4 ms·

From https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/ https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-gu... Me: I don't want to take a

by hga 11y ago

From https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/ https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-gu... Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers. You: So what do you propose? Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog. You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?" Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs. You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now. Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. You: What the fuck. Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own. You: Can we? Unless your agenda is compete and total confiscation, unless you want to be routinely dismissed by those who actually know something about the target, you'd best learn the basics, the sort of thing any grade school child who's a member of the US gun culture routinely picks up. Come to think of it, this actually equals a "my mother and sister know more than you!" sort of thing, and they were never a fraction as serious about it as my father and the male siblings.

mturmon 11y ago
I'm not persuaded by this and other arguments by analogy (several are nearby), because the analogies can be stretched so they clearly favor one side or another. We were talking about bullet vs. cartridge and magazine vs. clip, and my point is that petty terminology disputes are used to mock reasonable opinions.
- hga 11y ago
  I'd like a few citations, for I'm not aware of any general trends in mocking reasonable opinions on this basis you label "petty".
lmm 11y ago
Yeah, I was thinking of that when I wrote it. Where I live that "complete and total confiscation" has already happened (ish - a few farmers have shotguns, a few people shoot as an athletics-type thing), and thus we have hardly any gun crime. The idea that the "productive" position necessarily means some specific divide rather than a general ban looks really weird from over here.
- hga 11y ago
  Interesting that we came to the same framing of the discussion. Then again, someone who likes and respects Gundam SEED can't be all bad ^_^.
  - ectoplasm 11y ago
    I also agree that you have a point about the arbitrary distinction. Presumably you agree that accidental / criminal / insane / unnecessary shootings are a problem. What do you propose as a solution? The four things I can think of are: 1) tighter registration and controls, GPS tracking 2) better training and education for gun owners, mandatory, free 3) arming more citizens so they can take out mass shooters 4) better training in non-lethal methods for police
    - hga 11y ago
      First you really need to go back to the issue of bad will on the gun control side, I mean, when both Obama and Hillary publicly call for outright confiscations ("Australian style gun 'buy-backs'") that shouldn't be open to question. Then perhaps a return to the issue of dog control. More specifically: In practice, registration accomplishes nothing good. What controls? GPS tracking ... how??? Especially for the 350+ million legacy guns in our hands? And what would it accomplish? At most it would snare criminals stupid enough to legally buy guns before they have a disqualifying record, wouldn't address the other problems. 2) Mandatory is non-negotiable given the bad will, unless you make it a required middle or high school thing for everybody. As for free, the other side's vapors about Eddie Eagle, shutting down of high school rifle ranges (even in Arlington, Virginia, home of the US military! ), and so on suggests that's non-negotiable on their side. But I most certainly support it, did my part of it in JROTC (the members of the rifle team helped the teachers run the winter safety and marksmanship unit). 3) Now you're on to something. But it's not going to happen in 5 of the 15 most populated states (California, New York, New Jersey. Massachusetts and Maryland), and we think the bigger problem is the proliferation of the Orwellian named "gun free zones". With the exception of the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman, all the modern ones have happened in such. And of course the likely stoppings of mass shootings by armed citizens have by definition happened outside these zones. 4) Really doesn't exist. At least if you're talking guns or edged weapons, I would not ask any police officer to use anything less than lethal force from a gun once combat begins. Google Tueller Drill for some sobering videos. Perhaps better would be real and much more certain sanctions for truly abusive police; going back to the Tueller Drill, in what circumstance is in necessary to shoot a man in a wheelchair if you think he might have an edged weapon? (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1348711197&comments=1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1348711197&comments=1) If it was just incompetence in allowing yourself to get cornered as the police allege, that should be worth condign including being expelled from ever having a job in law enforcement. Whereas these police officers should all have been publicly executed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting including every member of the coverup. But in the current BlackLivesMatter environment which lumps murderous thugs like Michael Brown together with virtuous tax evaders like Eric Garner, I don't see that happening. Echoing the Eric Garner case, I've been told by police officers that anytime things go hand to hand a tragic outcome is very possible. In fact, we don't talk about "non-lethal" methods at all, just "less-lethal".

by hga 11y ago

mturmon 11y ago

I'm not persuaded by this and other arguments by analogy (several are nearby), because the analogies can be stretched so they clearly favor one side or another. We were talking about bullet vs. cartridge and magazine vs. clip, and my point is that petty terminology disputes are used to mock reasonable opinions.

hga 11y ago
I'd like a few citations, for I'm not aware of any general trends in mocking reasonable opinions on this basis you label "petty".

lmm 11y ago

Yeah, I was thinking of that when I wrote it. Where I live that "complete and total confiscation" has already happened (ish - a few farmers have shotguns, a few people shoot as an athletics-type thing), and thus we have hardly any gun crime. The idea that the "productive" position necessarily means some specific divide rather than a general ban looks really weird from over here.

hga 11y ago
Interesting that we came to the same framing of the discussion. Then again, someone who likes and respects Gundam SEED can't be all bad ^_^.
- ectoplasm 11y ago
  I also agree that you have a point about the arbitrary distinction. Presumably you agree that accidental / criminal / insane / unnecessary shootings are a problem. What do you propose as a solution? The four things I can think of are: 1) tighter registration and controls, GPS tracking 2) better training and education for gun owners, mandatory, free 3) arming more citizens so they can take out mass shooters 4) better training in non-lethal methods for police
  - hga 11y ago
    First you really need to go back to the issue of bad will on the gun control side, I mean, when both Obama and Hillary publicly call for outright confiscations ("Australian style gun 'buy-backs'") that shouldn't be open to question. Then perhaps a return to the issue of dog control. More specifically: In practice, registration accomplishes nothing good. What controls? GPS tracking ... how??? Especially for the 350+ million legacy guns in our hands? And what would it accomplish? At most it would snare criminals stupid enough to legally buy guns before they have a disqualifying record, wouldn't address the other problems. 2) Mandatory is non-negotiable given the bad will, unless you make it a required middle or high school thing for everybody. As for free, the other side's vapors about Eddie Eagle, shutting down of high school rifle ranges (even in Arlington, Virginia, home of the US military! ), and so on suggests that's non-negotiable on their side. But I most certainly support it, did my part of it in JROTC (the members of the rifle team helped the teachers run the winter safety and marksmanship unit). 3) Now you're on to something. But it's not going to happen in 5 of the 15 most populated states (California, New York, New Jersey. Massachusetts and Maryland), and we think the bigger problem is the proliferation of the Orwellian named "gun free zones". With the exception of the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman, all the modern ones have happened in such. And of course the likely stoppings of mass shootings by armed citizens have by definition happened outside these zones. 4) Really doesn't exist. At least if you're talking guns or edged weapons, I would not ask any police officer to use anything less than lethal force from a gun once combat begins. Google Tueller Drill for some sobering videos. Perhaps better would be real and much more certain sanctions for truly abusive police; going back to the Tueller Drill, in what circumstance is in necessary to shoot a man in a wheelchair if you think he might have an edged weapon? (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1348711197&comments=1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1348711197&comments=1) If it was just incompetence in allowing yourself to get cornered as the police allege, that should be worth condign including being expelled from ever having a job in law enforcement. Whereas these police officers should all have been publicly executed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting including every member of the coverup. But in the current BlackLivesMatter environment which lumps murderous thugs like Michael Brown together with virtuous tax evaders like Eric Garner, I don't see that happening. Echoing the Eric Garner case, I've been told by police officers that anytime things go hand to hand a tragic outcome is very possible. In fact, we don't talk about "non-lethal" methods at all, just "less-lethal".