Nationwide A March For Our Lives

[Brian37]

Everyone knows that guns are dangerous, nutters buy them because they're dangerous, to do dangerous things to the dangerous people they think are lurking behind every taco truck and fried chicken hut.  The more you play up the danger of guns or the danger of guns in our society the more that subset feels they need one.

Just roll with it, man, find some solution that plays to their irrationality rather than one which sets up an adversarial relationship.

"Everyone knows that guns are dangerous"

No they don't. Australia and Scotland do know that. Not enough Americans do.

Coming from the right those are hollow words. 

We had a shooting range named "Burgers and Bullets" where a little girl killed her instructor because the ADULTS, both the parents and range thought letting a girl handle an Uzi would be just peachy. 

If you want to claim RIGHTFULLY that "everyone" knows that guns are dangerous, AND I AGREE, then why do we see so much firearm injury and death that our allies don't seem to have like we do?

"Adversarial relationship"

Who the fuck wants that? I'd LOVE America to have LESS firearm death. 

I don't think you know the history of the NRA marketing over the past 40 years. When it started long before even 40 years ago, it would have been an org I would have supported. But, back in the late 70s it got hijacked by the industry and became a mere profit lobby.

I AM NOT the enemy of firearm owners. I am the enemy of greed and any lobby that puts profits over safety.

Just like I am not the enemy of energy, just pollution. 

We've been held hostage by one industry and one corporate lobby. NONE of that is calling for an all out ban. It is just saying we cannot do what we are doing because it isn't working.

If the NRA sold "firearms are dangerous" I'd have no problem with them. They sell it as a right not a right with responsibilities.

[Minimalist]

People know that guns are dangerous.  What they don't know is that people are also careless and clumsy and irresponsible.  What they consistently fail to understand is that a gun does not change any of that.

[henryp]

It's funny how when it's a right that isn't important to an individual, people who value that right are selfish assholes who have children's blood on their hands.  But when it's a right that IS important to them, everybody turns into Thomas Paine.
That's what it boils down to.  "The risks associated with the rights that I personally value are acceptable/the cost of freedom.  The risks associated with the rights I personally don't value aren't."

Rights are not absolute, including the 2nd.

The costs of exercising that particular right are external, in no small part borne by innocents.

When that is the case, society is definitely within their rights to curtail it.

Doing nothing accomplishes nothing but more dead people.

In my lifetime, more civilians have been killed by civilians using civilian-owned guns than in every armed conflict during that same period.  That includes the majority of the casualties in Vietnam.

I find it very sad - and very telling - that you apparently consider those million+ dead to be an acceptable cost to your right to own weapons of war.

And before you accuse me of not valuing this right or that - I am a veteran, former NRA life, former staunch RKBA advocate, former hunter, former competitive shooter, former concealed handgun licensee, and combat trained.  The current NRA agenda is extremist.  NRA rhetoric ("Tree of Liberty", "Come and get it", "Cold dead hands") are extremist positions, not to mention implicit threats of violence against the rule of law.

You don't get to tell me what I do and do not value.  The second amendment is not a suicide pact.

Defend that.  Defend over a million dead since 1967.

I dare you.

We are not going to allow a small minority of extremists who are happy with the status quo, or worse, want to roll back existing to law to stand in the way any longer.

Let me ask you directly - are dead innocents a legitimate cost of your unfettered 2nd amendment rights?

If so, fuck off, you are part of the problem, and we will solve it without you.

Here's why your 'defend that' argument is dumb.  If back in 1968, we implemented the rules people want now, instead of 1.5 million gun deaths, maybe we have 1.2 million gun deaths (arbitrary guess)  

The cost of having the level of gun rights Gun Control proponents want is probably over a million lives.  Why isn't the unconscionable level of gun death we'd have still had under your rules something you are daring yourself to defend.
---

That's the joke.  Unless you are a gun abolitionist, which I think is a reasonable position to take, both sides of the argument believe in a level of freedom that costs people lives.  

Now if you said "Hey, let's try to cut back a little bit on the gun deaths in some common sense ways."  I think we'd get somewhere.  If we just accept people dying is a cost of the freedom to own guns.  But that's not what we have.  You're not saying "We could cut down from 30,000 to 25,000 gun deaths with a couple changes.  It's still a lot, but there is cost to freedom."

You're saying "DEFEND ALL 30,000 DEATHS!!! I DARE YOU!!! I DARE YOU TO DEFEND THEM!"  And then you make the case for gun laws that would result in 25,000 gun deaths, which I guess doesn't need defending.

If any of this doesn't apply to your position (maybe you're a ban all guns guy), that's fine.  It certainly applies to everybody that isn't a ban all guns person, which everybody assures people repeatedly "We're not trying to take your guns."

[Brian37]

People know that guns are dangerous.  What they don't know is that people are also careless and clumsy and irresponsible.  What they consistently fail to understand is that a gun does not change any of that.

It all cuts back to marketing.

The NRA leadership also knows this, but doesn't care. The industry doesn't care either. The industry knows their products are dangerous. Their lobby NRA also knows this. Even 2nd amendment supporters know this. 

But the marketing of the INDUSTRY AND LOBBY has convinced their supporters to focus on the individual, and not the larger sample rate.

The gullible supporter focuses on themselves, and always say "just keep them out of the wrong hands". Just the marketing the industry and NRA love.

Point is for the INDIVIDUAL, there is a larger sample rate than just the person who argues, "I am responsible". WHICH IS NOT the argument of safety advocates.

If a Muslim argued "Not all" , when a liberal Muslim argues RIGHTFULLY, "Not all" it still would not change that just enough do.

With firearms the left IS NOT out to oppress anyone for merely saying we have a problem.

No, not all firearm owners will do stupid shit. But we still have a epidemic of BOTH legally and illegally obtained firearms that is causing problems.

[The Grand Nudger]

Until we can get better data..which we've just made it possible to directly collect again - let's assume that some number of gun deaths more than 3 but less than 4 out of every 10 are the kinds of guns deaths that we could..at least conceptually, prevent..directly, with gun legislation.  This was the state of affairs when we could last collect the data.  This excludes the 6 suicides on the (maybe shaky) rationale that they'd find a way to kill themselves one way or another.   

It seems to me that if we're using the 30k number as a base point (for who knows why)....we're talking about 11, 790 potentially preventable gun deaths.  I'd say that any proposal that only gets us 5k lower is less than half as effective as it could be and needs to be..but vastly more effective than one which doesn't prevent any of them.  I don't see why we have to accept a single gun death in order to have our rights.  Rights are not a suicide or murder pact.  We'll never be rid of gun death - even if we banned guns..but I think we can still shoot for better than half effective. If I saw a guy on a range that hit his target about as often as a coin landed on heads I sure as shit wouldn't trust him to own a gun, lol.

[Brian37]

Until we can get better data..which we've just made it possible to directly collect again - let's assume that some number of gun deaths more than 3 but less than 4 out of every 10 are the kinds of guns deaths that we could..at least conceptually, prevent..directly, with gun legislation.  This was the state of affairs when we could last collect the data.  This excludes the 6 suicides on the (maybe shaky) rationale that they'd find a way to kill themselves one way or another.   

It seems to me that if we're using the 30k number as a base point (for who knows why)....we're talking about 11, 790 potentially preventable gun deaths.  I'd say that any proposal that only gets us 5k lower is less than half as effective as it could be and needs to be..but vastly more effective than one which doesn't prevent any of them.  I don't see why we have to accept a single gun death in order to have a our rights.  Rights are not a suicide or murder pact.  We'll never be rid of gun death - even if we banned guns..but I think we can still shoot for better than half effective.  If I saw a guy on a range that hit his target about as often as a coin landed on heads I sure as shit wouldn't trust him to own a gun, lol.

WE DO HAVE THE DATA!

Firearm injuries and deaths ARE FAR MORE LIKELY to happen in the home or neighborhood with someone the victim knows, regardless of legality of purchase. The protecting yourself from a complete stranger, while it does happen, IS NOT THE MAJORITY.

It still amounts to a flooded market and ease of access issue REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY OF PURCHASE.

Just like molestation and rape of a child or adult is far more likely to happen with someone the victim knows.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, Brian, we agree that nutters are nuts who worry about shit that won't happen to them.  Nevertheless, that's the reason they now offer for their gun purchases.

I also think that..in addition to promoting less than lethal rounds and dissuading the purchase and specifically stockpile of ball ammo we should institute a buyback of firearms on a state by state level according to that states trace data.

[Lok1]

Claiming that anyone believes "nothing should be done about school shootings" is every bit as dishonest.

Bullshit.

Just yesterday I encountered a mouth breather who asserted that dead kids were simply the price of freedom.  You know, Jefferson's Tree of Liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants - and apparently dead children.  This was literally his last word on the subject.

There are plenty of despicable people on the pro-gun side who definitely care more about their toys than they do about the lives of others.

I used to be one, many years ago, and I've been exposed to plenty of such people who are literally unwilling to do *anything* to limit the availability of anything firearm related.

So please, go fuck yourself with your broad-brush strokes.

P.S.  Spotted the NRA shill.

Your "opinion" has been duly noted and summarily shitcanned, son. Along with your other "bullshit."

[Brian37]

Yes, Brian, we agree that nutters are nuts who worry about shit that won't happen to them.  Nevertheless, that's the reason they now offer for their gun purchases.

I also think that..in addition to promoting less than lethal rounds and dissuading the purchase and specifically stockpile of ball ammo we should institute a buyback of firearms on a state by state level according to that states trace data.

Nothing is going to work until the industry CEOs get held accountable. I'd say the same thing with the stock market crash. America, once again gave them a slap on the wrist. But in Iceland when the global bubble burst, they bailed out the homeowners and jailed the bankers.

Wells Fargo committed fraud, and not only did the CEO get a slap on the wrist, they were REWARDED with a golf tournament in a city just 40 minutes north of me. 

Our problem has never been about rights, and everything to do with MONEY.

[Jackalope]

@wallym

Way to respond to what I actually have said instead of what you imagine my position to be.  

/s

Deflection was a common gun nut tactic when I was one, I see you guys are still at it.

BTW, it it were possibly to abolish gun ownership and save lives, I would do it. If it were possible to retain gun ownership and save lives, I would do it. I'm interested in *harm reduction*. Perfect solutions aren't possible. Duh. The perfect is the enemy of the good. At least now we know that those 300,000 lives are, in fact, an acceptable price to you to maintain the status quo. Yay for you?

What isn't acceptable, is to do nothing, which appears to be what you advocate.