Sad when the Onion is this right

[Anonymous]

Today a 3 year old shot and killed his 18 month old brother with a hand gun. They were visiting a 78 year old neighbor at his apartment. They were only there ten minutes when it happened. I'm sure the 78 year old did not see any reason to lock up his weapons. I'm also sure the mother never imagined that a quick visit to her neighbor could end that badly, that fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one fights a war with handguns. And few homicides are committed with hunting rifles.

It seems like the middle ground is to focus on the type of weapons.

That's entirely too reasonable, and common sense has no place in this discussion. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one fights a war with handguns. And few homicides are committed with hunting rifles.

It seems like the middle ground is to focus on the type of weapons.

That's entirely too reasonable, and common sense has no place in this discussion. Shame on you.

The problem is that the NRA removed common sense from this debate a long time ago.

The NRA moves the goalposts every time it looks like people are going to agree to its demands. For example, the NRA used to support background checks, but as soon as it looked like that might happen, whoops - background checks became the top of the slippery slope towards complete disarmament of the American population as a precursor to the imposition of martial law.

It is completely possible to have a reasonable middle ground that enables sportsmen, gun collectors and hunters to have the ability to have guns while taking reasonable steps to perform background checks, limit access to certain types of weapons, require safety education, etc. in ways that are similar to the way we license and regulate other dangerous items like cars.

Unfortunately, since those things might result in a decrease in gun sales and the profits of gun companies, the NRA (which is no more interested in citizen rights than the RIAA is in artists making a living) puts all of its political pressure, including using the dupes who continue to think it's about the Constitution rather than money, to keep any reasonable dialog from happening.

[Anonymous]

Pp - you are still underestimating the issue. As to popular discontent, have you forgotten the American Revolution? Civil War? Or how about more recent examples like Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or all the revolutions of 1989?

Yet you smugly assume the US cavalry will ride to your rescue or that bad things could never, ever, possibly happen here? (Sorry if I don't share your unwarranted confidence).

And I guess you haven't seen headlines like these?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/voters-california-contemplate-forming-state-23899885

I am not saying our country faces collapse any time soon. I am, however, saying that history is filled with regimes that people assumed would never fall. Explain what makes us so immune to failure in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp - you are still underestimating the issue. As to popular discontent, have you forgotten the American Revolution? Civil War? Or how about more recent examples like Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or all the revolutions of 1989?

Yet you smugly assume the US cavalry will ride to your rescue or that bad things could never, ever, possibly happen here? (Sorry if I don't share your unwarranted confidence).

And I guess you haven't seen headlines like these?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/voters-california-contemplate-forming-state-23899885

I am not saying our country faces collapse any time soon. I am, however, saying that history is filled with regimes that people assumed would never fall. Explain what makes us so immune to failure in your mind.

OK, so what does that have to do with anything the pp just said?

[Anonymous]

And I guess you haven't seen headlines like these?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/voters-californ...emplate-forming-state-23899885

Indeed. Why should we be afraid of citizens voting to become a separate state? It's not like they are storming Sacramento with their AR-15s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

You are completely wrong about the "outgunned" part; whether you find the following facts frightening or not, there are far more armed non-military people in the US than there are active or even reserve military.

(from some extremist blog a few years back that was making the rounds on the 'net): "The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 armed hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted with rifles in the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million armed hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more. All armed. All familiar with remote portions of their states. All equipped and able to survive in the wilderness if need be."


True - the military has more firepower - but how do you propose they deploy it? Drop nukes protesting Americans to quell unrest? You have vastly over-simplified the issue and underestimated the potential mayhem from mass civil unrest.

But that depends on all (or even a reasonable fraction):

(a) Deciding that the government has gone "too far" for a given value of "too far" (where "too far" would be action despite the multiple layers of distribution of government power - i.e., the separation of powers at the Federal level, the competing state government structures, etc.) AND
(b) Choosing to engage in some level of militarized disobedience AND
(c) Having some kind of organization that enables them to coordinate their actions without those communications channels being monitored/disrupted and the activities stopped before they start AND
(d) Being able to overcome the leadership conflicts associated with multiple independent groups attempting to engage in coordinated action AND
(e) Being able to overcome both the training and logistical advantages enjoyed by the government forces AND
(f) Being able to keep the civilian population on their side.

And that's just some of the difference. If there were a full scale armed rebellion by a coordinated group of armed civilians, that could cause problems, but at the end of the day it's just not realistic, and to claim that people need the right to bear arms as a check on government power is a theoretical argument to support the position of people who like to think of themselves as upholding some ideal of "patriotism" that has been spoon fed to them by the marketing department of the NRA and its member companies.

More than half the military and police sympathize with the NRA and would join the opposition if the government pushed too far outside the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

You are completely wrong about the "outgunned" part; whether you find the following facts frightening or not, there are far more armed non-military people in the US than there are active or even reserve military.

(from some extremist blog a few years back that was making the rounds on the 'net): "The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 armed hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted with rifles in the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million armed hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more. All armed. All familiar with remote portions of their states. All equipped and able to survive in the wilderness if need be."


True - the military has more firepower - but how do you propose they deploy it? Drop nukes protesting Americans to quell unrest? You have vastly over-simplified the issue and underestimated the potential mayhem from mass civil unrest.

But that depends on all (or even a reasonable fraction):

(a) Deciding that the government has gone "too far" for a given value of "too far" (where "too far" would be action despite the multiple layers of distribution of government power - i.e., the separation of powers at the Federal level, the competing state government structures, etc.) AND
(b) Choosing to engage in some level of militarized disobedience AND
(c) Having some kind of organization that enables them to coordinate their actions without those communications channels being monitored/disrupted and the activities stopped before they start AND
(d) Being able to overcome the leadership conflicts associated with multiple independent groups attempting to engage in coordinated action AND
(e) Being able to overcome both the training and logistical advantages enjoyed by the government forces AND
(f) Being able to keep the civilian population on their side.

And that's just some of the difference. If there were a full scale armed rebellion by a coordinated group of armed civilians, that could cause problems, but at the end of the day it's just not realistic, and to claim that people need the right to bear arms as a check on government power is a theoretical argument to support the position of people who like to think of themselves as upholding some ideal of "patriotism" that has been spoon fed to them by the marketing department of the NRA and its member companies.

More than half the military and police sympathize with the NRA and would join the opposition if the government pushed too far outside the constitution.

If that were true you don't need your armed rebellion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp - you are still underestimating the issue. As to popular discontent, have you forgotten the American Revolution? Civil War? Or how about more recent examples like Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or all the revolutions of 1989?

Yet you smugly assume the US cavalry will ride to your rescue or that bad things could never, ever, possibly happen here? (Sorry if I don't share your unwarranted confidence).

And I guess you haven't seen headlines like these?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/voters-california-contemplate-forming-state-23899885

I am not saying our country faces collapse any time soon. I am, however, saying that history is filled with regimes that people assumed would never fall. Explain what makes us so immune to failure in your mind.

The abcnews.com article you mention talks about people wanting to form a new state, not a new country, because they feel like their issues aren't being appropriately represented at the state government level. Given the size of California, splitting it into multiple states wouldn't actually be unreasonable, but for the fact that the Federal government wouldn't permit it except as part of a larger deal related to the admission of DC, Puerto Rico, etc., so that the balance of power at the Federal level remained the same.

The difference between the American Revolution and Civil War and the modern area is the resources of the military, among other things.

In the American Revolution, the British were fighting against a force that out numbered them, was using unconventional tactics that the British did not train to deal with, was similarly armed as the British (i.e., the same level of weaponry, no armor and no issues with air power), and the Brits were at the end of a very long, slow, expensive supply chain. In the modern era, the military and police have access to air power, are not at the end of a long, expensive supply chain (and, in fact, have very well-developed supply chains and logistics structures), regularly train to deal with unconventional tactics, have intelligence capabilities far beyond those available to the Brits at the time or most civilians today and have access to levels of weaponry not available to civilians.

In the Civil War, while there was a lot of bloodshed, the side that didn't control the logistics and industrial production lost. Again, the weaponry was roughly equal, and the South enjoyed support of their own citizenry - not something that would be guaranteed for your would-be patriots. The discrepancies in armament, air power, logistics, training, intelligence and other force multipliers would more than make up for the unconventional tactics of the so-called patriots.

There's no guarantee that the US won't go through some level of Balkanization, but odds are against it any time in the near future. In general, the world is moving towards more coordinated government rather than Balkanization because it's simply more economically efficient.

But the real question is, given how unlikely that scenario is, how should we balance that remote risk and the benefit that might be provided by having an armed populace against the very real harms that our lax gun laws cause to our current society? There are plenty of anecdotal cases where having a gun helped someone, and guns are very real tools for those who live in areas where they have to be ready to deal with wildlife. Then there are people who do target shooting and hunters, all of whom get a benefit from access to guns.

Then there is the very real cost of access to guns, and any regulation should be designed to maximize the reduction in that cost, while minimizing the interference with the benefits described above.

Things like licensing (we force people to get a license to operate a car), gun-fingerprinting (we force people to register their cars and each car has a unique license plate and serial number), mandatory insurance (we require everyone to have insurance for cars), mandatory safety systems like trigger locks, biometric locks, etc. (we require cars to have seat belts and air bags, and we ticket people who don't wear seat belts), and penalties for having a gun in places where it's inappropriate, e.g., around schools, bars, etc. (there are places where you could drive but aren't allowed to) and insurance discounts for training (just like drivers ed) and higher cost insurance for models that are considered risker (you pay higher insurance for a sportscar than you do for a family sedan) would not adversely impact those who want to use guns for legitimate purposes.

In the same vein, background checks and delays on receipt would also not inappropriately adversely impact those who want to use guns for legitimate purposes, not even the preppers who are anticipating the type of societal breakdowns you've mentioned.

The problem is that every reasonable step is resisted with the full force of the NRA on the grounds that any such regulation is the first step towards confiscation, and that's simply an unreasonable position.

[Anonymous]

74% of NRA members agree that we need expanded background checks, to eliminate the legal loopholes by which tens of millions of guns change hands each year, and by which felons and the mentally ill are able to purchase guns. Yet the NRA won't support its own membership - they only listen to gun dealers and gun manufacturers.

As for Joe the Plumber, it seems pretty obvious to me that he values his guns more than he does children.

[Anonymous]

Joe the plumber is neither Joe nor a plumber nor a wonk. He's Sam the unlicensed contractor and moron.

The Onion is right.

[Anonymous]

The scariest thing that I read in his letter is that he has children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Joe the plumber is neither Joe nor a plumber nor a wonk. He's Sam the unlicensed contractor and moron.

The Onion is right.

He is also a union member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The scariest thing that I read in his letter is that he has children.

I wonder how many grieving parents who lost children in these shooting massacres once believed as Joe currently believes.

[Anonymous]

I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.