even steeper. Millions die prematurely, unnecessarily, to things air pollution, poor health and safety standards, and increasingly the effects of climate change. All things progressives can do something about if we don't commit political suicide in an overzealous, ineffective push to make ourselves feel good about our response to one mass shooting.

  • [-]
  • JimmyHavok
  • 1 Points
  • 20:12:29, 13 January

> It's going to cost us many elections already, and even more if we actually pass some sort of ban, which we probably won't. We're basically taking our political capital and burning up every penny of it.

This. Exactly. We are giving the Republicans a wedge issue that has been blunted for some time.

There's a utilitarian decision to be made here. We can let the banksters rule us, or we can let the gun nuts have their dangerous toys, because if we try to take away their toys, the gun nuts will vote for banksters.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -3 Points
  • 15:54:36, 13 January

It's not about science, logic, or sanity. We, as a society, are perfectly happy to accept that 50,000 people will die every year as a result of car accidents (the number of children dead exceeds the number of school shooting deaths by tenfold). We are willing to pay that price for the convenience of private automobile ownership. Many in this sub aren't willing to do the same for firearms, fine, but don't sit there and pretend that gun control as a social policy is somehow a foregone scientific or logical conclusion (especially not on the basis of a facile correlation study).

Edit: To clarify, yes, I know that guns are not equal to cars. My point is that, with everything, our society accepts some level of death, destruction, pain, or misery related to almost everything we do. Where we draw the line is a matter of opinion and can't be "proven" by even a hundred correlation studies.

  • [-]
  • ClemsonPoker
  • 4 Points
  • 18:35:18, 13 January

>To clarify, yes, I know that guns are not equal to cars

Do you really? Because you motherfuckers pull that bullshit line out every single fucking time.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 13 Points
  • 16:22:17, 13 January

NRA talking point #117

Cars accidents are just like gun violence.

.

NO, SORRY.

Cars = transportation. Designed to move people and goods from one place to another. Crucial to the current functioning of our country.

Guns = weapons. Designed to kill or injure. Not necessary to the everyday functioning of the country.

  • [-]
  • rivalarrival
  • 1 Points
  • 17:01:38, 13 January

I'm glad that you don't see that guns are necessary. It says a lot about how well we are actually doing that you're insulated from this need so well. I'll bet you're similarly insulated from raw sewage and most of the dirty, disgusting things that have to be performed to keep this society functioning smoothly.

Unfortunately, the Dirty Jobs crew can't show you all the dirty "jobs" there are in the US. I've never seen Mike Rowe being stabbed, beaten, raped, or attacked by a violent criminal, so I know he's missing something.

Tens of thousands of Americans will be viciously attacked today, and you won't see it, won't even consider it. But you seem to think that the people who are in the wrong are those who used a gun to protect themselves and others from these crimes. They shouldn't have stopped those crimes, right? After all, guns are not necessary to the everyday functioning of the country, so if someone used a gun, they could have just not used a gun and everything would have been hunky dory.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 4 Points
  • 17:24:46, 13 January

You are exactly what I'm talking about when I say a gun nut, pretending to be a liberal/progressive.

I've looked over your comment history and can't find a single post in r / progressive that has to do with anything but guns.

I do see your posts in r / guns, progun, firearms. Including your post about whether you should buy your 10 year old a shotgun.

.

And really?

>Tens of thousands of Americans will be viciously attacked today...

Source?

  • [-]
  • rivalarrival
  • 0 Points
  • 17:45:02, 13 January

>I do see your posts in r / guns, progun, firearms.

Oh really? Did you actually read them?

If you had, you would see that some of my recurring themes are that the NRA are a bunch of fuckwits; that gun issues are not a left/right issue and that the best way to ensure pro-gun politics is to make gun ownership a big-tent issue comparable to "Fourth of July Fireworks and warm apple pie".

If you dig enough, you'll find that I'm an atheist; that I voted a straight democratic ticket in the last two elections; that I'm pro-choice. You'll eventually find a fairly in-depth proposal I made for a living wage.

And yes, you'll find that one of my major interests is firearms.

You seem to think that "gun nut" and "liberal/progressive" are mutually exclusive. You're wrong.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 1 Points
  • 18:21:57, 13 January

This just such utter bullshit.

I'm not going to waste my time.

  • [-]
  • darthjesus
  • 2 Points
  • 20:10:53, 13 January

You seem to have a track record in this submission alone of coping out and not addressing arguments and concerns that don't already align with your current viewpoint along with resorting to attempting to paint your ideological opponents as boogie men based on their post history. On top of that, your perfectly fine with redefining terms that are already codified by legislation and popular definition. I find your actions and behavior intellectually dishonest and detrimental to any real discussion on these matters.

  • [-]
  • rivalarrival
  • -2 Points
  • 18:32:39, 13 January

Smart choice. Have an upvote.

  • [-]
  • Otto_von_Jizzmark
  • 2 Points
  • 18:03:40, 13 January

I'm on the same page. I'm as liberal as a rainbow sticker on a Prius, yet I can't be for guns? I believe everyone should have a right to advocate for their physical well-being, which includes gun ownership as much as it includes a right to go to the doctor when you're sick.

  • [-]
  • cwfutureboy
  • 2 Points
  • 18:17:11, 13 January

And how many of them would have their "protection" used against them ? In cases like this, martial arts training is much more effective and impossible to be used against you.

  • [-]
  • rivalarrival
  • 1 Points
  • 18:26:17, 13 January

I just sprained my eye. Rolled it too hard. I hope you're happy.

  • [-]
  • cwfutureboy
  • 1 Points
  • 19:38:52, 13 January

Care to actually address my comment?

  • [-]
  • rivalarrival
  • 1 Points
  • 20:05:00, 13 January

Oh, you were serious?

How effective are the average 100lb woman's martial arts skills against a 6'2", 250lb attacker?

How effective are the average octogenarian's martial arts skills against that 6'2", 250lb attacker?

The skills required to properly employ a firearm are only minimally dependent on strength.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 0 Points
  • 16:29:11, 13 January

The vast majority of guns aren't used to kill or injure. Guns, despite being "designed" to kill or injure are demonstrably safer than that the automobile (yes, they're designed to kill, so what?). Not all killing or injuring is bad.

This concludes NRA talking point #118

  • [-]
  • shinsmax12
  • 6 Points
  • 16:41:06, 13 January

Even you though must agree that there are simple ways to curb gun violence. High capacity magazines for instance.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 0 Points
  • 16:50:09, 13 January

I don't think a high capacity ban would curb gun violence very much. How would it? Most gun crime is committed with handguns anyway. I can't find a good source, but I would bet money that in most instances of gun violence, the criminal would never exceed ten rounds fired. Even if it were the case, bringing an extra magazine is trivial.

  • [-]
  • cwfutureboy
  • 5 Points
  • 18:09:41, 13 January

Sure, based on numbers. But how many mass shootings are solely handguns?

And if high-capacity magazine bans as well as a ban on anti-personnel rounds, tracking of ammunition purchases and other common sense measures are put in place we can sincerely lower the body count when crazy people get their hands on any firearm.

There are many responsible gun owners out there. And they are all one burglary away from being an unwitting accomplice in the death of one or many innocent human beings.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 1 Points
  • 19:56:30, 13 January

How many mass shootings are there to begin with? Very very very few. Like you're about as likely do die in a lightning strike.

>And they are all one burglary away from being an unwitting accomplice in the death of one or many innocent human beings.

I don't follow.

  • [-]
  • shinsmax12
  • 3 Points
  • 18:59:52, 13 January

Jared Lee Loughner was stopped when he had to reload. High capacity magazines are not solely for long rifles. They can be fitted with handguns as well.

There really isn't any good reason why we can't ban high capacity magazines.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 5 Points
  • 16:48:41, 13 January

Take away everyone's cars tomorrow, everything ceases to function. The economy comes to a complete stop, chaos ensues.

Take away everyone's guns tomorrow, no one would even notice.

(Except that we'd have a hundred or so fewer people shot each day)

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -3 Points
  • 17:03:31, 13 January

I'm sure many people would notice. Some of these people especially. (table 1).

And anyway, I'm not proposing a complete car ban here, just some sensible car control. Private individuals have proven they're not responsible enough to use a car, so that function should be left to the professional transportation companies and public transportation.

  • [-]
  • Tasty_Yams
  • 6 Points
  • 17:09:12, 13 January

Again, this is just a stupid and irrelevant. It's apples and oranges.

Talking to you about this reminds me of talking to an alcoholic about their drinking. You will find any argument to draw the focus away from the real and blindingly obvious fact; in this case, America's gun problem.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -3 Points
  • 17:40:01, 13 January

Relax, it was tongue in cheek.

I don't think that America has a gun problem. If it has anything, its a crime problem (the set of gun crime is a subset of all crime, so our crime problem must be at least as big as our "gun problem"). The only thing blindingly obvious to me is that guns do not cause crime, and so gun control seems like a poor solution to our crime problem.

Did you click my link? Or do the upwards of 60,000 cases/yr of guns being used defensively not mean anything?

  • [-]
  • cwfutureboy
  • 5 Points
  • 18:12:43, 13 January

Please make a diagram of a drive-by shooting without guns being involved.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 1 Points
  • 20:11:06, 13 January

Well, since we seem to just be responding to posts with any old shit that springs to our heads let me do one:

Please explain to me how a drive by murder is worse than any other kind of murder

  • [-]
  • ClemsonPoker
  • 4 Points
  • 18:42:13, 13 January

Gun control is a solution to our gun problem, not our crime problem.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 1 Points
  • 19:49:21, 13 January

I don't follow, what is a gun problem if not a crime problem? I.e., if guns are not a problem because they are somehow involved in crime, then why are they a problem, and if that is why they are a problem, then why isn't our gun problem actually a crime problem?

  • [-]
  • jbenuniv
  • -2 Points
  • 16:44:53, 13 January

Just because the NRA uses a talking point doesn't make it wrong. You're far more likely to be killed by lightning than by a spree shooting. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by lightning over a one year period than by a spree shooting in a thirty year period.

  • [-]
  • farfigneugan
  • 8 Points
  • 16:12:25, 13 January

look, I'm one of the pro-gun progressives, but trying to compare a gun to a tool that's used for anything other than destruction (such as cars, in your example), is absolute intellectual dishonesty.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -3 Points
  • 16:19:55, 13 January

This argument always comes up (it seems to be the crux of anti-gun sentiment), but, forgive me, I do not see one ounce of sense in it. Despite being "designed only to kill", guns are demonstrably safer than dozens of objects or pastimes that are supposedly benign. Furthermore, the vast majority of firearms are not used for this intended purpose, unless, possibly, you think hunting deer is as an egregious crime as killing a human.

  • [-]
  • ClemsonPoker
  • 4 Points
  • 18:36:48, 13 January

>This argument always comes up (it seems to be the crux of anti-gun sentiment)

What brilliant strategy. Repeatedly make the same flawed argument and then claim that the logical rebuttal to said claim "always comes up," as though it isn't worth addressing. Further, act like this argument is the crux of the anti-gun sentiment. Pathetic lies.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 1 Points
  • 19:52:42, 13 January

That's just been my experience when discussing the issue with numerous people, it always comes back to the fact that guns are somehow different than every other fucking thing that kills people. I think its bullshit frankly, and I did address in my post (did you read it?)

  • [-]
  • Anzat
  • 0 Points
  • 17:15:28, 13 January

You really shouldn't be downvoted for talking sense.

A big thing the gun-banners are missing is the political cost. If Democrats ban guns, Republicans win elections, and the policies they pass kill way, way, way more people than mass shooters. We can reduce gun deaths more by leaving the issue the fuck alone, winning more elections, and passing more progressive policies to reduce poverty--the cause of crime--than we can by trying (ineffectively) to ban the tools of crime. And that's just gun deaths. Factor in progressive policies on health care and the environment, and millions of lives rest on our winning elections against Republicans. It's stupid to put those millions of lives at risk for a long-shot attempt to institute policies that aren't even effective to curb a few dozen shock-value deaths a year.

  • [-]
  • themandotcom
  • 4 Points
  • 17:04:51, 13 January

Except we have mandatory car training, license expirations, car licensing and regular mandatory inspections, seatbelt laws, parking laws etc. etc.

  • [-]
  • JimmyHavok
  • 1 Points
  • 20:19:24, 13 January

I'm in favor of training for gun owners. I've seen too many idiots with guns.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -2 Points
  • 17:06:10, 13 January

Its obviously not enough. Don't you care about the children?

  • [-]
  • themandotcom
  • 4 Points
  • 17:07:31, 13 January

LOL, nice NRA talking point! I'm sure there's more we could do to increase road safety. What are we doing with respect to guns?

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • -1 Points
  • 17:25:44, 13 January

First step is admitting that crime is not caused by guns, that most guns are in the hands of reasonable people who use them for recreation and self defense, and that guns are not a social ill in the same way that endemic poverty or lack of basic mental health services are a social ill.

After we've shaken off the gun myopia, we can begin to tackle crime the way it makes sense to. Gang violence is a different phenomena than school shootings which are different from suicides, and as such should all require different but appropriate responses.

Finally, we accept that we live in a world where people do die, often in unfortunate ways. We should always seek to minimize this, but always in a way that makes sense and that, where possible, strikes at the root of the problem, and be wary of overextending our social institutions into the realm of diminishing returns.

  • [-]
  • ClemsonPoker
  • 3 Points
  • 18:45:58, 13 January

So what we should do with respect to guns is...nothing. As always. Thanks for your input, go fuck yourself.

  • [-]
  • NSojac
  • 0 Points
  • 19:48:29, 13 January

Right back at you dumbass.

  • [-]
  • mydirtycumsock2
  • -4 Points
  • 16:08:53, 13 January

But you can't spell slaughter without laughter, amirite?? lol!