Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm just wondering what the mindset is that your reaction to an asshole driver tailgating you is, "Welp, better pull out my gun and keep it ready."

The worst thing is that both of them contributed to escalating the situation. The guy with the gun cut the other guy off, the other guy responded by honking, so Mr. Gun brake-checked him, which led to the tailgating, which led to the gun being pulled out. Just this series of two reactionary assholes continuing to escalate the situation. Even right up to the very end...sure, Asshole #1 started shooting...but again it was a reaction to Asshole#2 throwing a water bottle at his car. Obviously a major overreaction... but that's what happens when both sides continue to escalate matters at every turn... eventually it's gonna explode like that.

I mean, obviously Asshole #1 is the bigger asshole here...don't pull your fucking gun out in a fucking traffic dispute. But Asshole #2 is nearly as bad. Don't throw things at other cars on the fucking road. That shit is fucking dangerous. Even if the other guy isn't a panicky piece of shit with a loaded weapon...he could fucking swerve into you or someone else on the fucking road... someone completely uninvolved in your dick measuring contest.

And this is the part that really gets me:

Both parties were released at the scene.

Fuck that shit. Arrest them both under suspicion of driving while being a micro-penis motherfucker.

[PhaelixWW]

Man, does it seem like gun owners are increasingly eager to pull out/use their guns with the most minimal of justification?

Why do you pretend that these losers are representative of gun owners? You know they're not.

Maybe it's a sign that more shitstains are armed than before. Maybe it's a sign that there are simply more shitstains than there were before.

But it's still an insignificant fraction of gun owners as a while.

You might as well be stereotyping people's criminal activity based on something else stupid, like race. It's not a good look.

[Edge-]

Maybe it's a sign that more shitstains are armed than before. Maybe it's a sign that there are simply more shitstains than there were before.

Seems like a mixture of more video evidence of this, plus the move we've seen towards many gun owners being far more inclined to use their weapons. See the earlier discussion about the ex-husband shot and killed by the new husband/boyfriend over a verbal altercation, because new husband/boyfriend thought going in and getting a gun was a reasonable thing to do over a verbal altercation. Both are idiots, only one of those idiots is a murderer.

But it's still an insignificant fraction of gun owners as a while.

That's cool, still doesn't change my opinion on gun ownership nor how the Second Amendment in the US, as-is, is basically tailor made to allow for these kinds of dangerous situations.

You might as well be stereotyping people's criminal activity based on something else stupid, like race.

Do you get to purchase your race like you do a gun? Do you get to choose to bring your race around with you in the car or leave it at home like you do with a gun?

One is something someone is born with, the other is a sequence of voluntary decisions made by an individual.

[PhaelixWW]

Do you get to purchase your race like you do a gun? Do you get to choose to bring your race around with you in the car or leave it at home like you do with a gun?

One is something someone is born with, the other is a sequence of voluntary decisions made by an individual.

Being a gun owner does not make you inherently more violent. The "voluntary decision" at question here shouldn't be whether or not someone owns a firearm, but the actions made to carry it while driving and then pull it out for anything other than an actual life-defending situation. There's definitely something inherently wrong with the latter, but not the former.

If you want to scream at people for that, then by all means, have at it. But you're being disingenuous if you go farther up that decision tree with absolutely no justification just because you "don't like those people". It's a bad and shameful look, frankly.

[Edge-]

Being a gun owner does not make you inherently more violent.

Nope, but it makes any potential violence from them more deadly to those around them. See: Homeboy firing at a car through his own vehicle, potentially hitting the people in the car that threw a water bottle at him or other motorists.

The "voluntary decision" at question here shouldn't be whether or not someone owns a firearm, but the actions made to carry it while driving and then pull it out for anything other than an actual life-defending situation.

The decision to purchase it
The decision to carry it in their vehicle
The decision to pre-emptively pull it out over a some tailgaiting that they encouraged via the brake check
The decision to shoot wildly through their own vehicle

All of those were decision that directly contributed to this. Now I don't know about the guys potential training, he seemed like he was handling the gun safely and it was stored safely, but he discharged in in a very unsafe manner.

You're the one that brought up the potential race comparison, not me.

If you want to scream at people for that, then by all means, have at it. But you're being disingenuous if you go farther up that decision tree with absolutely no justification just because you "don't like those people". It's a bad and shameful look, frankly.

I will. I'll continue to point to every instance of pointless and irresponsible gun violence and use of a gun that puts others at risk and ask, "What practical purpose does the Second Amendment still serve, and if there is no practical utility to this then why does it still exist?"

Because as best I can see the primary consequence of the Second Amendment remains that the US faces far, far, far, far higher rates of gun violence, including death and suicide, than any other developed country in the world. And then ask, "So what are we getting out of it, as a society, beyond a bunch of death and suffering?"

I'm not saying ban all guns, but I continue to see absolutely no reason for the Second Amendment to exist as it continues to.

[PhaelixWW]

The decision to purchase it
The decision to carry it in their vehicle
The decision to pre-emptively pull it out over a some tailgaiting that they encouraged via the brake check
The decision to shoot wildly through their own vehicle

Nah, bruv. The first "decision" is not inherently wrong or directly leading to violence, despite your flagrant attempt to BS it. The second is slightly borderline, as there are legitimate reasons to carry a firearm in your vehicle, though from this guy's actions, I tend to doubt that his motives in doing so were on the legitimate side. The third and fourth decisions are the ones that are the blatantly wrong decisions and should be the focus for judgment.

That's what I mean about going too far up the decision tree. You should only go up as far as the decisions are legitimately wrong decisions. Otherwise, you might as well add "the decision to buy the car", "the decision to earn the money used to buy the gun and the car", etc.

You're basically just trying to argue that it's inherently wrong to be a gun owner. But it's not, and if you really do believe that, then the issue is with you and your bias.

Now I don't know about the guys potential training, he seemed like he was handling the gun safely and it was stored safely, but he discharged in in a very unsafe manner.

Absolutely he did. That shit is not just stupid, but illegal in so many ways. Lock his ass up. No question. Most gun owners would, I think, agree wholeheartedly.

You're the one that brought up the potential race comparison, not me.

I only brought it up as a different example of bad stereotyping. Not sure why you're jumping down this rabbit hole. There's nothing there.

I will. I'll continue to point to every instance of pointless and irresponsible gun violence and use of a gun that puts others at risk and ask, "What practical purpose does the Second Amendment still serve, and if there is no practical utility to this then why does it still exist?"

Then you're a super disingenuous poster, because his actions have nothing to do with 2A.

You're like the GoP posters who come into the Biden thread to post a story about some stupid Democrat somewhere, doing something criminal, and thinking that they're scoring against Democrats as a whole, when basically every Democrat will just say "Yeah, that guy's stupid, his actions are criminal, and he should be in prison. Why do you think this is a 'gotcha' moment?"

It's not just that your conclusion is wildly inaccurate, it's that you know it and just don't care.

[Edge-]

Then you're a super disingenuous poster, because his actions have nothing to do with 2A.

Note the lack of any charges. Note that he felt secure enough in his rights that he thought a reasonable response to a minor road rage incident was to pull a gun, and secure enough to blindly shoot after a water bottle was thrown at him. Note that he has a handgun he's carrying around with him in his vehicle, which would generally be fairly prohibited under most other nations gun laws. I'd have no problem with him acquiring a gun to store at home for protection and personal use at the range and whatnot, with strict rules around the legal use of said weapon.

But yeah, the Second Amendment is why something like this can casually happen in the US without consequence while similar incidents are exceedingly rare in other developed nations. I'm not counting Russia for many obvious reasons.

[PhaelixWW]

Note the lack of any charges.

What lack of charges?

Literally from your own source:

According to the arrest report, both the victim and Popper reported the incident to the police. During the investigation, Popper told state troopers he believed he was shot at so that was why he began shooting. The other driver said he did not have a firearm but said he did throw a water bottle at Popper’s car. Surprisingly, there were no reported injuries. Both parties were released at the scene.

According to FHP, the driver voluntarily provided the video to investigators. Popper turned himself into FHP on July 21 and is facing felony charges.

He has since bonded out of the Miami-Dade County jail but still faces a number of charges that include aggravated assault with a firearm.

Awwwwww-kward.

Sure, the cops should probably have arrested him on the spot and let that shit get sorted out while he was behind bars. They likely didn't because both parties called 911 and reported the incident. I'm not sure I agree with that call, but whatever. He's definitely facing charges, though, because that shit is highly illegal.

But yeah, the Second Amendment is why something like this can casually happen in the US without consequence

No, it's really not. 2A is immaterial here, because it doesn't allow for what he did. He explicitly committed several felonies.

And as we see, not without consequences, eh? Better luck next time.

[Endus]

Being a gun owner does not make you inherently more violent.

I'm going to make some careful distinctions here, and I want you to pay attention to where I'm drawing the lines, so you don't mistake what I'm getting at.

Sure, not all gun owners. If you buy a gun because you're a hobbyist and you enjoy firing at a range and that's the only reason you want or have the gun, so it's either in its lockbox in your car/home or at the range and that's it, you're probably safe. If you only use a gun while hunting, and you're hunting responsibly (I don't consider trophy hunting "responsible"), no complaints. If you need to go armed because of your job, also fine; I've been there myself.

If, however, you buy a gun for self-defense, and carry it with you so it's handy in case you need it, you are pre-emptively making a choice to ensure you have a lethal force option ready "just in case". This means you are inherently more violent than someone who'd never carry a gun because the idea freaks them out. The gun ownership doesn't make you more violent, it's your predilections that led to you wanting to own a gun. You've put the cart before the horse, there, you see. It isn't the gun that makes someone violent, it's that people with a propensity towards violence want to carry a gun so they can use it, violently.

You want "shooting someone repeatedly until that person dies" to be an option you have on the table. That's violence. Wanting that option means that, yes, you are inherently more violent than the kind of person who does not want to have such an option at hand.

I really don't find the distinction between reactive and proactive violence particularly meaningful, here. You're still preparing for violence. The gun didn't make you do it, sure. But it's why you want the gun.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If you think the 2A had nothing to do with this then you don’t know what the 2A is. Yes, he’s facing consequences. No, it wouldn’t hapoen as easily if he didn’t have a constitutional right to own said firearm.

Yeah, pretty sure even in countries that allow a person to carry a gun in their vehicle the police would immediately revoke that dude's gun license and seize his weapons... regardless of the result of criminal charges.

And he should be facing attempted murder charges. Multiple counts.

[Edge-]

What lack of charges?

Literally from your own source:

Awwwwww-kward.

Sure, the cops should probably have arrested him on the spot and let that shit get sorted out while he was behind bars. They likely didn't because both parties called 911 and reported the incident. I'm not sure I agree with that call, but whatever. He's definitely facing charges, though, because that shit is highly illegal.



No, it's really not. 2A is immaterial here, because it doesn't allow for what he did. He explicitly committed several felonies.

And as we see, not without consequences, eh? Better luck next time.

Fair point, I missed that bit and I'm happy to take my lumps when I don't read something/am wrong.

The rest of my points still stand, as none relied on the lack of consequences. I'm glad to read that he is facing felony charges, but it doesn't counter my other points.

What about America is different that something like this - the use of a gun in a road rage incident - happens fairly regularly compared to other similar developed nations?

[Deus Mortis]

If you want to scream at people for that, then by all means, have at it. But you're being disingenuous if you go farther up that decision tree with absolutely no justification just because you "don't like those people". It's a bad and shameful look, frankly.

Welcome to what he has been doing the past several months, he is getting worse at it as time goes on. I mean he has already wished for death of people in another thread and had to edit his post, why on earth would you expect him to post in good faith in this thread.

[Mayhem]

I'm going to make some careful distinctions here, and I want you to pay attention to where I'm drawing the lines, so you don't mistake what I'm getting at.

Sure, not all gun owners. If you buy a gun because you're a hobbyist and you enjoy firing at a range and that's the only reason you want or have the gun, so it's either in its lockbox in your car/home or at the range and that's it, you're probably safe. If you only use a gun while hunting, and you're hunting responsibly (I don't consider trophy hunting "responsible"), no complaints. If you need to go armed because of your job, also fine; I've been there myself.

If, however, you buy a gun for self-defense, and carry it with you so it's handy in case you need it, you are pre-emptively making a choice to ensure you have a lethal force option ready "just in case". This means you are inherently more violent than someone who'd never carry a gun because the idea freaks them out. The gun ownership doesn't make you more violent, it's your predilections that led to you wanting to own a gun. You've put the cart before the horse, there, you see. It isn't the gun that makes someone violent, it's that people with a propensity towards violence want to carry a gun so they can use it, violently.

You want "shooting someone repeatedly until that person dies" to be an option you have on the table. That's violence. Wanting that option means that, yes, you are inherently more violent than the kind of person who does not want to have such an option at hand.

I really don't find the distinction between reactive and proactive violence particularly meaningful, here. You're still preparing for violence. The gun didn't make you do it, sure. But it's why you want the gun.

I guess there's a reason he ignores this post.

[Ivanstone]

I'm not counting Russia for many obvious reasons.

Putting on my Schalker Hat:

America would be a much nicer place if it had Russia's gun laws.

"As of 2013 Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities, as well as for collection purposes. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. Initially, purchases are limited to long smooth-bore firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules (18 ft⋅lbf). After five years of shotgun ownership, rifles may be purchased. Handguns are generally not allowed, but with the growing popularity of practical shooting events and competitions in Russia in recent years (e.g. IPSC), handgun ownership has now been allowed and the handguns have to be stored at a shooting club. Rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 500 mm (20 in) long are prohibited, as are firearms which shoot in bursts or have more than a 10-cartridge capacity. Suppressors are prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless they are part of a registered gun collection."

[Edge-]

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2022/...ody-cam-video/

Being armed at your home with a licensed, legal gun when the police break in with a no-knock warrant and wake you up is apparently a lethal and immediate threat. Bonus points, Amir Locke wasn't named in the warrant they were even executing.

This begs a question: How does the Second Amendment work with regards to policing? Like, not practically, but on a conceptual basis? We have a right to be armed, especially in our own homes, but that right is also an immediate threat to officers who have the superior right to fire first and without consequences if they feel their life is in danger.

So that leaves gun owners potentially fearful of using their Second Amendment right to be armed when police are present, as it posts a significant risk to the armed individual as we've repeatedly seen (or when the cops think you are armed even if you don't have anything in your hand, or a phone).

This contradiction continues to fascinate me, and is yet another reason why I remain a firm proponent of a serious and critical re-evaluation of the Second Amendment, even if I do not support a blanket ban on gun ownership.

[Kathranis]

Someone entering your home armed and with weapons is exactly the scenario most people want a gun to defend themselves in, so when it's the cops entering your house on a no-knock warrant... yeah.

Locke very clearly wasn't awoken until they were already in the room and shouting, and seemed to be disoriented and tangled in his blanket. I'd guess it's unlikely he had time to process what was happening before they shot him.

[Breccia]

I'd guess it's unlikely he had time to process what was happening before they shot him.

His name was Amir, you say...

(does Google image search)

(sighs)

In other news, the Air Force is ordered to pay the survivors of the 2017 shooting $230 million.

Apparently, the Air Force was supposed to tell the federal database that the shooter abused his wife and kid, and the conviction should have put him on the "this guy doesn't get a gun" list. They didn't. Because he was able to get a gun, the judge ruled, the Air Force is now majority responsible for Texas' worst mass shooting. Just so we're clear, Texas' history of mass shootings includes "guy in a bell tower that created SWAT teams", 17 dead (16 adults, one of whom was a pregnant woman) and 31 injured. This guy topped that when he walked into church, firing 700 rounds with a weapon of war and killed 25, also including a pregnant woman. Huh, morbid parallel right there.

Anyhow, the $230 million will be divided amongst the 80 grieving friends and family members, some of whom I believe were also shot and injured because 700 rounds into a church, you're going to hit a lot of people even with your eyes closed.

If anyone has any issues with me calling the murder weapon a "weapon of war" and wants to debate the nuances, I'll leave you with the murderer's last known words:

I just shot up the Sutherland Springs church

and then point out I don't care about nuances very much when there's 26 innocent dead bodies due to intentional misinformation on pretty much the only safety feature, background checks, we have left. Fucking bastard shouldn't have had a musket, let alone a military-designed weapon for killing as many human beings in as little time as possible.

[PhaelixWW]

If anyone has any issues with me calling the murder weapon a "weapon of war" and wants to debate the nuances

There's no nuance; it's not a weapon of war.

I don't care about nuances very much when there's 26 innocent dead bodies due to intentional misinformation on pretty much the only safety feature, background checks, we have left. Fucking bastard shouldn't have had a musket, let alone a military-designed weapon for killing as many human beings in as little time as possible.

Yes, the system failed. And we should absolutely do more to ensure that the existing system works the way it's supposed to. I have a hard time imagining that very many people would disagree with that sentiment.

[Edge-]

Yes, the system failed. And we should absolutely do more to ensure that the existing system works the way it's supposed to. I have a hard time imagining that very many people would disagree with that sentiment.

Yet any attempts to do so have been angrily rebuffed by Second Amendment advocates when even a hint of any attempt at legislation to reinforce existing protections is in the air.

[Breccia]

There's no nuance; it's not a weapon of war.

We can discuss the details of a gas-powered NATO-round weapon derived from military design banned from 1994 to 2004 with a 30-round box magazine when the mass shooter bought it legally. Until then, he could have been using anything from a derringer to the Ogre from Borderlands for all the 26 people killed in 10 minutes care. He shouldn't have had anything, he chose that weapon for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.