Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Endus]

Which almost makes it scarier. Because two people getting into a scuffle is so much more commonplace than some nutter going on a suicide mission.

There's this weird need to make out gun violence as some extreme thing only lunatics get involved in. When the statistical reality is that, if you make firearms readily accessible, tempers flaring is all it takes for the guns to come out. That's the point. It isn't crazy people. It's just regular people, getting angry enough to grab their gun. It's not special, it's banal.

[tehdang]

I mean why post this? We know this is not true. We know that policymakers don't give a flying fuck about how popular or unpopular things are, if there is money behind it they do it else they might but most likely not do what is popular.

You’re unfamiliar with the vote and politicians wanting to be re-elected? Money is being spent to change public opinion, on special interests and political campaigns.

[Paranoid Android]

So I'm going to make one Big statement about the KC and Joel Olsteen shootings.

The right was quick to point out I guess identity politics on these people which who gives a bleep. They think they have a winning strategy (Olsteen was proven false) on a certain type of people who committed these shootings. We don't give a bleep about the people who did the shooting the big picture here is mass shooting with easy access to the weapons and how easy it can to commit mass killings.

[tehdang]

So I'm going to make one Big statement about the KC and Joel Olsteen shootings.

The right was quick to point out I guess identity politics on these people which who gives a bleep. They think they have a winning strategy (Olsteen was proven false) on a certain type of people who committed these shootings. We don't give a bleep about the people who did the shooting the big picture here is mass shooting with easy access to the weapons and how easy it can to commit mass killings.

I only hope that people lay off the media blitz on when there's a racial angle. White shooter with non-left-wing politics and multiple victims (of a difference race) get literal weeks on white supremacy and (conservative) gun culture. I level zero blame when its someone with left-wing politics or left-wing identity group, and a bunch of right-wingers point out the lack of media attention and nobody playing the game of "Let's connect this all up with ideology." If you want to link Sandy Hook and Charleston and Buffalo, you better expect Nashville Houston Alexandria. Don't play the game if you don't want to ever play "defense."

I say this generally, since you didn't play that game in this post. It's also natural to focus on the guns, and how they were obtained, and what laws were broken, which don't themselves involve the ideology of the shooter at all.

[Nastard]

Can you clarify this? It reads (quite blatantly) you are unhappy a governor wasn't shot, claiming indirectly it may have been a "positive" move forward on gun control, while referencing something passed that was done in an attempt to disarm African-Americans. This one paragraph is incredibly disjointed and doesn't actually have a coherent point other than you seemingly upset someone WASN'T shot.

He also wished a pastor would've been hit in a shooting just the other day. I don't know why anyone continues to debate gun regulation with someone who repeatedly states that shooting more people is his solution to the problem. Whether or not he truly believes that's the kind of thing that will drive change, it's weird that he keeps falling back on it.

[Edge-]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/poli...285532507.html

A group of Missouri Republican lawmakers are pushing now-debunked social media posts purporting to identify one of the gunmen in the Kansas City Chiefs rally shooting and unsubstantiated assertions that one or more of the shooters were migrants in the country illegally.

The hard-right Missouri Freedom Caucus’ social media page, as well as at least two of the group’s members, Republican Sens. Rick Brattin and Denny Hoskins, have shared a series of posts that claim to identify a 44-year-old man as a shooter.

The Associated Press on Thursday debunked the claim as false. The same name and description was used to promote similar erroneous claims in a January explosion in Texas and a December shooting in Las Vegas, the AP reported.

Kansas City police have not released the names of the suspects in Wednesday’s shooting that injured 22 people and killed a woman. Police as of Thursday afternoon have said only that two juveniles and one adult were detained.

But the Freedom Caucus, which represents at least six Missouri senators and eight representatives, has used the debunked posts to attempt to link the Kansas City shooting to illegal immigration. The group shared several posts on social media calling for stronger border control efforts.

Pro-gun types: STOP POLITICIZING SHOOTINGS AND WANTING TO DISCUSS POLICY, THINK OF THE VICTIMS YOU AWFUL PEOPLE

Also pro-gun types in elected office: THE SHOOTERS WAS THE SAME ILLEGAL BROWN PERSON THAT DID LIKE 5 OTHER SHOOTINGS.

I mean this right here is exactly why nothing will change in this country. Dishonest death cultists will do anything and everything to protect their cult of death and the cult of the gun.

[Polgara]

He also wished a pastor would've been hit in a shooting just the other day. I don't know why anyone continues to debate gun regulation with someone who repeatedly states that shooting more people is his solution to the problem. Whether or not he truly believes that's the kind of thing that will drive change, it's weird that he keeps falling back on it.

I still only got that conclusion a second time; and thought their posting/conclusions were consistently jumping around based on what they were really wanting to say, and then I went back and found:

If you want me to be very direct about it, I don't fucking care about three dead children. Those kids do not fucking matter.

The problem I've got is that, in a vacuum, the concept that republicans should be the one who suffer when they are (majorly) the reason for prevention of gun reform. If you can't do anything, it's SOMEWHAT forgivable that when people are murdered/injured you wish it would happen to those who would impede reform to help mitigate such events. The problem is this discussion is about political reform, not how many of the "bad guys" get shot before they realize their mistake.

It won't happen, it's dreadfully myopic to believe it would, we had a house leader shot at a mass shooting and only defend gun accessibility more. On top of that, the inconsistencies between things like

If you want me to be very direct about it, I don't fucking care about three dead children. Those kids do not fucking matter.

Save a child, shoot a Republican. That sort of thing.

Means the only conclusion I can draw from their posting is, "we have to shoot to kill republicans but dems are just as bad". I don't think that level of accelerationism will work, considering we have proof already recently it sure as fuck doesn't. Other parts are ancillary truths without purpose; yes the dems are afraid of losing power with proper gun reform, 1994-post abw house loss shows there is a reason to be concerned, but I think if dems were earnest in their stead of being in power for the right reasons they'd risk it, because this falls into the same area as refusing to pass PACT or the first responder's bill: At some point you have to take the risk and do the right thing, even at the cost of power.

I'm not sure if it is considered inciting violence/threats, but a consistent tone of "we just have to shoot the RIGHT" people isn't productive discussion IMO.

[unfilteredJW]

Policymakers are also moved by public swings of opinion. The real misreporting and statistical malfeasance is aimed at the public, and through them, policymakers. Big headlines and loud calls to "do something."

I love how he can type this while supporting both unpopular policy and the party pushing it.

And wants to be taken seriously.

[Nastard]

"fix gun vilense with MOAR shoot peepol is vary good plan" Sure, and let's feed bags of greasy McDonald's to someone morbidly obese with heart failure because maybe, just maybe that last Big Mac will be the catalyst for change.

Though in his defense, what he was TRYING to say by his Christian pastor assassination comment was that we're not hurting the right people. Oh, he's banned now. Nevermind

[Mayhem]

You’re unfamiliar with the vote and politicians wanting to be re-elected? Money is being spent to change public opinion, on special interests and political campaigns.

Promising to do something and actually doing something are two very very different things.

[tehdang]

Promising to do something and actually doing something are two very very different things.

Blaming money and acknowledging the vote are two very different things. I take it you've started to yield the second. You're right to do it--its much firmer ground.

[Mayhem]

Blaming money and acknowledging the vote are two very different things. I take it you've started to yield the second. You're right to do it--its much firmer ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

that's from 2014, do you think it's gotten better or worse? If you think it got better, cite examples.

[tehdang]

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

that's from 2014, do you think it's gotten better or worse? If you think it got better, cite examples.

I'm very happy for you that you've found and read research that proposes that America is an oligarchy ruled by elites instead of a democracy. You should go and make a thread on that topic, instead of suggesting that gun control in the US is also amenable to comparison to the attitudes and successes of the elites. I did get a chuckle from reading "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country," so it's not a total loss. Well, that and the juxtaposition of what happened two years after.

[Polgara]

I'm very happy for you that you've found and read research that proposes that America is an oligarchy ruled by elites instead of a democracy. You should go and make a thread on that topic, instead of suggesting that gun control in the US is also amenable to comparison to the attitudes and successes of the elites. I did get a chuckle from reading "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country," so it's not a total loss. Well, that and the juxtaposition of what happened two years after.

A white billionaire (as per trump's own claims) winning the presidency is a "juxtaposition" to you. Is that because Trump came after an African-American president? How does that "contrast" to the US being an oligarchy; a "self reported" Billionaire winning the presidency.

You don't think much about what you type do you?

[tehdang]

A white billionaire (as per trump's own claims) winning the presidency is a "juxtaposition" to you. Is that because Trump came after an African-American president? How does that "contrast" to the US being an oligarchy; a "self reported" Billionaire winning the presidency.

You don't think much about what you type do you?

You'll have to do some more work on which segments of society voted in which way, in particular the elites by either income or education, or by location and median household income there. The only tie-in to this topic was a farcical claim that money trumped public pressure, when I brought up that articles and activism were aimed at persuading the public to turn against gun rights. You have any inkling of what elite opinion is on guns?

You're getting a little divorced from the topic at hand by your feelings on one sentence of my reply.

[Polgara]

You'll have to do some more work on which segments of society voted in which way, in particular the elites by either income or education, or by location and median household income there. The only tie-in to this topic was a farcical claim that money trumped public pressure, when I brought up that articles and activism were aimed at persuading the public to turn against gun rights. You have any inkling of what elite opinion is on guns?

You're getting a little divorced from the topic at hand by your feelings on one sentence of my reply.

You've yet to post on topic, other than "policy makers can be swung", you also didn't answer my question as to how the 2016 was "juxtaposed" other than skin colour, so I assume I've pinned it correctly. Thank you for proving you aren't serious at all about discourse. Goodbye.

[tehdang]

You've yet to post on topic, other than "policy makers can be swung", you also didn't answer my question as to how the 2016 was "juxtaposed" other than skin colour, so I assume I've pinned it correctly. Thank you for proving you aren't serious at all about discourse. Goodbye.

Then maybe you should re-read. I proposed that the real target of activism and misusing statistics is to influence the public, and through them policymakers.

You quoted my responsive answer to you: look at which segments voted which way, elites by income or education, and it puts the lie to claims of elites winning 2016. What you've said is a bad claim. I don't say you have to accept my argument, but its on your character if you pretend not to have read it.

Maybe you have an opinion on the post that started the replies, or something tying this back into gun control, but I haven't heard it yet. If it needed saying from me, I don't think anyone pointing towards money above public pressure or money above democracy is engaged in making a serious point.

[unfilteredJW]

Then maybe you should re-read. I proposed that the real target of activism and misusing statistics is to influence the public, and through them policymakers.

You quoted my responsive answer to you: look at which segments voted which way, elites by income or education, and it puts the lie to claims of elites winning 2016. What you've said is a bad claim. I don't say you have to accept my argument, but its on your character if you pretend not to have read it.

Maybe you have an opinion on the post that started the replies, or something tying this back into gun control, but I haven't heard it yet. If it needed saying from me, I don't think anyone pointing towards money above public pressure or money above democracy is engaged in making a serious point.

You'll notice when confronted you'll get nothing but weaseling @Polgara.

It's par for the course till he puts you on ignore for putting his face in the dirt over and over again.

[Polgara]

You'll notice when confronted you'll get nothing but weaseling @Polgara.

It's par for the course till he puts you on ignore for putting his face in the dirt over and over again.

I just wanted to know, in context of Mayhem's post about oligarchic control and how much of an influence money does have over policy, how Donald Trump winning is a contrast to what the system was before. The fact it's more doubling down on ancillary discussion means they realize it wasn't really a valid, nor weighted point to make. The only stark contrast I can see is that it's just making how blatant the socio-divide. The reason Mayhem's point is relevant and gerrard depadoux (sp, don't care enough to google *that* man's name spelling) isn't is that the NRA directly funds policy makers; it's relevant to this discussion and future gun control discussions.

It's also pretty blatant since things like https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-...ssn&cycle=2022 exist and let you see where orgs are funneling money, and how much. It's seeing a horse and wagon and saying "jeez that wagon must work REALLY hard to push the horse", or reading "grassroots" on any pamphlet and instantly believing that group must be fully home-grown and not seeded. It's either blatant disinformation or woeful ignorance.

[Mayhem]

to further the point that what the people want is not what the people get and certainly not something that changes policy:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...cans-and-guns/

there is bipartisan support for several gun control policies such as

preventing people with mental illness from purchasing guns, increasing the legal age to buy guns to 21, banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, banning assault-style weapons

there's also a bipartisan objection to policies:

shortening waiting periods, concealed carry without a permit