WTF Is Wrong With America And Gun Control?
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
- Status
HellsWindStaff
Dharma Initiate
Minorities take jobs away from whites (the majority).
Low income housing that is a higher % of minorities has a high crime rate.
Minorities commit terrorist attacks on the US soil.
Minorities riot in the streets and cause damage to property.
Must be the common denominator.......
By the cartoons logic, there aren't other factors at play. Surely there are other reasons white men are losing jobs other than programs that give them to minorities? Surely the low income neighborhood regardless of race would perpetuate crime? Surely white men commit terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil, and they also riot and cause destruction of property?
Correlation does not equal causation
(I used minority as an example, I don't believe minorities are just ruining things
the point is narrow viewpoints and shoehorning big problems into singular minute causes misses the point.)(As for gun control, heavy monitoring and "hoops" that people have to get through is what I believe should happen. And the registration of ammunition IMO would be a good idea)
Mirimi
Well-Known Member
So I've read this thread with attention, and I wanted to chime in. However, I don't want to appear judgemental over a country i don't live in. I live in a fairly safe European city, I feel very uncomfortable around guns. The only ones I've seen were on police or military (and I've heard most of the time, they're here for show and are not loaded, don't know whether it's true).
There are a lot of posters around here whose opinion I highly value. However, there's something that strikes me here and in every place debating about gun control. Two false dichotomies:
- the first one : between "good law-abiding people" and "bad guys"/criminals. A family man with a steady job can be a terrible violent person between walls and abuse his family. A gang member could be a caring son and father. One person can work and be integrated to society one year and fall into crime later. The opposite is possible too.
- the second one : between mentally-ill people and healthy people. I think it's wrong to think that there are crazy people and non crazy people. Mental health, as well as physical health, can come and go in various stages of life. A great deal of people will deal with depression at least once in their life. Are they supposed to go into the mentally ill camp and stay there? Some people have psychotic breaks without any former hint. And then they can go on to live a life without any other problem.
I think it is wrong to assume that people can be divided clearly into these categories, and that everything will be alright when the good ones have guns and the other ones don't. Sometimes people can snap and become violent. It's human to have these urges, and even more when mind-altering substances are involved. The difference between guns and other "tools" like cars, hammers, knives, is that they are made to kill and hurt. It's why it's so easy and fast to kill someone. And this easiness and fastness changes everything.
There's one last thing that I wanted to say, I hope it doesn't sound too self-involved. I would never trust myself with a gun, because I live with an incurable and painful disease, and I know that even though my mood is pretty good (i'm even pretty happy, and mmj helps a lot
), there will be times when I'm tempted if I have an easy way out. I don't live in a dangerous place, but if I did, I wouldn't want to depend on owning/carrying guns for my safety. And it's the same for a lot of people who couldn't/shouldn't have guns: kids, very old people, some disabled people (for instance blind, severely mentally-ill, intellectually disabled people...). If they can't have a gun, don't they have the same freedom of safety that some of you claim (I do respect that claim)? Should they just hope the "good guys" are superior to the "bad guys"? Which is
I really don't like the police and the military. But I think delegating safety to them is more responsible. Even though they're still human and fallible, they are highly trained and in a context where mental health issues could be detected more easily - even though it will never be perfect, because, well, humans and impredictability of health, should it be mental or physical.
There are a lot of posters around here whose opinion I highly value. However, there's something that strikes me here and in every place debating about gun control. Two false dichotomies:
- the first one : between "good law-abiding people" and "bad guys"/criminals. A family man with a steady job can be a terrible violent person between walls and abuse his family. A gang member could be a caring son and father. One person can work and be integrated to society one year and fall into crime later. The opposite is possible too.
- the second one : between mentally-ill people and healthy people. I think it's wrong to think that there are crazy people and non crazy people. Mental health, as well as physical health, can come and go in various stages of life. A great deal of people will deal with depression at least once in their life. Are they supposed to go into the mentally ill camp and stay there? Some people have psychotic breaks without any former hint. And then they can go on to live a life without any other problem.
I think it is wrong to assume that people can be divided clearly into these categories, and that everything will be alright when the good ones have guns and the other ones don't. Sometimes people can snap and become violent. It's human to have these urges, and even more when mind-altering substances are involved. The difference between guns and other "tools" like cars, hammers, knives, is that they are made to kill and hurt. It's why it's so easy and fast to kill someone. And this easiness and fastness changes everything.
There's one last thing that I wanted to say, I hope it doesn't sound too self-involved. I would never trust myself with a gun, because I live with an incurable and painful disease, and I know that even though my mood is pretty good (i'm even pretty happy, and mmj helps a lot
), there will be times when I'm tempted if I have an easy way out. I don't live in a dangerous place, but if I did, I wouldn't want to depend on owning/carrying guns for my safety. And it's the same for a lot of people who couldn't/shouldn't have guns: kids, very old people, some disabled people (for instance blind, severely mentally-ill, intellectually disabled people...). If they can't have a gun, don't they have the same freedom of safety that some of you claim (I do respect that claim)? Should they just hope the "good guys" are superior to the "bad guys"? Which isI really don't like the police and the military. But I think delegating safety to them is more responsible. Even though they're still human and fallible, they are highly trained and in a context where mental health issues could be detected more easily - even though it will never be perfect, because, well, humans and impredictability of health, should it be mental or physical.
HellsWindStaff
Dharma Initiate
Yeah, it's always the guns causing the problems.....
I agree with gun free zones, but it is in effect saying to people, "we are defenseless!" If I was a criminal I think I would attack a gun free zone? Makes the most sense....
Criminals will still get guns. Check out Chicago and NJ, both have pretty strict gun laws, both have a ton of gun crime..........but I thought guns were the issue? It's not the criminals living there? And, with such strict laws, shouldn't the criminal not have a gun?
This is my favorite because it shows the pick and choose mentality of so many.
I don't think in particular that many law abiding citizens would get their guns taken, but I fully agree with that criminals will still have guns, so to focus on the guns that criminals will still have regardless is not a fix to the problem.
I like this one because it shows the lack of personal responsibility gun banners tend to evoke.
Criminals will still get guns. Blaming the gun is.....idiotic. Do you blame cars for accidents? If I drive my car through my neighbors house, the car is at fault right? So many roadway accidents in a year, I think an effort to fix them would be to get rid of cars? No cars, no car accidents right? Correlation equals causation?
Such a short sighted fix. I want stricter gun control too lol, that's actually the weirdest thing for me with regards to this. I WANT stricter gun control...........but I find it damn near impossible to rally behind those who also want stricter gun control, because I vehemently disagree with their approach.
Correlation still, no matter how much you want it to, does not equal causation. I know that probably causes some brains to pop....does not compute lol..... but just because a terrorist kills people with a gun, a street thug kills another street thug with a gun, or a stay at home mom kills her kid with the gun, does not make the gun the end all be all factor.
The gun obviously is the tool that was used......but to focus solely on the guns being the issue just muddles your points...........unless we are saying it's only the cars fault for roadway accidents? And that it's only minorities faults in the examples of white men losing jobs as I said above? It would be down right idiotic to believe either of those two things, so why isn't it idiotic to shoehorn the issue of violence as "it's guns that are the problem!!"
Here's a photo to finish:
Lol. It often seems that way. But I do believe there is a middle ground......the gun control group simply has to be willing to entertain the idea that maybe there are other issues at play that cause violence and it's not the gun that's the issue. And the people who think the government is going to just take all our guns need to be willing to entertain the idea of systems put in place to stop the wrong people from getting guns and if you're not a wrong person you'll be fine.
For the record, I think those people are just as idiotically short sighted, who think the government will just strip away all our guns and we'll be left as a defenseless nation subject to the whim of criminals/terrorists. Lol. That's how Australia is right, overtaken and overrun by terrorists?
We need to work towards a middle ground.
I agree with gun free zones, but it is in effect saying to people, "we are defenseless!" If I was a criminal I think I would attack a gun free zone? Makes the most sense....
Criminals will still get guns. Check out Chicago and NJ, both have pretty strict gun laws, both have a ton of gun crime..........but I thought guns were the issue? It's not the criminals living there? And, with such strict laws, shouldn't the criminal not have a gun?
This is my favorite because it shows the pick and choose mentality of so many.
I don't think in particular that many law abiding citizens would get their guns taken, but I fully agree with that criminals will still have guns, so to focus on the guns that criminals will still have regardless is not a fix to the problem.
I like this one because it shows the lack of personal responsibility gun banners tend to evoke.
Criminals will still get guns. Blaming the gun is.....idiotic. Do you blame cars for accidents? If I drive my car through my neighbors house, the car is at fault right? So many roadway accidents in a year, I think an effort to fix them would be to get rid of cars? No cars, no car accidents right? Correlation equals causation?
Such a short sighted fix. I want stricter gun control too lol, that's actually the weirdest thing for me with regards to this. I WANT stricter gun control...........but I find it damn near impossible to rally behind those who also want stricter gun control, because I vehemently disagree with their approach.
Correlation still, no matter how much you want it to, does not equal causation. I know that probably causes some brains to pop....does not compute lol..... but just because a terrorist kills people with a gun, a street thug kills another street thug with a gun, or a stay at home mom kills her kid with the gun, does not make the gun the end all be all factor.
The gun obviously is the tool that was used......but to focus solely on the guns being the issue just muddles your points...........unless we are saying it's only the cars fault for roadway accidents? And that it's only minorities faults in the examples of white men losing jobs as I said above? It would be down right idiotic to believe either of those two things, so why isn't it idiotic to shoehorn the issue of violence as "it's guns that are the problem!!"
Here's a photo to finish:
Lol. It often seems that way. But I do believe there is a middle ground......the gun control group simply has to be willing to entertain the idea that maybe there are other issues at play that cause violence and it's not the gun that's the issue. And the people who think the government is going to just take all our guns need to be willing to entertain the idea of systems put in place to stop the wrong people from getting guns and if you're not a wrong person you'll be fine.
For the record, I think those people are just as idiotically short sighted, who think the government will just strip away all our guns and we'll be left as a defenseless nation subject to the whim of criminals/terrorists. Lol. That's how Australia is right, overtaken and overrun by terrorists?
We need to work towards a middle ground.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
There needs to be a middle ground on gun control, it' s stated in the above article. The laws vary from state to state. There needs to be some universal laws through out America regarding guns. The gun laws need to be actually adhered to in some states because they aren't at this point.
The gun shows where anybody can buy a gun is absolutely ridiculous.
Also the picture of the twin towers up above is ridiculous even to include that in the case of gun control. Sorry mods if I stepped on any toes.
There are plenty of abusive partners using guns to intimate their loved ones every day. Those we can't do anything about because they haven't actually broken the laws yet.
The gun shows where anybody can buy a gun is absolutely ridiculous.
Also the picture of the twin towers up above is ridiculous even to include that in the case of gun control. Sorry mods if I stepped on any toes.
There are plenty of abusive partners using guns to intimate their loved ones every day. Those we can't do anything about because they haven't actually broken the laws yet.
Last edited:
gangababa
Well-Known Member
Conflating radical-foreigners' terrorism with radical home-grown 2nd amendment terrorism is a failure of clear thinking.
The dead-by-gun hold the high moral-ground over any concealed/open carry/legal/not-yet illegal/clearly illegal but got gun from legal owner gun enthusiast.
Death-by-gun by an American neighbor is far more significantly likely to happen to every American than is death by terrorist.
The dead-by-gun hold the high moral-ground over any concealed/open carry/legal/not-yet illegal/clearly illegal but got gun from legal owner gun enthusiast.
Death-by-gun by an American neighbor is far more significantly likely to happen to every American than is death by terrorist.
Stevenski
Enter the Dragon
I watched an interesting show on the "gun culture" in America & it was fascinating to say the least. What I found really interesting is how similar gun & car culture is with people who are passionate about their hobbies.
You can purchase a gun based off the AR or AK pattern & like a car the list of aftermarket options are astounding. I can see the appeal of creating a cool, functional gun that will never be used for it's true purpose much like modifying a car & not tracking it. Every month there would be something new & cool to accessorize your guns with & show off to your buddies down the range.
Forget terrorism as America has a seeming obsession with attitudes of "might is right" & "stand your ground" feeding the murder machine far more efficiently than any terrorism in the USA. I would be far more concerned with the prevalence of affordable high capacity pistols than long arms.
You can purchase a gun based off the AR or AK pattern & like a car the list of aftermarket options are astounding. I can see the appeal of creating a cool, functional gun that will never be used for it's true purpose much like modifying a car & not tracking it. Every month there would be something new & cool to accessorize your guns with & show off to your buddies down the range.
Forget terrorism as America has a seeming obsession with attitudes of "might is right" & "stand your ground" feeding the murder machine far more efficiently than any terrorism in the USA. I would be far more concerned with the prevalence of affordable high capacity pistols than long arms.
HellsWindStaff
Dharma Initiate
Just LOL. I want stricter gun control.......Yeah, it is more likely you'll be shot with a gun by your neighbor then a terrorist.....but you're missing the point. Is my stable neighbor more likely to shoot me just cause he owns a gun???? LOL, yeah he is, because he owns one.... It's not the gun that's the issue. Sorry you can't see it that way. Didn't you say here or in the politics thread how you had 70 years of opening your eyes? Then I find it incredulous that you still will blame an object rather than a human. Sorry. But I can't help that it's incredulous to me....it's more incredulous because I've seen you tout that and it's flabbergasting to me that someone at that age will shun personal responsibility.......we all tick differently, I vehemently disagree with damn near all your beliefs, but its your right to have them. They aren't worth more though
(we can blame Reagan and the Koch brothers for this, so all is well in the world
)@CarolKing plenty of people intimidate their loved ones with knives or whatever else. Lets ban knives? And I don't understand why the WTC violence is "ridiculous" because violence is violence no matter how you cut it.
More people died from those planes than any gun attack, so lets ban planes? Correlation equals causation right? More people died from those planes in those attacks than any gun attacks on US soil, so lets ban planes. That's the easy fix? More people died in the nightclub shooting, he used a rifle, so lets ban rifles?? Thats the easy fix? Right???
Doesn't that sound stupid? Stop getting so hung up on the object of the destruction or terror. Not you particularly CK, just in general. Violence is violence and terror is terror and people will carry both out with whatever, so to shoehorn it into "guns are the bad guy!" Is a straight up juvenile and short sighted approach. Planes were the bad guy. Pressure cookers were. Knives.
Not to be rude, I realize I'm being quite blunt. I find the lack of personal responsibility echoed around in the world (not just this forum) to be honestly very disheartening.......but, maybe this is in my best interest? I failed out of college the first time.........it wasn't because I didn't put forth the work, but simply because the classes were too hard, I was too stressed, etc. I'll pass the blame on them and sleep well.......in my gunless house
because I still don't see a need to have one. It does feel good passing on the blame to a boogeyman though.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I will repeat this a third time. Someone dies every 17 min due to a gun in America. Some of those are suicides too. Those aren't knives stabbing someone or planes hitting a building. Trying to have a good conversation about guns and some sort of sanity when it comes to control.
Australia was able to deal with this and they were successful. A lot of crazy people walking the streets with guns here in America. That's the issue IMO.
Australia was able to deal with this and they were successful. A lot of crazy people walking the streets with guns here in America. That's the issue IMO.
Last edited:
gangababa
Well-Known Member
OK! the gun is not the problem!
People with guns and defenders of the gun in America today are the problem.
The ability to deny the obvious is not a skill that I cultivate. Failure to see reality as it is, is a human condition. Deliberate denial of reality is a cultivated habit.
Accepting and defending the current cultural cancers in society is morally reprehensible.
A stable neighbor on Monday may become a well armed, angry, raging lunatic on Tuesday.
I can't see the heart of any armed person, only that s/he carries guns, and that proves to me that I can not trust him/er.
There is no object that I am willing to elevate above human life; no-one's possessions are worth the deaths of the innocent.
The dead toddlers who get their hands on guns are not responsible and the gun is not responsible, so I guess legal gun owners ARE the problem.
Legal manufacturers, sellers and owners are the source of all illegal gun use.
People with guns and defenders of the gun in America today are the problem.
The ability to deny the obvious is not a skill that I cultivate. Failure to see reality as it is, is a human condition. Deliberate denial of reality is a cultivated habit.
Accepting and defending the current cultural cancers in society is morally reprehensible.
A stable neighbor on Monday may become a well armed, angry, raging lunatic on Tuesday.
I can't see the heart of any armed person, only that s/he carries guns, and that proves to me that I can not trust him/er.
There is no object that I am willing to elevate above human life; no-one's possessions are worth the deaths of the innocent.
The dead toddlers who get their hands on guns are not responsible and the gun is not responsible, so I guess legal gun owners ARE the problem.
Legal manufacturers, sellers and owners are the source of all illegal gun use.
Farid
Well-Known Member
I tried to stay out of this debate because I am a gun enthusiast, but something happened to my family that makes me wish I owned a firearm. My family got a call from the State Police saying that my father is on a hit list of one of the most notorious terrorist groups in the world today (I'm sure you can guess). Never before have I felt the need to protect myself, and I can say without a doubt, I wish I was a gun owner at the moment. Call it reactionary, I don't care. I don't even know if I should be sharing this information, but I think it is relevant to the discussion we are having. No, I don't think more people carrying guns would stop mass shootings, but I do think that individuals should be able to have the capacity to defend themselves and their family if they feel that is necessary, especially when the police and FBI are only able to do so much with the resources they have.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@Farid we aren't talking about taking folks guns away. There needs to be laws that make sure crazy people and people with an abusive past aren't able to buy guns or continue to have them. Folks on the no fly list shouldn't be able to buy a gun. If you are on the no fly list and are taken off maybe a watch list for a few more years.
Farid
Well-Known Member
You might not be in favor of taking peoples guns away, but many people I know are. The banning of the AR 15 for instance is strange in that the AR 15 is no different from any other rifle other than it's popularity.
My parents are in favor of banning all semi automatic weapons (not fully automatic, semi automatic, so that would include all handguns, and many rifles). They fail to see that they are imposing their beliefs on others by trying to ban these firearms. Just like other people are imposing their beliefs on my parents when they fight against gay marriage or medical cannabis, or other issues my parents support.
I live in MA where they have some of the strictest gun control, and many of the laws here were obviously written by people who have no experience with firearms. The best example I can think of is the ban on Glocks. Even though Glocks are banned, if your Glock was made before the ban you can still buy and sell it. What that means is that any Glock you purchase in MA is made before '94 I believe, and the price is a bit more than in other states. So instead of getting Glocks off the street these laws just increased the value of Glocks, and they guarantee that any Glocks that are still being used in MA are older, and thus less safe.
Another example is the way the assault weapons ban is written. It makes it so that when I go to the range with my friend we cannot use an adjustable stock on his rifle, because that is considered an assault weapon accessory. It sucks because using a stock that is not adjusted correctly is less safe, and makes more difficult when target shooting.
Not to mention with the whole online black market thriving, a gun is just a few clicks and bitcoins away from the hands of most criminals.
My parents are in favor of banning all semi automatic weapons (not fully automatic, semi automatic, so that would include all handguns, and many rifles). They fail to see that they are imposing their beliefs on others by trying to ban these firearms. Just like other people are imposing their beliefs on my parents when they fight against gay marriage or medical cannabis, or other issues my parents support.
I live in MA where they have some of the strictest gun control, and many of the laws here were obviously written by people who have no experience with firearms. The best example I can think of is the ban on Glocks. Even though Glocks are banned, if your Glock was made before the ban you can still buy and sell it. What that means is that any Glock you purchase in MA is made before '94 I believe, and the price is a bit more than in other states. So instead of getting Glocks off the street these laws just increased the value of Glocks, and they guarantee that any Glocks that are still being used in MA are older, and thus less safe.
Another example is the way the assault weapons ban is written. It makes it so that when I go to the range with my friend we cannot use an adjustable stock on his rifle, because that is considered an assault weapon accessory. It sucks because using a stock that is not adjusted correctly is less safe, and makes more difficult when target shooting.
Not to mention with the whole online black market thriving, a gun is just a few clicks and bitcoins away from the hands of most criminals.
grokit
well-worn member
Beware; the nra does not stand up for people of color 
NRA’s offensive hypocrisy: When will the organization demand justice for black gun owners shot by police?
Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were shot while carrying guns, but the NRA isn't stepping up to defend them
Protesters in Baton Rouge, La., July 6, 2016. (Credit: AP/Gerald Herbert)
Right in the midst of a national outrage over a video of police in Louisiana shooting Alton Sterling while holding him on the ground, yet another video of a police shooting of a black man has come out.
This video, filmed in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, shows a man named Philando Castile writhing in pain with blood splattered all over his car while his girlfriend says that a police officer shot Castile after asking Castile, responding to requests for his license, reached for his wallet. Castile later died of his wounds.
Beyond being yet more videos of senseless violence by police against African-Americans, what these two videos have in common is the police in question excuse their actions by citing the presence of a gun.
In the Minnesota video, the woman tells the camera that Castile informed the office that he had a licensed gun on him before he reached for his wallet. The officer then returns, arguing, “I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out.”
In the Louisiana video, officers can be heard yelling, “He’s got a gun!”
In both cases, there seems to be no question that the shooting victims were armed. It’s a point that’s already being flogged by conservatives in an effort to excuse these officers.
However, and conservatives should be the first to remember this, guns are legal in this country.
Guns are legal in this country. Louisiana is an open carry state. Minnesota allows concealed carry. Police officers in these states know full well that people have a legal right to carry. They have, according to conservatives themselves, no reason to believe that a man with a gun is a bad guy. Why, he could very well be one of those good guys with a gun, at the ready to stop crime, that we keep hearing about from conservatives.
Which brings up a critical question: Where is the gun rights lobby?
Here are two American citizens that were killed while doing what the NRA claims is a constitutional right. Surely this must be a gross injustice in the eyes of the NRA! Surely they will be demanding action, petitioning congressmen, demanding the Department of Justice to step forward and make sure that every American has a right to arm themselves without fear of being gunned down by the police! Right?
But while progressive Twitter is all about protesting these deaths, if you go to the NRA Twitter feed, this is what you’ll find: Whining about Matt Damon’s gun opinions. Harping on some impolitic words from a community college professor. Putting up some free advertising for Remington.
But when it comes to the deaths of these two Americans who appear to be killed while exercising their legal right to carry guns? Crickets.
What you do get, however, is some overt race-baiting from the NRA, tweets that unsubtly try to imply to their largely white audience that they are in danger of being victimized, mostly by people of color, and that they need to arm themselves in response.
(The two men in this screen grab, by the way, have nothing to do with the crime and just happened to be standing there while the news crew was filming.)
(Quote from the news story: “Everything seemed normal until he saw a guy with a wallet in his hands trying to run past the restaurant. ‘He couldn’t run though; his pants were sagging too far,’ Caddy said.”)
The NRA bills itself as a guns rights lobby. But whoever runs their Twitter feed is more interested in chronicling stories about muggers, pickpockets, and teenage gang wars than they are these two national stories about cops killing people who were exercising the right that the NRA claims they exist to protect.
Any true rights organization would be up in arms about these deaths, but the NRA can’t even be bothered to take a break in the “scary muggers so buy guns!” drumbeat to make even a peep of protest.
While not all gun owners are racist (obviously), a growing body of research suggests that hostility to gun control is less about belief that guns are a “right” and more about white paranoia about people of color and crime.
Last year, social scientists Alexandra Filindra and Noah J. Kaplan published a study in the journal Political Behavior that found that showing pictures of black people to white people reduced white support for gun control. The effect was much stronger in white people who held higher levels of racial prejudice.
“Juxtapositions of ‘law abiding citizens’ and ‘criminals’ [are] evocative of racialized themes as crime has long been associated with blacks in the white mind,” the researchers wrote.
Gun ownership is a way of “expressing my ‘more-equal-than-others’ status in a society where egalitarianism is the norm,” Filindra told the Washington Post.
This confirms previous research, published in PLoS One in 2013 that found that the more racist a white person is, the likelier he is to own a gun.
It’s time to admit the NRA is not a “gun rights” organization. The NRA — and their allies in the Republican party — are about one thing and one thing only: Stoking racialized fears of crime amongst paranoid white people for political gain and gun profits. The inability to give two hoots about the police killings of two gun owners, who happen to be black, just confirms it.
https://www.salon.com/2016/07/07/nr..._justice_for_black_gun_owners_shot_by_police/
NRA’s offensive hypocrisy: When will the organization demand justice for black gun owners shot by police?
Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were shot while carrying guns, but the NRA isn't stepping up to defend them
Protesters in Baton Rouge, La., July 6, 2016. (Credit: AP/Gerald Herbert)
Right in the midst of a national outrage over a video of police in Louisiana shooting Alton Sterling while holding him on the ground, yet another video of a police shooting of a black man has come out.
This video, filmed in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, shows a man named Philando Castile writhing in pain with blood splattered all over his car while his girlfriend says that a police officer shot Castile after asking Castile, responding to requests for his license, reached for his wallet. Castile later died of his wounds.
Beyond being yet more videos of senseless violence by police against African-Americans, what these two videos have in common is the police in question excuse their actions by citing the presence of a gun.
In the Minnesota video, the woman tells the camera that Castile informed the office that he had a licensed gun on him before he reached for his wallet. The officer then returns, arguing, “I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand out.”
In the Louisiana video, officers can be heard yelling, “He’s got a gun!”
In both cases, there seems to be no question that the shooting victims were armed. It’s a point that’s already being flogged by conservatives in an effort to excuse these officers.
However, and conservatives should be the first to remember this, guns are legal in this country.
Guns are legal in this country. Louisiana is an open carry state. Minnesota allows concealed carry. Police officers in these states know full well that people have a legal right to carry. They have, according to conservatives themselves, no reason to believe that a man with a gun is a bad guy. Why, he could very well be one of those good guys with a gun, at the ready to stop crime, that we keep hearing about from conservatives.
Which brings up a critical question: Where is the gun rights lobby?
Here are two American citizens that were killed while doing what the NRA claims is a constitutional right. Surely this must be a gross injustice in the eyes of the NRA! Surely they will be demanding action, petitioning congressmen, demanding the Department of Justice to step forward and make sure that every American has a right to arm themselves without fear of being gunned down by the police! Right?
But while progressive Twitter is all about protesting these deaths, if you go to the NRA Twitter feed, this is what you’ll find: Whining about Matt Damon’s gun opinions. Harping on some impolitic words from a community college professor. Putting up some free advertising for Remington.
But when it comes to the deaths of these two Americans who appear to be killed while exercising their legal right to carry guns? Crickets.
What you do get, however, is some overt race-baiting from the NRA, tweets that unsubtly try to imply to their largely white audience that they are in danger of being victimized, mostly by people of color, and that they need to arm themselves in response.
Licensed concealed carrier shoots at attackers https://t.co/yyIV8X0PlL #2A #armedcitizen
— NRA (@NRA) July 6, 2016
(The two men in this screen grab, by the way, have nothing to do with the crime and just happened to be standing there while the news crew was filming.)
Good guy with gun stops suspected robber, holds him until police arrive https://t.co/pLl3p9VG6h #2A #armedcitizen
— NRA (@NRA) July 6, 2016
(Quote from the news story: “Everything seemed normal until he saw a guy with a wallet in his hands trying to run past the restaurant. ‘He couldn’t run though; his pants were sagging too far,’ Caddy said.”)
Gun-Controlled Chicago: More Homicides Than LA, NY Combined https://t.co/yv6e7HmaLX #2A
— NRA (@NRA) July 7, 2016
The NRA bills itself as a guns rights lobby. But whoever runs their Twitter feed is more interested in chronicling stories about muggers, pickpockets, and teenage gang wars than they are these two national stories about cops killing people who were exercising the right that the NRA claims they exist to protect.
Any true rights organization would be up in arms about these deaths, but the NRA can’t even be bothered to take a break in the “scary muggers so buy guns!” drumbeat to make even a peep of protest.
While not all gun owners are racist (obviously), a growing body of research suggests that hostility to gun control is less about belief that guns are a “right” and more about white paranoia about people of color and crime.
Last year, social scientists Alexandra Filindra and Noah J. Kaplan published a study in the journal Political Behavior that found that showing pictures of black people to white people reduced white support for gun control. The effect was much stronger in white people who held higher levels of racial prejudice.
“Juxtapositions of ‘law abiding citizens’ and ‘criminals’ [are] evocative of racialized themes as crime has long been associated with blacks in the white mind,” the researchers wrote.
Gun ownership is a way of “expressing my ‘more-equal-than-others’ status in a society where egalitarianism is the norm,” Filindra told the Washington Post.
This confirms previous research, published in PLoS One in 2013 that found that the more racist a white person is, the likelier he is to own a gun.
It’s time to admit the NRA is not a “gun rights” organization. The NRA — and their allies in the Republican party — are about one thing and one thing only: Stoking racialized fears of crime amongst paranoid white people for political gain and gun profits. The inability to give two hoots about the police killings of two gun owners, who happen to be black, just confirms it.
https://www.salon.com/2016/07/07/nr..._justice_for_black_gun_owners_shot_by_police/
Last edited:
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
They don't need them for a dam thing.
Farid
Well-Known Member
Semi automatic means one shot for every pull of the trigger. A revolver is semi automatic. Automatic, as in hold the trigger and it keeps shooting, guns are illegal to posses for a regular person.
All target shooters use semi automatic weapons. Even if they are using a .22 target pistol they are using a semi automatic weapon.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Also in a battlefield situation the 3 round burst is preferred most of the time. Going full auto overheats barrels, eats up ammo, and is less accurate. Its a great way to make a lot of noise though.
You can't just go out and buy automatic weapons either. The National Firearms Act (NFA), passed in 1934, outlawed these and a lot of other stuff like silencers, short barrelled rifles etc. If you can find someone willing to sell a machine gun, requires you to be a class 3 SOT dealer, and are willing to go through a mile of paperwork, background checks, fingerprints, mug shots, and a year long waiting period you might get the BATFE to approve your tax stamp. The rules are very strict for people that follow them.
You can't just go out and buy automatic weapons either. The National Firearms Act (NFA), passed in 1934, outlawed these and a lot of other stuff like silencers, short barrelled rifles etc. If you can find someone willing to sell a machine gun, requires you to be a class 3 SOT dealer, and are willing to go through a mile of paperwork, background checks, fingerprints, mug shots, and a year long waiting period you might get the BATFE to approve your tax stamp. The rules are very strict for people that follow them.
Last edited:
gangababa
Well-Known Member
Warfare comes to the streets of America
But a well armed society is a polite society
Get on your knees
Why are you just letting him bleed out sir
Guns bring power to the people
Black people with guns
Pass more laws Mulford
Don't disarm the people
Death in Dallas
Google is your friend
Google never carries a gun
Angry people do
Danger is everywhere
Glad I do not live in their world
But a well armed society is a polite society
Get on your knees
Why are you just letting him bleed out sir
Guns bring power to the people
Black people with guns
Pass more laws Mulford
Don't disarm the people
Death in Dallas
Google is your friend
Google never carries a gun
Angry people do
Danger is everywhere
Glad I do not live in their world
grokit
well-worn member
For some reason* I feel compelled to differentiate between a single-action and a double-action revolver.
Revolvers are not usually thought of as semi-automatics, even if they have a "double action".
Double-action means that you can shoot "semi-automatically" with one hand, because the hammer gets cocked automatically from recoil. With a single-action revolver, you have to do that fanning thing (like in westerns) with the other hand to cock the hammer, if you want to shoot one round after the other.
*I blame my upbringing
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Hammers getting cocked by recoil only happens with semi auto pistols not revolvers. When shooting a revolver double action it requires a full trigger pull to pull back the hammer and shoot. You don't have to "fan" the hammer on a single action you just have to cock the hammer for each shot which can be done with your thumb. A double action revolver can also be shot in single action mode. This is done by manually cocking the hammer, usually with your thumb, and then pulling the trigger to release the hammer and fire a shot. Trigger pull in the single action mode is lighter than the extended trigger pull of the double action mode.
grokit
well-worn member
Yes it's been a while, I suppose I was describing how non-revolver semi-autos do it not revolvers.
Still, the quickest way to shoot a single-action repeatedly is to fan, even if you don't have to. Even some double-actions may be too stiff for someone with dainty, "trump size" hands to cock single-handedly.
- Status