Fucking Guns

15456585960

Comments

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    The GOP and NRA were highly interested in gun regulation when it came to the Black Panthers.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    BroJames wrote: »
    [<snip>
    The problem is that the US gun lobby isn't interested in regulation. Like US evangelical Christianity it is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.
    I wonder if it isn’t the other way round: the GOP is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US gun lobby.

    I think it started that way, but the NRA is no longer the force it once was and in some ways doesn't need to be because the GOP has the gun nuts as congress(wo)men and senators who'll gladly block legislation and wave through judges with dubious interpretations of the 2nd amendment off their own bat.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Apparently today's "winner" of the mass shooting lottery is Louisville, KY. At present it looks like there are five dead and at least six injured badly enough to require hospitalization.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And then there is the Dadeville Alabama mass shooting at a Sweet 16 party. Six killed and over 30 wounded. Dadeville is a small town so a sizeable group of its young people were at the party.

    Nor should we forget the young man in Kansas City who got shot by an 85 year old man through a locked door.

    And, how about the woman who was killed because she and her friends turned up the wrong driveway.

    People, do not come to the United States on holiday. We are at war with ourselves.

    Republicans keep saying what America needs is more guns. In my 70 plus years that has never worked.

    Here is a novel idea: start banning guns, especially the assault weapons type weapons.

    Washington state just banned their sale in the state. I would hope more states would get on board.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And then there is the Dadeville Alabama mass shooting at a Sweet 16 party. Six killed and over 30 wounded. Dadeville is a small town so a sizeable group of its young people were at the party.

    Nor should we forget the young man in Kansas City who got shot by an 85 year old man through a locked door.

    And, how about the woman who was killed because she and her friends turned up the wrong driveway.

    People, do not come to the United States on holiday. We are at war with ourselves.

    Republicans keep saying what America needs is more guns. In my 70 plus years that has never worked.

    Here is a novel idea: start banning guns, especially the assault weapons type weapons.

    Washington state just banned their sale in the state. I would hope more states would get on board.

    Except that most gun injuries and deaths happen in the victim's home, not in tourist areas. Tourists are very unlikely to be affected by gun crime in the US.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Woman shot and killed when she pulls into the wrong driveway.

    16 year old shot when he rings wrong doorbell.

    Two young women shot when one approaches the wrong car in a shop car park.

    What the fuck is wrong with these people? And what the fuck is wrong with the people who think more guns is the answer?
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    My thoughts exactly, Karl. :angry:
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Did all the victims happen to be black, by any chance? Just asking.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Did all the victims happen to be black, by any chance? Just asking.

    No. Equal opportunities trigger-happiness in most cases.
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    The bottom of this issue keeps getting dug deeper and deeper. The State of Missouri failed to pass minimum age or supervision statutes back in February, which is still shocking: https://kq2.com/news/missouri-lawmakers-vote-against-limitations-on-children-carrying-guns/article_840c7da4-b19d-11ed-8e0f-c3fc3446deff.html

    "The proposal to ban children from being able to carry guns in public without the supervision of an adult failed by a 104-39 vote."

    So can an unaccompanied toddler legally carry a gun into a public Missouri playground? Yep.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The_Riv wrote: »
    The bottom of this issue keeps getting dug deeper and deeper. The State of Missouri failed to pass minimum age or supervision statutes back in February, which is still shocking: https://kq2.com/news/missouri-lawmakers-vote-against-limitations-on-children-carrying-guns/article_840c7da4-b19d-11ed-8e0f-c3fc3446deff.html

    "The proposal to ban children from being able to carry guns in public without the supervision of an adult failed by a 104-39 vote."

    So can an unaccompanied toddler legally carry a gun into a public Missouri playground? Yep.

    They're utterly beyond belief.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    It's unbelievable to a Brit.
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    It's unbelievable to a lot of us here, too. But I don't have faith in my fellow Americans to reverse course. It's just going to keep getting worse. Hate it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    I can only assume a fear of the thin end of a wedge is motivating this, as in isolation I can't imagine anyone thinks armed toddlers are actually a good idea.

    Sorry, I should rephrase that to 'anyone bar the most extreme of the gunshaggers.' Because there's always someone somewhere you can find who'll approve of any idea, regardless of how ridiculous.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I suppose they have to be able to defend themselves against school shooters. Was any age imit specified?
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    I suppose they have to be able to defend themselves against school shooters. Was any age imit specified?
    It was sort of the other way around. Law enforcement asked for the age limit because there is currently no age limit in Missouri law. A bipartisan group made that—I believe the age was 18—part of a broader bill. A committee, thinking the age limit might cause problems getting the bill passed, took the age limit out of the bill before referring the bill on to the full House. A Democratic member of the House offered an amendment on the floor to put the age limit back in. That amendment is what failed 104–39.

    Still unbelievable.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    What throws it into stark relief is this is in a place where you have to be 21 to buy a drink.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Well, presumably the cops can arrest someone if a drunk 7 year old walks down the street waving a gun around.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    What throws it into stark relief is this is in a place where you have to be 21 to buy a drink.
    Yep.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What throws it into stark relief is this is in a place where you have to be 21 to buy a drink.

    Well would you want a 19 year old walking around drunk with an AR-15???
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What throws it into stark relief is this is in a place where you have to be 21 to buy a drink.

    Well would you want a 19 year old walking around drunk with an AR-15???

    Well, quite. Drunk 19 year old without AR-15 or sober one with one.

    So hard to choose!
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).

    It's force, rather than allow, isn't it? It's marriage at the direction of a judge (via petition of the parents) in most cases, if memory serves, so the law is technically consistent. :neutral:
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).

    It's force, rather than allow, isn't it? It's marriage at the direction of a judge (via petition of the parents) in most cases, if memory serves, so the law is technically consistent. :neutral:

    That's consistent with the values of Dominionists but wow that is terrifying. Unfortunately even the ACLU is somehow opposing a federally-enforced legal minimum age for marriage.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).

    They do want to allow those children to work though, so at least they are consistent on the question of getting those children to support their children /s
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).

    I don't know the law where you are, but there is no such thing as a contract for divorce here. Divorce must be by a court order, sometimes asked for by both parties, sometimes by one only. Property settlements, custody and maintenance can be by agreement.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).

    I don't know the law where you are, but there is no such thing as a contract for divorce here. Divorce must be by a court order, sometimes asked for by both parties, sometimes by one only. Property settlements, custody and maintenance can be by agreement.

    I mean the laws I'm talking about are in the US, which is not where I am. Divorce in the US varies from state to state - some states have so-called 'covenant marriage' which legally only permits divorce for adultery or abandonment - but they all involve signing legal contracts.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    And hey don't forget that the same party who want toddlers to be able to have rifles also wants to allow child marriage, but not allowing said children to get divorced (because you have to be a legal adult to sign legal contracts like divorce).

    I don't know the law where you are, but there is no such thing as a contract for divorce here. Divorce must be by a court order, sometimes asked for by both parties, sometimes by one only. Property settlements, custody and maintenance can be by agreement.

    I mean the laws I'm talking about are in the US, which is not where I am. Divorce in the US varies from state to state - some states have so-called 'covenant marriage' which legally only permits divorce for adultery or abandonment - but they all involve signing legal contracts.
    So far as I know, only three states have “covenant marriage”—Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana. Not all marriages entered into in those states are covenant marriages; in fact, my understanding is that very, very few are. Given the few number of covenant marriages, this hasn’t been tested as far as I know, been all likelihood, if one or both partners in a covenant marriage move to and establish a resident in another state, the laws of that state will apply in a divorce proceeding.

    So far as I know, there is no state in which divorce involves signing a contract. A settlement agreement or a custody agreement is a contract, but divorce can and does happen without those agreements. If the parties don’t agree, the court will enter an order regarding property or custody.

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @Nick Tamen thanks for the clarification, I wasn't trying to suggest that covenant marriage was common in the states that have it but simply that it exists. But you are right. I'm aware of them as some of the Duggar offspring (the Duggars are from Arkansas) have covenant marriages, so the ins and outs of the law regarding them have been discussed quite a bit on fundie watch type sites given that Josh Duggar is in prison in Texas and is also in a covenant marriage.

    I'm actually intrigued as to how those states ended up with covenant marriage, since it seems like quite a random selection of states - with Louisiana, as an outsider I would guess that it was from the Catholic influence primarily? But generally US Evangelicals (especially men) are pretty happy to make divorce accessible, and I wouldn't think of Arizona as being super religious as such.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Ah, if anyone were going to go the covenant marriage route, it’d be a Dugger, wouldn’t it?

    ‘Fraid I can’t say how those three states ended up with the covenant marriage option. I remember it being talked about a lot, years ago when the idea was going around, but I don’t remember why those states went for it.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    News item: Man kills five people, including an eight-year-old boy, with an assault style firearm after the family asked him to stop exercising his 2nd Amendment rights because they had put their baby down to sleep for the night.

    I wonder what the defense of the shooter will be--assuming they capture him alive--stand your ground?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks Nick Tamen.
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    A lot of the rabid 2nd Amendment types (here in the Deep South, anyway) will tell you they need to be able to defend themselves against 'the Government.' It's a nebulous, Big Brother Military they claim to be mortally afraid of. (These are not people who've read Orwell, mind you). The irony is that these are the same people who absolutely insist that we need a 3/4 trillion dollar annual military budget, and who are reflexively in favor of militarizing police departments. One hears 'ANTIFA' as a bogeyman they need AR-15s to defend themselves against, too, but it's mostly 'the Government.'
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Yesterday, my husband went to the house of a neighbour a block or so away -- someone we don't know and have never spoken to, but whose house we always walk our dog past -- because we saw she had a large birch tree blown down that had been in her yard for a few weeks. He asked if she had a use for it and plans to dispose of it, as he's always looking for firewood, and she was delighted to have a neighbour with a chainsaw offering to take the tree off her property.

    In light of recent news out of the US, I reflected that there are places where you'd be scared to make that kind of (to me, quite normal) approach to a stranger's door. I can't wrap my mind around how strange and isolating it must be to live surrounded by people who have the mindset that you can't knock on a stranger's door either to offer or ask for help (or in this case both, as removing a tree for firewood is a win/win proposition).

    It just seems to me to be a complete abandonment of the idea that we all live in a community and need each other. Knowing that there are people here in Canada (fortunately not many, but some) who admire US-style gun culture, it makes me quite sad to think of living this way.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    There had been times I have had to go up to stranger's doors to ask directions. But, given the shoot first ask questions later mentality now, I would be hesitant to do it now.

    Back in 2020 there was a switch in the types of people buying guns. Previously, it was a typical conservative white male; but it 2020 all of the sudden you find suburban housewives, liberals and intellectuals buying guns too. I think it had to do with the mix of Black Lives Matter, the uncertainty of the election outcome, pandemic weariness, etc. More guns equal more shootings. Thus we have the driveway moments.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Has nobody heard of video doorbells ?
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Not sure they would help.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    There had been times I have had to go up to stranger's doors to ask directions. But, given the shoot first ask questions later mentality now, I would be hesitant to do it now.

    Back in 2020 there was a switch in the types of people buying guns. Previously, it was a typical conservative white male; but it 2020 all of the sudden you find suburban housewives, liberals and intellectuals buying guns too. I think it had to do with the mix of Black Lives Matter, the uncertainty of the election outcome, pandemic weariness, etc. More guns equal more shootings. Thus we have the driveway moments.

    There is certainly something of a movement amongst leftists in the US to arm themselves and especially for LGBTQ+ people. I think actually a large part of it is due to being in groups that typically are prone to less protection from the police.

    Also it should be pointed out that this is not a new phenomenon (the Black Panthers would like a word) and all types of people in rural areas of the US have guns anyway, whether for hunting or for protection from animals while hiking etc. I know of someone who is a liberal college professor living in a rural area who is also a runner - unfortunately sexual assaults on women runners are fairly common, so she carries for this reason specifically. US gun ownership has never just been a conservative white male thing.
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Has nobody heard of video doorbells ?

    I don't know how much a video doorbell would help the mindset of a person who's going to shoot a random stranger just for being on their doorstep or ringing their bell.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    In they are shooting them because they pose some sort of immediate threat, if you have a video doorbell you don’t have to open the door and expose yourself to a “threat”. You can tell them to bugger off remotely if that’s what you want to do.
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I suppose so. I think some of these folks just want an excuse to shoot people.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Yeah :(
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    "Go ahead punk, make my day" - what else is that but "please make me kill you"..

    Saw a sign once - "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". Same sick desire to kill and somehow it be a positive thing.

    God I could fucking spit at our violence obsessed society.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    "Go ahead punk, make my day" - what else is that but "please make me kill you"..

    Saw a sign once - "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". Same sick desire to kill and somehow it be a positive thing.

    God I could fucking spit at our violence obsessed society.

    It's the same as people in the UK celebrating when boats crossing the channel sink. It's all based on the idea that they don't see others as human.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    "Go ahead punk, make my day" - what else is that but "please make me kill you"..

    Saw a sign once - "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". Same sick desire to kill and somehow it be a positive thing.

    God I could fucking spit at our violence obsessed society.

    It's the same as people in the UK celebrating when boats crossing the channel sink. It's all based on the idea that they don't see others as human.

    Or not as important humans, anyway.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    "Go ahead punk, make my day" - what else is that but "please make me kill you"..

    Saw a sign once - "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". Same sick desire to kill and somehow it be a positive thing.

    God I could fucking spit at our violence obsessed society.

    It's the same as people in the UK celebrating when boats crossing the channel sink. It's all based on the idea that they don't see others as human.

    Or not as important humans, anyway.

    No, I don't think it needs the qualification when people use terms like 'invasion' and other dehumanising terms.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    "Go ahead punk, make my day" - what else is that but "please make me kill you"..

    Saw a sign once - "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". Same sick desire to kill and somehow it be a positive thing.

    God I could fucking spit at our violence obsessed society.

    It's the same as people in the UK celebrating when boats crossing the channel sink. It's all based on the idea that they don't see others as human.

    Or not as important humans, anyway.

    No, I don't think it needs the qualification when people use terms like 'invasion' and other dehumanising terms.

    One of us has a very strange view of what "dehumanising" and/or "invasion" mean, and I think it's you. If I talk about the UK/US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine am I dehumanising the UK/US/Russians?
  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    I think that a military invasion is quite different from a few desperate people in a rubber boat. Equating those desperate people with a military force is wrong.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    "Invasion" has the connotation of being a very large number of people where the individual identity of the soldiers is lost in the whole. We humanise narratives of invasions by focussing on a small number of individuals - we could take an example of the depiction of the D-Day landings in Saving Private Ryan or The Longest Day, there are scenes of countless thousands of men storming the beach or jumping from aircraft, but to put a human face on that the movie focusses on a few. We even have a name for that mass of nameless individuals, "cannon fodder". We wouldn't be able to cope if we treated all of them as individuals, each with a name and family and potential future taken from them. The Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam War has a section talking about how war leads to dehumanising others - that the enemy are given a name (in that example it was racist terms, in the European war of the 20th century the German soldiers were collectively "the Hun" etc), described as racism 101 but essential if you want kids to fight and kill; even others on the same side, because in those situations you can only look to the few in your own unit.

    If we focus on the people crossing the channel as individual human beings then the language of "invasion" (or, "flood" etc) which treats them as a homogenous mass doesn't have a place.

    Recently I read an interview with the guy in the States who started the catalogue of mass shootings, relating how when he started he saw each of those victims was an individual, he learnt their names and ages, who they left behind to grieve. He wanted to give the public more than a series of numbers of people killed and injured by guns, he wanted to give the public the humanity of each of those victims. He went on to say that he just can't do that any more, much as he would want to the task is just emotionally too much. He has an ever changing team of people help compile the data, and it changes because each of them eventually reaches the point where they lose the humanity of the victims, and they find that the task of compiling data dehumanises them in their eyes, they become just numbers to enter into the database. It was a deeply moving interview, I wish I could remember where it was I read it.
Sign In or Register to comment.