Gun culture in the US

[Senseye]

Looks like the media being 'progressive' again. They can't jump to conclusions fast enough around hate crime on the Spa shootings even though the guy appears more crazy than racist (although I suspect a mix of both) but they wait forever to even name an Islamic shooter. I haven't seen any mention of an anti-western (terrorist) motive so far, and I will be shocked if that is not what it is.

[Madrigal]

Looks like the media being 'progressive' again. They can't jump to conclusions fast enough around hate crime on the Spa shootings even though the guy appears more crazy than racist (although I suspect a mix of both) but they wait forever to even name an Islamic shooter. I haven't seen any mention of an anti-western (terrorist) motive so far, and I will be shocked if that is not what it is.

That's the thing, they're not calling this guy an Islamic extremist or whatever breed of wacko the US has been messing with in the Middle East for the past three decades, and I think that's kind of what it is. But they're lumping this event in with the gun control issue that reemerged last week when that incel killed the Asian ladies at the spa.

This isn't a gun control debate anymore, the US just got hit with another terrorist attack.

[Senseye]

Even the gun control "debate" makes me roll my eyes. It comes up every time one of these mass shootings occurs (which is pretty regularly these days) and nothing ever changes. A bit of sabre rattling regarding gun control toughening has become part of the standard reaction protocol along with the token thoughts and prayers rhetoric. Forgotten in a few days as soon as the news cycle moves on.

[jyng1]

Even the gun control "debate" makes me roll my eyes. It comes up every time one of these mass shootings occurs (which is pretty regularly these days) and nothing ever changes. A bit of sabre rattling regarding gun control toughening has become part of the standard reaction protocol along with the token thoughts and prayers rhetoric. Forgotten in a few days as soon as the news cycle moves on.

Yeah, it's the same reason why the U.S. failed to control covid. Some Judge says Boulder can't introduce a law to prohibit the sale of assault rifles and then some dick goes out and buys one and two weeks later uses it to shoot a crap load of people.

Freedom muthafuckas!!!

[last_caress]

These things get less of a reaction from me than they should because I became hardened long ago to the self-inflicted stupidities of this society. May as well report these with the weather.

[Ptah]

I just know my views are not going to be popular, and yet, I will share them here.

What is your attitude to firearm ownership?

It is the natural right of all human beings everywhere to arm or not arm themselves however they see fit. Firearm ownership is just a subspecies of this general natural right. The "rule of law" be damned insofar as it contravenes this natural right (or any other natural right, for that matter).

For every human being everywhere has a right to their own body, and so, the right to defend it. WEaponry is just one such means. Martial arts is another. And there are others. To outlaw or limit any of that is an expression to the effect of, "you do not have a right to defend yourself, you do not have a right over your own physical person or the means by which to protect your own life from those who might bring violence or harm upon it."

I personally own two semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity magazines. Why? Because I want to. If you simply must know: A) sport and B) self-defense. And I plan to get a third. One for the range (sport), one for the home (defense), one to keep in a car (defense). Once I go concealed carry, a possible 4th to keep on my person (defense).

I happen to have no interest in rifles and yet I acknowledge the right and reason for others who want them for similiar reasons: sport and defense (of themselves if not also their loved ones). I do not whatsoever understand or agree with people who call certain rifles "assault weapons", and thereby try to outlaw them.

As far as I[m concerned, anything the military can have -- yes, including things up to tanks and nuclear fucking missles -- any civilian ought to be free to obtain, should they a) desire and b) be able.

For among the first things a person may need to defend themselves against? A corrupt government. This is essentially in the DNA of the US's second amendment, and wisely so.


Should guns be illegal for the general populace?

No. See above. To make it illegal is to abrogate a natural right. It is to deny a basic freedom. That is unethical to say the very least.

If the US did impose stricter gun controls would it work, or is the genie too far out the bottle?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Is there a problem of violent assholes using guns? Yes.

The problem is much deeper than gun owership, nevermind use, however. The problem is cultural. Gets to an education problem.

Violent people will exist in any civilization. The US, however, is a rotting civilization -- just means we'll see more violent people acting out, as is pertinent here. Taking guns away from violent people will just change the form of how they act out violently. Take guns away, they'll use bombs. Take that away, they'll find something else.

Fight the cause that gives rise to such socially antagonostic, violent people. Root out and fix the rot in civilization. That'll stem the violence. Anything less? You're just fighting fires, not what sets them ablaze to begin with.

So I get the desire to fix the problem. But outlawing or limiting gun ownership is not the fix. Both in a troubleshooting sense of not fighting the root cause, but also because of the unacceptable and egregregious abrogation of a natural human right, and thereby, a serious blow to freedom as a whole.

That's how I see it. And insofar as a government disagrees, they'll only take my guns from my cold, dead hands.

[Madrigal]

As far as I'm concerned, anything the military can have -- yes, including things up to tanks and nuclear fucking missles -- any civilian ought to be free to obtain, should they a) desire and b) be able.

For among the first things a person may need to defend themselves against? A corrupt government. This is essentially in the DNA of the US's second amendment, and wisely so.

That's the most American thing you ever said. :p

Anyway, (except for the nuclear stuff*) I actually agree in a sense - people should ultimately be able to have any weapon the government is allowed to have. I just think that, by the time you're in a civil war fighting a corrupt government, you can easily expropriate those weapons. I don't really think people need to have machine guns, for example, in times of peace.

I guess these guys looked pretty cool though? Mixed feelings. :/ Maybe I need to think about it more.




*I don't think nuclear weapons should even exist. They only serve to kill masses of innocent people.

[jyng1]

Should guns be illegal for the general populace?

No. See above. To make it illegal is to abrogate a natural right. It is to deny a basic freedom. That is unethical to say the very least.

I kinda get more joy out of the freedom to not suffer a violent death by being shot and killed by a civilian firing a military grade weapon in a shooting rampage...

Putting the civil back into civilian.

[last_caress]

What ‘arms’ looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written

I think they might have had included some restrictions if they could have imagined the murder machines of the future in 1789.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't mind legal firearms but I'd also like way more public funding for mental health care in this country which you know, might also reduce these kinds of shooting rampages. Unfortunately we're a long way off from that. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, closed all but five mental health clinics in Chicago when he was mayor.

I'd like for us to get to the point where at least one party in the U.S. thinks mental health care is important so that less people either go on shooting rampages or get shot by the police while being unarmed.

I guess my point is that there's more to public safety than guns which seems to be what the bipartisan consensus (albeit on different sides of it) about it seems to be.

Switzerland has a lot of guns, right? They don't have these problems.