6 ms·

Huge miss on the gun analogy. The likes of NRA are pushing for 50-state constitutional carry. Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements.

by wepple 2y ago

Huge miss on the gun analogy. The likes of NRA are pushing for 50-state constitutional carry. Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. There’s probably actually some other hidden factor though, like the venue not allowing it. Edit: FWIW those late night TV shows are nothing but rage bait low brow “comedy” that divides the country. But the above remains true.

blagie 2y ago
> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument. One of the interesting pieces of data is looking at 2nd amendment support versus distance to the nearest police station / police officer / likely law enforcement response times. It explains a lot about where support / opposition comes from.
- imchillyb 2y ago
  There are LEOs that were prosecuted by states and the federal government for not taking action while children were being shot by another child. LEOs are expected to take fire to protect civilians. Protect & Serve is their credo. I wouldn’t trust LEOs to protect me, so I sure as hell fire am not trusting a low paid rent-a-cop to perform a similar duty. Nope. I believe that my mindset is prevalent and not an outlier.
  - plagiarist 2y ago
    I would trust a security guard more. They have consequences for misconduct or failure to do their job. (Assuming they aren't an on-duty LEO who is "overemployed.") Not enough that I think they'd protect me in a situation that requires a gun. Just more than a cop.
    - lupire 2y ago
      A security guard's job is to act as a witness and deterrent, not to intervene to protect you. Only a private bodyguard can be expected to fight for you. Observe and Report.
- knuppar 2y ago
  >And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument. Can you give me one example of a valid "reasonable self-defence argument"? Legit question.
  - blagie 2y ago
    The extreme scenario: I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice. The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay. That's a scenario surprisingly common in rural America, parts of Appalachia, and other very low population density areas. Now, I actually live in a dense city. There's a police station a few hundred yards away from virtually anywhere I might go. There are security cameras everywhere, thanks to Ring, Wyze, and friends. The city has a ShotSpotter system. Crime rates are low, and more guns don't make me (personally) safer. Most of my neighbours want to ban them. However, I can understand there's a bias there. As a footnote: If it were possible to hold clear conversation, I think there are solutions which work for everyone. However, people talk across each other.
    - camgunz 2y ago
      > The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.
      - 2y ago
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it Can you give an example? Of course you can find 2 people in the US who believe it, and they held 2 comedy shows where it was said, and it's technically true, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like this said.
  - blagie 2y ago
    I don't log all comedy shows I see, so I can't provide a citation off-hand, but I've heard it plenty of times. However, to see consequences, I might start by reading executive orders: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot... And follow the trail back to how they got there. https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/07/07/aclu-national-education-association-claim-kids-never-too-young-undergo-sex-change/ https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/07/07/aclu-national... You can look around. You'll see many other articles like this one. As with most things, this is distilled into more inflammatory posting once it hits social media or comedy.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > I don't log all comedy shows I see I don't see the point of this snark. If you don't have any examples of what you're saying, why reply at all?
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The NRA is absolutely in favor of constitutional carry [0] and permitless carry [1]. [0] https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-carry-is-now-the-law-in-29-states/ https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-c... [1] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-carry-scheduled-for-house-consideration-on-thursday https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-ca...
  - blagie 2y ago
    Please reread what I wrote. You should correct your statement to: "The NRA is absolutely in favor of A LEGAL RIGHT TO constitutional carry and permitless carry." I have a legal right to spend all of my money on Pokemon, (in my jurisdiction) to pro-Nazi free speech, to paint the outside of my house bright pink, or to walk around wearing a mankini in the middle of the winter. Very few of the people who advocate for me to have those rights advocate for me to actually do any of those things.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Are you really arguing that it's okay for the NRA to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them?
      - blagie 2y ago
        No. I am not. I am arguing about the importance of accurately understanding everyone in a discussion and avoiding strawman attacks like the ones you're making over and over. If you'd like to understand the importance of that, I'd refer you to CPG Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc And to Sun Tzu: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy-and-know-yourself-you-need https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy... My general stance on most polarizing issues is to: 1) Keep the debate civil 2) Make sure everyone understands each other (starting with myself) 3) Push towards Pareto-efficiency What's interesting is that in most discussions, left-wing extremists always believe I'm right-wing because I can articulate right-wing views and don't buy into left-wing Facebook conspiracies, and vice-versa. In other words, both sides lump me into "they" or "enemy" as soon as I either: - contradict disinformation - clearly explain an opposing viewpoint (without stating whether I agree with it) - even use simple trigger words Very much as you did. It's okay to understand opposing viewpoints. If both sides did that, there are solutions to most polarizing problems -- guns, abortion, LGBTQ, etc. -- and not even very hard ones. I'm posting a long-form comment so you can reread what I wrote, reread how you read it, and perhaps debug yourself. You'll be much more effective in advocating from your views if you stop doing this. If you believe someone is intentionally "arguing that it's okay for [organization] to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them," the problem is very much on your end.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I'm not entirely sure you picked the best example because the Democrats aren't pushing for that to be a right at all. It's certainly true that Republicans bought into the hysteria, my home state passed a bill banning it despite it having never once occurred and such a thing already going against the standards of care. But Constitutional Carry does allow for anyone who can legally acquire a gun to be armed if they choose. I honestly don't mind this since basically anyone can get a concealed carry permit already and these bills just remove the paperwork and fees. I would love to see annual car registration done away with in the same manner, pointless busywork. So if you're doing a bit on a comedy show or news program that's "what does $bill maximally allow for" then you do get everyone is armed in public without a permit (which again is fine I don't know why people care, this could already happen right now) but you don't get "every child gets a sex change."
toolz 2y ago
it's interesting to me how easily you can fact check the statement: > Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. yet, you claim that it's the late night TV that divides us, while making sure to double down on your misleading statement. The NRA doesn't "ban guns at their conferences", they have been banned at small parts of a multi-day conferences e.g. where Trump was speaking because that was a rule established by the secret service and they complied for a small part of the conference. When the majority of a conference allows guns, it's simply a lie to claim that guns were banned. An unintentional lie, I'm sure, but it seems likely to be the result of you believing some headline or tweet and accepting something wholesale as truth because it fit your narrative. I'm guilty of the same, it happens, but hopefully we can both get better about portraying easily fact checked things as the truth.
- wepple 2y ago
  Maybe I’m wrong, but while we’re fact checking, can you provide a source?
  - toolz 2y ago
    I'm very skeptical that you're having a hard time sourcing this information. I have pages from my google search with easily 75% of the results confirming my claim. Either way, here you go: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fact-check-guns-banned-from-trump-nra-speech-over-secret-service-policy/9947390002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fac... > "Restrictions are in place exclusively at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the direction of the United States Secret Service," spokesman Lars Dalseide wrote in an email to USA TODAY. He called the claim that the NRA is banning guns at its conference "incorrect."

by wepple 2y ago

blagie 2y ago

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument. One of the interesting pieces of data is looking at 2nd amendment support versus distance to the nearest police station / police officer / likely law enforcement response times. It explains a lot about where support / opposition comes from.

imchillyb 2y ago
There are LEOs that were prosecuted by states and the federal government for not taking action while children were being shot by another child. LEOs are expected to take fire to protect civilians. Protect & Serve is their credo. I wouldn’t trust LEOs to protect me, so I sure as hell fire am not trusting a low paid rent-a-cop to perform a similar duty. Nope. I believe that my mindset is prevalent and not an outlier.
- plagiarist 2y ago
  I would trust a security guard more. They have consequences for misconduct or failure to do their job. (Assuming they aren't an on-duty LEO who is "overemployed.") Not enough that I think they'd protect me in a situation that requires a gun. Just more than a cop.
  - lupire 2y ago
    A security guard's job is to act as a witness and deterrent, not to intervene to protect you. Only a private bodyguard can be expected to fight for you. Observe and Report.
knuppar 2y ago
>And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument. Can you give me one example of a valid "reasonable self-defence argument"? Legit question.
- blagie 2y ago
  The extreme scenario: I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice. The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay. That's a scenario surprisingly common in rural America, parts of Appalachia, and other very low population density areas. Now, I actually live in a dense city. There's a police station a few hundred yards away from virtually anywhere I might go. There are security cameras everywhere, thanks to Ring, Wyze, and friends. The city has a ShotSpotter system. Crime rates are low, and more guns don't make me (personally) safer. Most of my neighbours want to ban them. However, I can understand there's a bias there. As a footnote: If it were possible to hold clear conversation, I think there are solutions which work for everyone. However, people talk across each other.
  - camgunz 2y ago
    > The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.
    - 2y ago
robertlagrant 2y ago
> yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it Can you give an example? Of course you can find 2 people in the US who believe it, and they held 2 comedy shows where it was said, and it's technically true, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like this said.
- blagie 2y ago
  I don't log all comedy shows I see, so I can't provide a citation off-hand, but I've heard it plenty of times. However, to see consequences, I might start by reading executive orders: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot... And follow the trail back to how they got there. https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/07/07/aclu-national-education-association-claim-kids-never-too-young-undergo-sex-change/ https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/07/07/aclu-national... You can look around. You'll see many other articles like this one. As with most things, this is distilled into more inflammatory posting once it hits social media or comedy.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > I don't log all comedy shows I see I don't see the point of this snark. If you don't have any examples of what you're saying, why reply at all?
ethbr1 2y ago
The NRA is absolutely in favor of constitutional carry [0] and permitless carry [1]. [0] https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-carry-is-now-the-law-in-29-states/ https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-c... [1] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-carry-scheduled-for-house-consideration-on-thursday https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-ca...
- blagie 2y ago
  Please reread what I wrote. You should correct your statement to: "The NRA is absolutely in favor of A LEGAL RIGHT TO constitutional carry and permitless carry." I have a legal right to spend all of my money on Pokemon, (in my jurisdiction) to pro-Nazi free speech, to paint the outside of my house bright pink, or to walk around wearing a mankini in the middle of the winter. Very few of the people who advocate for me to have those rights advocate for me to actually do any of those things.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Are you really arguing that it's okay for the NRA to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them?
    - blagie 2y ago
      No. I am not. I am arguing about the importance of accurately understanding everyone in a discussion and avoiding strawman attacks like the ones you're making over and over. If you'd like to understand the importance of that, I'd refer you to CPG Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc And to Sun Tzu: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy-and-know-yourself-you-need https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy... My general stance on most polarizing issues is to: 1) Keep the debate civil 2) Make sure everyone understands each other (starting with myself) 3) Push towards Pareto-efficiency What's interesting is that in most discussions, left-wing extremists always believe I'm right-wing because I can articulate right-wing views and don't buy into left-wing Facebook conspiracies, and vice-versa. In other words, both sides lump me into "they" or "enemy" as soon as I either: - contradict disinformation - clearly explain an opposing viewpoint (without stating whether I agree with it) - even use simple trigger words Very much as you did. It's okay to understand opposing viewpoints. If both sides did that, there are solutions to most polarizing problems -- guns, abortion, LGBTQ, etc. -- and not even very hard ones. I'm posting a long-form comment so you can reread what I wrote, reread how you read it, and perhaps debug yourself. You'll be much more effective in advocating from your views if you stop doing this. If you believe someone is intentionally "arguing that it's okay for [organization] to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them," the problem is very much on your end.
Spivak 2y ago
I'm not entirely sure you picked the best example because the Democrats aren't pushing for that to be a right at all. It's certainly true that Republicans bought into the hysteria, my home state passed a bill banning it despite it having never once occurred and such a thing already going against the standards of care. But Constitutional Carry does allow for anyone who can legally acquire a gun to be armed if they choose. I honestly don't mind this since basically anyone can get a concealed carry permit already and these bills just remove the paperwork and fees. I would love to see annual car registration done away with in the same manner, pointless busywork. So if you're doing a bit on a comedy show or news program that's "what does $bill maximally allow for" then you do get everyone is armed in public without a permit (which again is fine I don't know why people care, this could already happen right now) but you don't get "every child gets a sex change."

toolz 2y ago

it's interesting to me how easily you can fact check the statement: > Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. yet, you claim that it's the late night TV that divides us, while making sure to double down on your misleading statement. The NRA doesn't "ban guns at their conferences", they have been banned at small parts of a multi-day conferences e.g. where Trump was speaking because that was a rule established by the secret service and they complied for a small part of the conference. When the majority of a conference allows guns, it's simply a lie to claim that guns were banned. An unintentional lie, I'm sure, but it seems likely to be the result of you believing some headline or tweet and accepting something wholesale as truth because it fit your narrative. I'm guilty of the same, it happens, but hopefully we can both get better about portraying easily fact checked things as the truth.

wepple 2y ago
Maybe I’m wrong, but while we’re fact checking, can you provide a source?
- toolz 2y ago
  I'm very skeptical that you're having a hard time sourcing this information. I have pages from my google search with easily 75% of the results confirming my claim. Either way, here you go: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fact-check-guns-banned-from-trump-nra-speech-over-secret-service-policy/9947390002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fac... > "Restrictions are in place exclusively at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the direction of the United States Secret Service," spokesman Lars Dalseide wrote in an email to USA TODAY. He called the claim that the NRA is banning guns at its conference "incorrect."