Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Harold Fjord posted:

cross posting this because it's a great example of how suddenly everyone seems to be forgetting that correlation is not causation. If you forced all the collectors to go down to five gun max each we'd still have a mass shooting problem.

Also worthing that the mass shooting problem is recent while we've been gun nutty forever.

This is an unproveable simplification. Many mass shootings are done by people who have purchased firearms very recently, for the explicit purpose of doing a shooting. As much as the gun weirds with millions of dollars of guns in their 10,000 trailers make tempting targets, the continued easy availability of firearms is absolutely a causal factor in these shootings.

That's not even getting into the fact that most gun violence period is committed with hand guns and usually not done as a terrorist act.

re: your second line there, you can trace mass shootings back to the mid 20th century. There's undoubtedly a number of factors at play, ~~but I guarantee you the per capita gun ownership in the US in the early to mid-20th century was much lower than it is now.~~ The development of the internet and the 24/7 media coverage is undoubtedly another factor.

e: Unfortunately there's no data going back past 1972, so my supposition about gun ownership in the early-mid 20th century doesn't really hold water.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jun 2, 2022

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 16:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 07:45

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Harold Fjord posted:

What is an unprovable simplification? That stockpiles of guns correlate but do not cause the mass shootings? Your own point about recently purchased guns supports this. Easy availability, not existing stockpiles.

I suppose you're correct re: mass shootings, but mass shootings are only a very small fraction of gun deaths in the United States, and there's all kinds of sources that are undoubtedly exacerbated by the existing amount of guns due to things like gun theft and straw sales. Removing guns from circulation still needs to be a part of an overall solution, imo.

e: More than 135 million dollars worth of guns were reported stolen in 2020.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2022 17:00

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Simmer down thread. I know it's a heated topic but surely you are all adults capable of discussing these things without throwing around personal insults. If you just want to vent there's plenty of other places on the forums for that.

It's pretty well documented that confronting people with evidence that their beliefs are wrong doesn't change their beliefs, it often has the exact opposite effect. With that in mind, it might be better to start from that assumption and discuss what then might be a better way to convince responsible gun owners that stricter gun control measures are necessary. (A majority actually do, so perhaps it's not most gun owners that are the problem with enacting gun control measures).

Sidenote: autocorrect kept trying to change gun to fun, but I think that's probably more suited to the politics in video games thread.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2022 18:36

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Main Paineframe posted:

Do we need to? Only around one-third of Americans own guns. If a majority of those gun owners support stricter gun control, then the anti-control group is a pretty small slice of the population.

If that small group possesses the political power to block gun control, then the right approach isn't necessarily to convince that small group, but rather to look at the factors that cause that group to punch well above its weight politically.

An obvious conclusion to jump to is regional bias, but I don't think the numbers work for that. Even in overrepresented and gerrymandered rural areas, gun owners make up less than half the population. I don't think the numbers work out. Even among the Republican base, a majority call for stronger gun laws.

What is it, then? Usually, in my opinion, these come down to strength of belief and willingness to take action based on that belief. For example, Pew Research found a few years ago that just 18% of Americans want gun laws to be less strict...but that small group is significantly more likely than the rest to contact politicians and public officials about gun policy. Moreover, gun owners are much more likely to contribute money to organizations that lobby on gun policy, and while Pew didn't explicitly divide that question up by for/against, Pew generally found that (unsurprisingly) gun owners tend to skew more pro-gun than non-owners do. So even though the anti-gun control contingent is relatively small, they're pushing much harder politically.

And while Pew didn't directly ask about voting behavior, I think it's a fair guess that someone who feels that gun ownership is essential to their sense of freedom or even a core part of their identity are likely to be single-issue gun voters who prioritize gun policy above all other issues. Meanwhile, it's pretty clear that even if a majority of people say on a poll that they support stricter gun control measures, many of them don't prioritize it over other issues. A fair portion of Republicans support some level of gun control, but they're still happy to vote for candidates who oppose gun control - they prioritize other issues over that one.

Well, that was essentially what I was getting at with my parenthetical. The obstacle isn't really gun owners at all, but the fact that their interests are overrepresented by the elected officials that they vote for, for a myriad of complex reasons, and the fact that the GOP wields a substantially outsized level of power in our current government.

That said, my intention with that post was simply to nudge the conversation in a more productive direction. If folks want to talk about ways to convince others that gun control measures are needed, they are free to do so, as long as they can do it civilly and move things along rather than going in circular arguments.

Mulva posted:

Why, because you say so? Someone says they needed to use a gun to defend themselves and your response is "You are wrong or lying". Smooth argument, I'd like to see you back it up.

Again, "You are wrong or lying" isn't an argument. And that's all that is, "Well assuming you aren't just stupid and jumpy or telling fibs, so many other people are gently caress ups so really it's like your experience didn't happen." isn't an argument.

That follows from nothing you said, at all, and again just dismisses that conflict happens. Or assumes that everyone is just loving incompetent and shits themselves when it comes time to threaten someone. Like criminals are just this foreign species that are ultra-competent at violence, but your dentist is only capable of crying and passing out or mag dumping into a nearby crowd if someone tries to mug him.

You can just say "I don't feel your potential to defend yourself is worth the societal impact that wider gun use has". That's a rock solid statement that nobody can refute. All they can say is "I do".

Given the lack of context provided by Anchor Wanker, I think it's fair that Cease to Hope made certain assumptions based on what was presented. If Anchor Wanker wants to submit their anecdotes as evidence that guns are occasionally necessary for self-defense, I believe the onus is on them to provide more context as to why the situation that was resolved without actual gun violence could not have been defused without a gun. Otherwise your post is entirely true and the only conversation that can be had is "I needed a gun" and "no you didn't." Which is completely worthless.

I'm just going to ask Anchor Wanker directly: why do you believe that the situations you encountered required a gun to be deescalated successfully? I'm not going to pick apart your answers, but I think more context is warranted for your assertions to be taken seriously in the thread.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jul 20, 2022

# ¿ Jul 20, 2022 19:37

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Anchor Wanker posted:

Yeah, no.
If i had pulled a phone out of my pocket instead I 99% probably would have been stabbed. Thank goodness jackass had a self preservation instinct. Sometimes it's just that simple though.

Fwiw you're right, Doesn't matter how many awful stories we can find about people using guns badly, it aint gonna change anyone's mind. I aint giving up mine *regardless of the law* because simply put, I like my odds better vs relying on cops. There's no fantasy there, thats just genuine lived experience. Quote national stats all you like but its not gonna change the realities of my day-to-day life.

And I do also acknowledge that im a statistical outlier as far as these things go, that I am certainly not representative of most or even many gun owners... For now. As right wing violence cranks up even more perhaps even that will change. All the same, most proposed bans only kneecap my ability to protect myself/my loved ones.

I understand if there are specific circumstances that you would prefer not to share (in case there are public records of your incident available and you do not wish to provide potential doxxable details, for instance), but the binary choice of "threaten with gun" or "be stabbed" is not generally a situation taking place in a vacuum. I would love to hear more context about what happened and why, specifically, the situation was impossible to deescalate without a firearm.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2022 20:05

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Cease to Hope posted:

This is true but I don't think anyone's going to enter a conversation where "I screwed up and threatened someone I didn't need to" is on the table, if only out of reasons of self-preservation. It doesn't seem like a fair request to make to me.

Fair enough, and I certainly respect someone not going into further detail if they feel that it will just open up their story to be picked apart by people they disagree with. I said I specifically wouldn't, but of course I can't speak for everyone else in the thread. Unfortunately, this also means that these anecdotes are fairly worthless as a point of discussion, and I don't want to see this conversation continue to go in circles.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2022 20:22

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

mobby_6kl posted:

Does it really matter? Anchor Wanker could be making poo poo up, or it could be legit one of the cases where things worked out better with the gun. Or maybe if a butterfly flapped its wings a bit faster we would've read about a Wanker-involved shooting in the news. I don't think we can "prove" or "disprove" it either way. At least not without busting out statistics.

Yes, this was the conclusion I was getting at with my line of questioning. Unless someone's anecdote is particularly illuminating or interesting, it's not worth discussing in the thread, specifically per rule II.C in the DND rules post, which I assume anyone posting in DND has read.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2022 20:28

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Please move on from this conversation, unless someone has fresh or interesting information to further add.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2022 00:18

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Okay last warning to drop this without anymore parting shots. I'm phone posting and if someone makes me walk upstairs to the 95 degree computer room to push buttons I'm going to make sure it's worth my while.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2022 01:13

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

JFC, please do not post that poo poo without some sort of warning, and don't embed it inline.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2022 19:32

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

^ This is where things can get really complex. ^

There's a whole media apparatus driving people to fear. Crime reporting is one such thing, but it's not really feasible to stop reporting on crime in the news. If the media could stop being police stenographers and offer some context for their reports, it might go a long way toward alleviating the way in which it drives fear.

Perhaps more insidious is America's problem with copaganda, and the prevalence of uncritical police procedurals that heavily focus on random, heinous crimes and portray police officers as noble fighters for justice constantly constrained buy red tape and anti-police liberal politicians (god if only). Movies and TV both often push a narrative that runs contrary to reality and the perception of media as "left wing" or "liberal."

I don't know where to begin unpacking or unraveling all that poo poo.

Harold Fjord posted:

I do sincerely suggest that any planning start with thinking.

This is a pretty good starting position. Maybe a good starting point for the next conversation here?

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jul 22, 2022

# ¿ Jul 22, 2022 21:15

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

I mean it's probably telling that the folks you mentioned, the ones that actually are in danger of imminent violent threats, are also going to be the folks annihilated by state violence if they choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves. Now, I'm not saying that means it's pointless for leftists to arm themselves, just that the current political situation means that using them puts them at even greater risk to state or state-sanctioned violence. Just look at the level of opsec put into joining your local SRA.

Liquid Communism posted:

You're not wrong, but said left wing gun owners are the first ones any gun control with teeth will be weaponized against.

At the same time, this is also true.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2022 00:33

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Eh, my own opinions aside, that feels like the argument that Dems have to skew conservative to show the right wing how they're not all crazy gay commie Muslims or whatever. Regardless of what the left actually does, the police depts are going to keep gobbling up funding and military equipment anyway. They are on inertia at this point and the only people that can seriously pose a threat to law enforcement right now are right wing militias and white supremacists groups. And strangely no one has ever seen them or the cops in the same place.

Nothing leftists do or don't do with guns is going to make a single difference wrt cop gear because we already blew past the point of every small town of 5-10k people having loving MRAPS and SWAT teams armed with leftover military hardware.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2022 17:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 07:45

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Big K of Justice posted:

Eh, half the surplus poo poo will fall apart, or they realize it's too drat expensive to maintain.

Back in 2008, I was at a small California Beach community picking up military surplus parts off a guy who is a police subcontractor. He was gaming the DRMO/Surplus system a bit to get items to his local PD which technically was legit but stuff was getting picked up that wasn't even going to be used by the PD.

They had a freaking M113 APC, 2-3 MRAPs and a few armored HMMWV's and tons of trailers and Drash tents, all sorts of stuff cramped into a small impound lot.

Which was overkill since there was NG nearby, plus a Military Base, and the size of the PD did not warrant all this hardware.

Anyways, the winds of change blew, and a new sheriff got voted in, and the first thing he said when he looked at the impound lot was what the Christ is all this poo poo?

Today the lot is empty except for a few totaled cards from DUIs, all the military stuff was given back/destroyed, or sold off. The new Sheriff came in and got rid of all the money-wasting bullshit, then rescinded the CCW's that were given out to "cop buddies" like the before-mentioned contractor.

The whole military surplus machine can use a big Audit between PD abuse and contractors "disposing of poo poo" and having that wind up on the secondary market. Oh and the road-side museums which get free poo poo which they can sell off to someone else along with the museum down the road.

None of this changes that the depts a) shouldn't have them, b) have absolutely no need for them, c) having stuff like that reinforces the false idea that their jobs are that dangerous and they are "soldiers," and d) make it increasingly likely that they will feel the need to use them.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 20:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gun Control: apologies, i'm on desktop and didn't notice the corpse