Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Anyway, here's something: Sandy Hook Shootings: Protest At Gun Lobby HQ
...the NRA have gone quiet*.
Interesting
Keep Rolling OnThere's two reasons for this, the knee-jerk reaction The NRA is being bombarded online
by all manner of people looking for someone to blame.
And their response is mostly the same as they've done in the past, they want a better picture of what happened, though this time they've just shut down while the facts continue to roll in.
Such as the revelation that the mother of the shooter was a "Prepper" preparing for disaster.
For the same reason that the media doesn't talk about what happened during the Oregon Mall shooting (that the shooter ran when confronted by a Concealed Carry Permit holder with his weapon drawn).
The NRA is very careful about how they will respond. Anti-gun lobbyists are generally less rational.
edited 18th Dec '12 2:25:38 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Exactly. As a lobbyist group, the NRA-ILA are being very careful with what they are going to say.
The same thing happened at Columbine, and every time that there's a mass shooting.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Vermont is also very rural and has a low population density. You need firearms for animal population control, and responsible gun ownership isn't impossible. In fact, it's easiest when you adopt a position that you don't need to be frightened of your neighbours, the Feds, or those coloured folks from other parts of town.
I will note that said position tends to be brought up in opposition to people suggesting that school staff be armed. I will also note that while you need firearms for animal population control, you do not need handguns, magazines greater that 5 rounds, or a reloading mechanism faster than lever-action.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Oh, come on, you gotta have machine guns to take down those aggressive packs of rabid badgers!
Arming schoolteachers is a brainless, absurd idea. And who's going to pay for it, anyway? The NRA?
edited 18th Dec '12 9:31:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On a philosophical level, I would be in favor of training citizens to be familiar with how to use firearms safely by default. That does seem like a worthwhile use of time and money, like driver's ed. (Setting aside that the NRA is aligned with a political group that is against anything resembling improvements to education or government funding, of course.)
However, the fact that the NRA calls for training EVERYONE to have firearms as a more immediately practical solution than keeping lone nuts from having access to them speaks volumes about how detached the organization is from reality. They're a textbook case of ideology over reason.
The difference between the NRA and the far-left pacifists who want guns banned entirely is the fact that the latter don't have any meaningful political power, while the NRA do:
edited 18th Dec '12 9:39:35 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.That starts to sound less like guns being a voluntary choice of a free person and more like Government Drug Enforcement — mandating that everyone use and own a weapon. I don't see how the Second Amendment leads to this conclusion even by the most lenient interpretation.
I suppose the justifiable logic goes more like this: We have a right to own guns, and guns are going to exist whether we allow them or not. Police can't be everywhere, and we don't trust them anyway, so it's up to individuals to take responsibility for their own protection. Therefore it is an obligation of every citizen to be armed and trained, such that nobody can take advantage of them. Someone who does not exercise this right is choosing to make themselves vulnerable and, while we'll do our best to protect them, we can't make any promises.
I understand the logic, even though I don't agree with the conclusion.
edited 18th Dec '12 10:21:36 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If you guys haven't already, go check out the gun thread. Tuefel posted some links on page 130 that cover some good points about gun control. There's a lot of misinformation being spread on all sides of the political debate on gun control.
Regarding mandatory gun ownership, my issue with the idea is that it betrays the principles of a conservative platform. I'm not saying this to be smug, but I've argued with my conservative friends about this on similar issues such as mandatory drug screening for welfare recipients and mandatory security training for teachers. Both cases are inevitably going to require some form of government intervention, regulation and increased public spending, which strikes me as ironically opposed to the very conservative idea of having limited government influence in one's life. I also believe that it would reflect poorly on our sense of stability as a nation. I mean, have we come to be that paranoid? Do we need more of the Patriot-Act-style fear mongering from the early 00's? I don't think so.
As for banning "excessively" tactical-ish weapons, I'm not fond of the idea but I understand the validity of that argument. I own an AR-15, and in all fairness, it's not something I really need for hunting or self-defense. However, it's important to recall that American gun culture is not simply based on utilitarian values, but on the lifestyle and hobby of gun collecting, target shooting and just the coolness factor of having one.
This isn't quite a slippery slope fallacy for people who say that we don't need firearms such as AR-15s, but consider the whole "cars kill people" analogy that often comes up in gun debates. The way I see it, you have your cars for getting you from Point A to Point B and not much more. Something like a Toyota Corolla or an old used Honda Civic with good fuel economy and only basic amenities. Then you have powerful, maneuverable sports cars like the Chevy ZO 6, the Nissan 370Z, and the Ford Mustang GT. You really don't need cars like this on the road. They potentially encourage street racing, they're more harmful for the environment, and they generally have worse fuel economy than a family sedan.
The root of the debate is how to balance necessity with the comforts and freedoms of being an American. We've done this with a bit of success both with guns and cars. DOT regulations require your car to have seat belts, a working horn, and up-to-date emission standards. Guns cannot be fully automatic, nor can an average citizen own or distribute armor-piercing rounds such as those used in the North Hollywood shootout. You'll have people who will violate these rules. You'll have people who will street race and make illegal modifications to their cars to make them faster, or they will alter their catalytic converters to give emission testing machines a false reading. You'll also have people make homemade automatic weapons with do-it-yourself custom ammunition designed to tear through armored bank cars, for instance.
My point is that if we're going to address our love of guns - which are not necessities - we might need to address our love of many other potentially harmful things in our society that we don't need. Again, I don't need an AR-15, but I can see why many educated gun owners are hostile to the Democrat-driven stance on gun control. I'd rather not lose my AR-15 (and I honestly don't think that's going to happen anyway). It's already been established that many of the gun restrictions that have been used in the past such as the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban show little evidence of a national decline in gun-related crimes. This is an important issue on the personal and communal level, but I'm not expecting any sweeping legislative changes in terms of gun control. Among Aurora, Newtown, the Temple, and the Oregon mall, we've had some real human ugliness thrown in our faces. But at the risk of sounding callous, I don't think these incidents will restructure our sense of national security or our sense of legislative prowess.
edited 18th Dec '12 11:02:03 AM by Aprilla
@terlwyth
I think that's because south turned Republican while northeast turned Democrat. The current alignment is that coasts are generally Democratic, but that wasn't always the case.
I thought gun thread wasn't for gun control
. If that's not the case, I support moving the discussion there.
edited 18th Dec '12 11:01:59 AM by Trivialis
Here is Obama's stance on gun control.
This was after Giffords was shot by Loughner, by the way.
edited 18th Dec '12 11:42:08 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.I put those facts up as a precursor to my point.
I doubt a thing will occur. We'll probably see more lax gun laws after this.
Politicians only care about themselves, first and foremost, after all. If someone dies, it's not to their concern unless they use it to achieve a political advantage.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

Paradise is boring to the news.