That US gun control thing

[Morkulv]

I've been writing a couple of comments on YouTube regarding video's about the gun control debate that is going on in the States at the moment. Because the majority of the users on this board are from the US, I am curious to know what your thoughts about it are.

Personally, I would like to argue from a moral standpoint here. I know that a lot of Americans feel that its their right to own a weapon (second amendment), but to me this is not relevant to the point if everybody should be allowed to own a firearm so this is why I would like to avoid that for a moment.

My feelings on the subject can best be described like this woman's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4C6GyUzXc

Note that I don't agree with EVERYTHING she says, but you get the gist of it.

[Volkodlak]

Ok, im slovenian so i was raised in difrent culture and this is my view on gun control:

Im against right too own a gun only ones who have a right too carry them in public are police and army, but hunters have right too own them and use them for hunting.

If someone really wants too have a gun will buy it on black market, but if you have a strict gun control you should change laws on self defense, because of that people will reconsider owning a gun.

[Terastas]

The debate mostly stems from the National Rifle Association. Which is supposed to exist to promote responsible dialogue about gun ownership, but which instead has become a puppet lobbying group for gun manufacturers. Their aim now is to sell as many guns as possible, first by making sure every thug, terrorist and madman on the planet is able to buy all the guns they want, then by telling the rest of us that our only option for protection is to buy a gun.

Their vice-president and chief media representative, Wayne LaPierre, is hands down the person I most despise in the entire human race. I've already written a great deal of my feelings about him on the Examiner.
http://www.examiner.com/article/bad-tv- ... tigators-1
http://www.examiner.com/article/infotai ... e-for-kids
http://www.examiner.com/article/infotai ... ama-s-kids
http://www.examiner.com/article/instiga ... ion-speech

The short version is this:
#1: The gun manufacturers don't want any form of gun control because criminals, terrorists and psychopaths are their best customers.
#2: Wayne LaPierre and the NRA don't want any form of gun control because the gun manufacturers are their #1 financial supporters.
#3: The Tea Party Republicans don't want any form of gun control because they need the NRA to fund their reelection campaigns.

And their supporters don't want any form of gun control because, if they're not criminals, terrorists or psychopaths, they're bigots and blowhards who let their patriotism expire and become anarchists as soon as a Democrat is holding office (if Obama expressed opposition to all forms of gun control, half of them would switch sides and want guns banned completely); worthless little manchilds Ted Nugent and Alex Jones who use guns and threats of violence to compensate for the fact that they're incapable of actual coherent thought, much less a rational debate.

Me personally, I would argue in favor of responsible gun ownership. We require licenses for people to drive, and our default Class-D licenses do not entitle every average citizen to drive an eighteen-wheeler. I don't see why a similar system couldn't exist for gun ownership (except for because it would deprive the NRA's sponsors of their best customers).

I would argue, but an argument would require both sides to be willing to have a rational, adult discussion. Which will never happen, because while one side of the aisle does want to have that rational, adult discussion, the other side wants to scream its head off and threaten violent revolution upon anyone that even so much as suggests it might be time for some adjustments.

[Morkulv]

Alex Jones... Am I the only person in this world who finds it absolutely impossible to listen for more than 5 seconds to this bloated asshole? His skit against Pierce Morgan was funny for unintentional comedic reasons though. Does he have any respectable audience in the US? I've heard some people here talk about him but luckily most of them just shrugged him off as the conspiracy theorist lunatic he is.

[Terastas]

Alex Jones... Am I the only person in this world who finds it absolutely impossible to listen for more than 5 seconds to this bloated asshole? His skit against Pierce Morgan was funny for unintentional comedic reasons though. Does he have any respectable audience in the US? I've heard some people here talk about him but luckily most of them just shrugged him off as the conspiracy theorist lunatic he is.

You're not alone. It took me longer to listen to his tirade than it did to write the article about it.

And no, he doesn't have a respectable audience. He has an audience of small-minded party-before-country psychopaths who think murdering non-Republicans should be legal.

[Trinity]

One thing that a lot of people are missing is something lovec1990 said. If people want to own a gun they will do so illegally. The right to own guns came from British suppression of American colonists. In a way it's in there to help protect us from tyrannical governments with fire power.

The problem is violence just births violence. The more someone tries to protect themselves with weapons meant to hurt or harm others it just escalates the issue.

But how DO you stop someone from holding you at gun point and taking away your freedoms?

[Terastas]

One thing that a lot of people are missing is something lovec1990 said. If people want to own a gun they will do so illegally.

That is one of the most shallow excuses the gun lobbyists rely upon. The fact that some people will attempt to acquire them illegally is not a valid excuse for keeping them legal when they shouldn't be.

Imagine if, after 9/11, Bush had told the American people that there will always be terrorism in the world so he wasn't going to do anything about it. Yeah, I know that's a pretty extreme comparison, but it's also an accurate one. The gun lobbyists are acknowledging that it's a problem, but are expecting you not to do anything about it because it will never completely go away.

"If at first you don't succeed, f*** it" is not how the phrase goes.

Nngh. . . I'm not going to get bent out of shape on this again. Take it away John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K13HdTsW_E0

[Morkulv]

In a way it's in there to help protect us from tyrannical governments with fire power.

Bombs.

[Terastas]

In a way it's in there to help protect us from tyrannical governments with fire power.

Bombs.

If that wasn't evidence enough that the "tyrannical government" argument is hooey, there's also the fact that this is the same government that can no longer afford to deliver the mail on Saturday.

The closest thing this country has to a "tyrannical government," ironically enough, appeared in that John Stewart video: Joe Arpaio, the man who brought a tank to raid a chicken farm.

If tyranny comes to America, it's not going to be focused on disarming its populace. Just the opposite. If there's any lesson at all to be learned from Waco, it's that any use of force, no matter how excessive, will be considered justifiable as long as the other side is armed.

[Morkulv]

I think John Steward hit the nail on the head when he said that the far-right gun extremists are paranoid about an "invisible Hitler".

[Terastas]

I think John Steward hit the nail on the head when he said that the far-right gun extremists are paranoid about an "invisible Hitler".

Oi. Not even. That's the official reason. The real reason, I'm honestly convinced, is that they enjoy feeling like they could kill anyone they wanted to.

Here's Bill Maher on the NRA following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQCdr2FRtc

[Morkulv]

Did you see that YouTube video from the gun store owner who tries to talk people into gathering their guns and shooting up the white house? He's basically inciting violence against people, and he freely admits that he will gladly "fire the first shot" and that if assault rifles get banned he wil "start killing people".

I mean this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmR1b3XF0o

I don't get how any of the pro-gun people can explain that type of behaviour. This is the kind of paranoia that I personally find to be a lot more scary then the thought of any opressive goverment.

[Volkodlak]

Did you see that YouTube video from the gun store owner who tries to talk people into gathering their guns and shooting up the white house? He's basically inciting violence against people, and he freely admits that he will gladly "fire the first shot" and that if assault rifles get banned he wil "start killing people".

I mean this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmR1b3XF0o

I don't get how any of the pro-gun people can explain that type of behaviour. This is the kind of paranoia that I personally find to be a lot more scary then the thought of any opressive goverment.

im so lucky i live in slovenia

[Morkulv]

I'm from the Netherlands, so yeah.

[Terastas]

I mean this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmR1b3XF0o

I don't get how any of the pro-gun people can explain that type of behaviour. This is the kind of paranoia that I personally find to be a lot more scary then the thought of any opressive goverment.

And that is precisely the reason I support gun control in this country. Universal background checks especially.

As to how they explain that behavior. . . Well, they can't. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. This idiot is as mentally and emotionally mature as the average four-year-old and is incapable of arguing his position, or hell, even articulating his feelings, in any way, shape, or form, and doesn't know how to respond to any kind of challenge of any variety except to get mad and threaten bodily harm to someone.

This is exactly the kind of person Obama was talking about when me mentioned people who cling to their guns. Because without his guns, this scumbag's only means of "defending" his beliefs loses its effectiveness. So when the subject of the debate comes with the added repercussion of potentially disarming their one and only means of expression, that's when they come completely undone.

Now having threatened to kill people and put it all over the Internet for the entire world to see, it doesn't matter how weak and watered down the final gun control bill is. If universal background checks become a reality, no matter how lax the checks themselves wind up being, he now has zero chance of passing one.

Which means he's going to have to learn how those of who live without guns manage to do it. And without an ounce of restraint or an IQ in the double digit range, he won't be able to do it.

[Morkulv]

Funny enough, the same guy later on posted a video with his atterny where he defends this previous video and the things he said (mainly the threatening to kill people).

I haven't seen that video in while, but I think what it came down to was that he defended it as being a 'slip of the tongue', and a reaction out of emotion. That doesn't really say much anyway, since its still a threat to kill people, and it means that if this guy is pushed that he will kill people if he can. So thats all the more reason for universal background checks indeed.

[Terastas]

I haven't seen that video in while, but I think what it came down to was that he defended it as being a 'slip of the tongue', and a reaction out of emotion.

I could believe that if he didn't say it multiple times, didn't put it on the Internet, and didn't repeat it word for word when he was asked for clarification. Somewhere in between "the heat of the moment" and all of the steps that preceded it, he should have calmed down and realized what a horrible thing he'd just done.

But he hasn't. Instead, he's doubled down on it several times over. The stuff coming out of his mouth is no different from the stuff in his head.

[Uniform Two Six]

The biggest issue I think there is here is the tendency for the media (on both sides of the debate) to find the craziest whack-job they can, and make sure that that person'e insane ideology becomes the dialogue -- not because of a political motive, but because of what I call the "daytime talkshow effect". Namely, that crazy people ranting boost ratings. All of this obscures some valid issues, however.

1. Some people who are into hunting really do feel that any sort of gun control is a slippery slope AND feel that (in some rare cases justifiably) there is hostility to that sort of thing being used as recreation. They fear that gun control will eventually restrict their right to go hunting. My take: there's SOME legitimacy to this concern (I live in California and I've met quite a few people who really ARE interested in outlawing firearms because "I don't want to live in a world with guns"). Nonetheless, I think that much of this is the result of fear-mongering by the NRA (which IS for political reasons).

2. The keeping of firearms for self-defense is a legitimate concern in many parts of the United States. Now, if you live in an urban or suburban area, this is less so, but there's plenty of people who are out in the sticks and a call to 911 will generate a police response in 20 - 30 minutes if they're in a hurry. Granted, these rural places tend not to see much crime, but the fear is there that (and again, somewhat justified) that if you do not have a weapon in the house, you cannot defend yourself if some nut or criminal showed up. Now, it would make SOME sense to say that if you live in certain rural counties, that your need for a firearm is greater than someone living in a city, and that hypothetical restrictions should be loosened for such folk, but actually implementing that sort of graduated gun control would be a nightmare and would be just about guaranteed to universally piss off everybody.

3. Gun control and slipery slope: The concept of slipery slope is probably the overriding hurdle to meaningful gun control. The fear that ANY restriction of possesion of firearms is an invitation to outlaw them all. The NRA makes good use of this weapon for its own political purposes, but the basic concept is somewhat flawed in reality. Flawed, because we already have gun control. If you have been convicted of a violent felony or are considered mentally incapacitated, then you are forbidden from possession of a firearm. Weapons that meet certain criteria are also outlawed (fully automatic weapons, for instance have been outlawed since 1928). What "gun control" really means in application is greater control over how the weapons in question are bought and sold (mandatory background checks, a national weapon registry, closing gun-show loopholes, greater focus on ammunition sales, etc.). The only element of this sort of thing that really meets the popular image of gun control is the so-called "assault weapons ban", which leads me to:

4. The "Assault Weapons Ban": First off, they aren't assault weapons by the military term. Those were outlawed in 1928, and freedom still rings, thank you very much. The proposed ban will (probably) bring the rest of the country more into line with how such weapons are restricted in California. California's laws on semi-auto weapons are sort of goofy, but they don't really affect you if you are law-abiding and want a gun to go hunting or for home-defense. Nonetheless, I still think the ban is ill-conceived, because it either has to outlaw all semi-auto weapons, including legitimate hunting weapons ( and no, I'm NOT talking about AR-15s with 30 round magazines here), or it will leave open loopholes that defeat the purpose of the law in the first place (as has happened here in California). All the proposed legislation serves is to create a huge propaganda target for the NRA and other interested parties to attack and get all sorts of political capital from (and as an avowed cynic, I'll add that for the other side, it makes and equally good political weapon to prove one's credentials when election-time rolls around -- rest assured that Feinstein will use the defeat of the assault weapons ban in her next re-election campaign).

In short, this whole thing is political and has precious little to do with the real world -- like most things coming out of Washington that make the news.

[Terastas]

The biggest issue I think there is here is the tendency for the media (on both sides of the debate) to find the craziest whack-job they can, and make sure that that person'e insane ideology becomes the dialogue -- not because of a political motive, but because of what I call the "daytime talkshow effect". Namely, that crazy people ranting boost ratings. All of this obscures some valid issues, however.

I see why people would think that, but I think that's only made to appear to be the problem.

The biggest reason why the crazy people always represent the right side of the aisle is easy: They put the crazies in charge. Jim Porter, David Keene and Wayne LaPierre aren't just absolute psychopaths. They're absolute psychopaths who were put in charge of the most powerful lobbying organization in the country.

And the crazies on the left? Sorry, but they don't exist. Oh, sure, the left has more than its fair share of nudists, tree-huggers and animal rights activists, but the so-called "gun grabbers" that the NRA can't for the life of them shut up about? I've never seen one of those anywhere. Nobody, not even the furthest left-leaning lunatics (who actually is such and isn't just some douchebag gun enthusiast masquerading as a gun-grabber) has ever suggested that the government should confiscate all firearms.

So the problem isn't that the media only represents the crazies. It's that one side has been allowed to completely define the national conversation, and have decided it should be between a short-fused psychopath and the monster that lives under his bed.

[Uniform Two Six]

Huh. I didn't notice anyone responded. Well then...

The biggest reason why the crazy people always represent the right side of the aisle is easy: They put the crazies in charge... [They] aren't just absolute psychopaths. They're absolute psychopaths who were put in charge of the most powerful lobbying organization in the country.

Yeah, but how much of that is genuine craziness on the part of organizations like the NRA (as in their broad membership), versus the organization at the top trying to find a way to get people (specifically the media) to pay attention to them? Don't get me wrong: There's some serious whackos among the gun-nuts, but always remember that if you've heard of an organization, that probably means that it's primarily a political entity -- and that means that there's going to be a leadership somewhere that's putting some serious time and energy into "pay attention to me!!!". Acting crazy is one way to accomplish that. It also gets the "base" riled up. I'm sorry, but I view advocacy groups like NRA and political groups like the Republican Party (or the Tea Party for that matter) as being much the same sort of creature.

And the crazies on the left? Sorry, but they don't exist... but the so-called "gun grabbers" that the NRA can't for the life of them shut up about? I've never seen one of those anywhere.

Well, I'm in the Bay Area, and I have encountered some of these nuts. Granted, the Bay Area is where you would expect to encounter them, and granted, I haven't met all that many of them, but they're out there. And the fact that they're out there, gives the gun-nuts ammunition (y'know -- so to speak).

Anyway, I wasn't entirely disagreeing with you. I do believe that the various groups on the right have a strategic superiority in lunatics -- just not a complete lock on the market.

[Morkulv]

I've read that the assault rifle ban didn't pass in the US. Its really a shame that apparently such a majority of people in America are not even willing to address gun violence issues.

[Uniform Two Six]

Well, the real reason that the assault weapons ban didn't pass had little to do with public opinion in the U.S. and far more to do with how well funded the gun-lobby is instead. The whole issue is moot, however. If we're talking about gun violence in the United States, we're talking about small-caliber handguns (as in pistols), and not high-powered rifles. The so-called assault weapons ban wouldn't have dealt with the weapons involved in something like 99% of gun-violence incidents anyway. Incidents like the 1997 North Hollywood Bank of America shootout (where such assault weapons are actually involved) are extremely rare -- and such weapons are completely illegal in all 50 states and have been since 1928.

[Terastas]

Well, the real reason that the assault weapons ban didn't pass had little to do with public opinion in the U.S. and far more to do with how well funded the gun-lobby is instead. The whole issue is moot, however. If we're talking about gun violence in the United States, we're talking about small-caliber handguns (as in pistols), and not high-powered rifles. The so-called assault weapons ban wouldn't have dealt with the weapons involved in something like 99% of gun-violence incidents anyway. Incidents like the 1997 North Hollywood Bank of America shootout (where such assault weapons are actually involved) are extremely rare -- and such weapons are completely illegal in all 50 states and have been since 1928.

*nods* The real meat of the gun bill would have been the extended background checks.

Of course, since criminals and lunatics are the gun manufacturers' best customers, the gun lobbies were opposed to that too.

[Uniform Two Six]

*nods* The real meat of the gun bill would have been the extended background checks.

Of course, since criminals and lunatics are the gun manufacturers' best customers, the gun lobbies were opposed to that too.

Good point. I'd forgotten about the background check issue. I would however mention that the manufacturers aren't the only ones against it. Most of pro-gun populace (even some of the more moderate ones) are also very suspicious of the government just in general and have this almost religious, paranoid revulsion when it comes to the issue of background checks. You don't see it as much on the coasts, but inland it's actually pretty common (even here in California, sadly).

[Terastas]

*nods* The real meat of the gun bill would have been the extended background checks.

Of course, since criminals and lunatics are the gun manufacturers' best customers, the gun lobbies were opposed to that too.

Good point. I'd forgotten about the background check issue. I would however mention that the manufacturers aren't the only ones against it. Most of pro-gun populace (even some of the more moderate ones) are also very suspicious of the government just in general and have this almost religious, paranoid revulsion when it comes to the issue of background checks. You don't see it as much on the coasts, but inland it's actually pretty common (even here in California, sadly).

Yet when you look at the poll numbers, even NRA members support universal checks by a wide margin. The average mentality is along the lines of "I'm a responsible gun owner, and I welcome the opportunity to prove it."

The survivalist militia-types just happen to be the loudest. And since they're so loud and so unstable that even other gun owners are too afraid to stand up to them, they're permitted to act as if they represent the entire bunch.

And for the record, in spite of living in a very blue state, I have had the opportunity to meet and exchange words with even some of the survivalist gun hoarding types (hell, I've even been invited to one of their weddings). But you know what? Even those other survivalists are afraid of the pro-gun absolutists that are dominating the debate. They all told me the same thing: It's not the government they're afraid of. It's the gun-crazies they're stocking up in case they ever need to fight.

And. . . Well, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I don't even think the gun-crazies are even genuinely crazy. The leaders like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck are con men -- they push crazy ideas because they've got products for other crazy people to buy. And the rest, I honestly believe, still live in this Ayn Rand bubble where the entire world revolves around them and nobody is allowed to tell them what they can and cannot do (the same people who think Michelle Obama is a tyrant for suggesting everything doesn't need to be deep fried in lard).

Forgive me, but I need to give the floor on Bill Maher for that again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVSUOGBVQko