🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Aximili86]

Annoying people and instigating them into action is the whole point. What are you suggesting? If only we handed out enough pamphlets, that'd stop this problem?

I'm suggesting you're not going to convince the opposing half of the country who aren't for a gun crackdown through blocked-traffic means.

It didn't change jack through the south when BLM did it either. All it does is just p*ss off Joe Average and have them think you don't have a persuasive argument so here come the stunts.

 

[MaceB]

I'm suggesting you're not going to convince the opposing half of the country who aren't for a gun crackdown through blocked-traffic means.

It didn't change jack through the south when BLM did it either. All it does is just p*ss off Joe Average and have them think you don't have a persuasive argument so here come the stunts.

No, there's a long long history of civil disobedience working. Ghandi, Mandella, King, etc.

Your suggestion is that we go somewhere out of sight to protest when thousands are dying every year? Yeah... that'll convince people that this is an important issue alright.

 

[Aximili86]

Not out of sight. Protest in public places all you want, assemble as you please. Don't shut down major ****ing throughways though, you don't even think of the side effects of stuff like that. Cops not getting to emergencies, ambulances sitting stationary, the works. Joe & Jane Average get this stuff, and they don't like it.

This isn't a "don't protest" thing. It's a "this isn't an effective way of doing it" thing. You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already see the issue your way anyway.

 

[MaceB]

I don't see how you're going to convince anyone by sitting politely on the sidelines either. Drastic problems require drastic solutions. And showing people that you're willing to shut down essential services, demonstrates how big of an issue this is for the protesters. Eventually, those actions start to take root in the social consciousness, and people go, "hmm, if this is so important to them, and they aren't giving up... maybe I need to take a second look."

I'm sorry if people are inconvenienced by traffic and detours... of course... it's a bit of a bigger inconvenience when Jimmy dies from semi-automatic gun fire in a school... I'm sure the parents are inconvenienced when they have to bury their son as well. So, if this is what it takes to make people understand that guns are a problem for them too, then so be it. You aren't going to convince anyone by knocking at their door, and asking nicely to please support Senator Markley, because he really wants to talk about guns this political season. We've been doing that for decades. It's not working.

And again, there's a long history of civil disobedience working.

 

[Aximili86]

Drastic problems require drastic solutions.

Some very, very dangerous people over the years have used rhetoric just like this. You can justify just about anything when you get to "the ends justifies the means".

And showing people that you're willing to shut down essential services, demonstrates how big of an issue this is for the protesters.

And ol' grandpa heart attack just has to do with not being saved, all for the bigger picture, right? This isn't just Bob showing up to work 15 minutes late or Jenny missing her flight to Cleveland. The public displays backlash to this stuff, every single time. They sure as hell did with Occupy a few years back.

This isn't sitting out the front of a courthouse waving signs from 9-5. This is shutting down a highway.

That gets the public raising middle fingers, no matter what the cause.

 

[MaceB]

I'd like to see some statistics on how many deaths are attributed to actions such as this. I suspect not many... but I'm open to being wrong.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anti-trump-protesters-block-ambulance/

And I'm not proposing an ends justify the means mentality at all. I'm proposing that civil disobedience works.. it's nonviolent.. and it can be absolutely necessary when government officials aren't willing to do the right thing. You're making a large jump from "some times drastic action is needed" to "we should be able to kill people for our cause." No.. there's a lot of in between there. I'm not suggesting we get out our machetes, but running into the streets is nothing new. It happened at Selma. It happened to protest Vietnam. Etc.

What are we supposed to do? Just wait for folks to change their minds? We've been doing that for decades. It's not working. And it's important to note.. that all these people can and should be arrested. Again, that's the point. If folks believe there are no consequences, then we have to make the consequences visible, even at our own expense. In this case, as in many.. the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Not out of sight. Protest in public places all you want, assemble as you please. Don't shut down major ****ing throughways though, you don't even think of the side effects of stuff like that. Cops not getting to emergencies, ambulances sitting stationary, the works. Joe & Jane Average get this stuff, and they don't like it.

This isn't a "don't protest" thing. It's a "this isn't an effective way of doing it" thing. You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already see the issue your way anyway.

Good God, he just described the Civil Rights Movement. Like it wasn't effective at all.

 

[MaceB]

Good God, he just described the Civil Rights Movement. Like it wasn't effective at all.

It's so true. Undoubtedly, there were a lot of good old boys and blue hairs in the 60s going, "psh, if those black folks really wanted to get their point across, why don't they just sit in the park and protest where it's safe? Gosh, these rowdy protesters are just acting like a bunch of hooligans; that's going to turn people off!"

It's a common trope of the opposition isn't it? "No, no, no, I'm on your side believe me... I just think you need to step back and do it in a less obtrusive way. You know.. just be more patient! Give it a few years, and they'll come around." Meanwhile, it's all just a stalling tactic, because the truth is that nonviolent civil disobedience works, and it makes them scared.

 

[moviedoors]

Good God, he just described the Civil Rights Movement. Like it wasn't effective at all.

Likewise the women's sufferage movement.

 

[Aximili86]

There were a whole bunch of facets to the civil rights movement, actual concrete legislative-push means along with the protesting, they had an actual plan. It was social change right across the spectrum, legitimate and illegitimate alike. And yes, all for a good cause.

You've gotta do more than just make yourself visible, this public temper tantrum stuff without an actual plan just results in an Occupy situation. Nothing changes, you're a footnote, people only remember "yeah, those smelly kids camped out in the park for a month".

You run the risk of that happening here, too. There's a legitimate case to be made on the gun thing, the arguments tend to be on the severity/extent of what should be done than the general concept of "something's wrong right now". Fine.

The point is, unless you can convince 500 people to sit on each & every freeway in the country, nobody's going to take such behavior seriously. It comes off as "college kids gonna be college kids - call the cops, let my boss know I'll be in late, b*tch to the radio stations about how ridiculous it is - and now life goes on. What cause were they protesting for again? I didn't pay attention, I was too concerned with my real-world day-to-day and them ****ing up my morning."

That's how this is going to go.

 

[Herofan]

Unlike the civil rights movement, gun control isn't one or two main pieces of legislation or policy changes or a clear, identifiable set of a few policies, it can be as moderate or as extreme as a person can imagine.

Without gun control actually having a few concrete, identifiable goals disruptive protests can make those advocates and whatever they may be supporting seem very extreme and thus counter-productive. Especially since with gun ownership being directly protected by the Constitution, trying to reduce it feels pretty extreme to begin with.

I think conservatives have kind of missed an opportunity; a way to control guns, possibly very effectively, which most gun control supporters should but don't support, would be to have more guards in schools and otherwise improve school security.

 

[Aximili86]

Which is what they've literally been calling for.

 

[Sithborg]

I see "Stand Your Ground" means "Shoot Black People with Imputiny".

 

[Teelie]

It generally means shoot anyone with impunity but it does mostly affect black men.

 

[Holiday]

Any self defense class should tell a person not to provoke a fight if you carry a gun and not to shoot someone who isn't an immediate threat. I'd be surprised if the man that shot the other has been to one. Although the guy pushed him to the ground he backed of him. He should get a manslaughter charge but he's going to be spending a lot of money in civil trial either way.

 

[Sithborg]

The police didn't even detain the shooter.

 

[CJ]

[YT]KlhvZc06hHU[/YT]
https://youtu.be/KlhvZc06hHU

Nice try, Borat.

Funny how as soon as he gets caught he immediately runs off like a coward. XD

 

[Zarex]

[YT]KlhvZc06hHU[/YT]
https://youtu.be/KlhvZc06hHU

Nice try, Borat.

Funny how as soon as he gets caught he immediately runs off like a coward. XD

What should he have done? The gag was blown. Good job by the owner and his staff for seeing through the ruse.

Luckily for SBC there's no shortage of deplorables falling over themselves to take the bait.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'd like to know where some of these statistics come from. Not singling out your stats DeadPresident, but some stats in general. I say that because using yours as an example, "only 1/3 of American own firearms". How is that data collected. In many states such as my own, it is legal to buy and sell firearms from a private party (civilian to civilian) without the requirement of a background check (though most people do state they will only sell to a fellow CWP holder to know they are legally allowed to own a firearm). Also, In most states there is no gun registration, no licensing needed. So in many of these states, the traceability of fireamrs for such figures cannot be accurate as the number of firearms that are not traceable are in the millions.

Now, me being a law abiding responsible gun owner that loves and supports the 2nd amendment, there are certain gun law changes that would not bother me and I would have no problem supporting. but it does pain me to see the number of people that do support an all out gun ban. Sad to see that.

Around here, no matter if you're a boy or girl growing up, its like a right of passage and a wonderful bonding experience with your father or mothers to grow up being taught responsible gun safety, practices, sport, hunting, etc. Nothing like being handed down a beautiful rifle or shotgun that you are the 5th generation owning it.

We can go on for days about what causes these horrible acts of violence, but until someone can show hard evidence, I'll still not blame a particular firearm. Fore example, the AR-15 has been available to the civilian market for over 50 years. 1963 I believe. so for years it wasn't a problem. The firearm has barely changed over those years with the exact same semi-auto action and function unlike the military grade versions of select fire and fully auto.

Sorry - I completely forgot about this post. Stats are from a WP article (admittedly one that found that gun ownership seems to be at a recorded low since 1994) and they found in surveys that the percentage of ownership was between 32-43%. Article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.bf1446c1f5a0

So anywhere from 1/3 to a half of the population is swaying what everyone must be exposed to when it comes to gun regulation. That said, due to the existing prevalence of firearms I think reasonable legislation will have a small effect on gun violence and gun deaths, it'll take legislation and a combination of addressing the latent propensity for violence, gun regulation, mental illness and overall security to see a significant decrease in gun death stats and mass shootings.

An all out ban seems extreme and while it may generate a benefit I doubt it, there are already too many guns in circulation for a ban from 2018 - xxxx to be effective. There will still be a firearm in almost every second or third household, ban or not.

 

[Teelie]

The police didn't even detain the shooter.

Because as of right now legally in Florida he committed no crime.

Anyone who saw the video would think otherwise though. The man clearly backed away after pushing him down, was not himself armed, did not make any threatening gestures, etc. And as it has come out, this shooter was a hothead with a quick temper well known to the store owner and regulars for getting into arguments with other customers.

 

[Sorath]

I don't see how you're going to convince anyone by sitting politely on the sidelines either. Drastic problems require drastic solutions. And showing people that you're willing to shut down essential services, demonstrates how big of an issue this is for the protesters. Eventually, those actions start to take root in the social consciousness, and people go, "hmm, if this is so important to them, and they aren't giving up... maybe I need to take a second look."

I'm sorry if people are inconvenienced by traffic and detours... of course... it's a bit of a bigger inconvenience when Jimmy dies from semi-automatic gun fire in a school... I'm sure the parents are inconvenienced when they have to bury their son as well. So, if this is what it takes to make people understand that guns are a problem for them too, then so be it. You aren't going to convince anyone by knocking at their door, and asking nicely to please support Senator Markley, because he really wants to talk about guns this political season. We've been doing that for decades. It's not working.

And again, there's a long history of civil disobedience working.

It's more then just inconvenience. There been more then a number of instances where protest have actually put people in real danger of loosing their lives. All because EMS couldn't get to people needed help.

There one story about guy rushing his little girl to hospital because she was running a high fever. He couldn't get through because of protest and EMS couldn't get to him either. He had to hand his child over the divider and let EMS take his daughter while he sat and waited for the road to clear of protesters.

You think it's a minor inconvenience but to that working single mother who rushing to work or even trying to get home to spend a few moments with her kids its more then a minor inconvenience. To guy who holding down a job to support his family and risk loosing that job because there late it's more then a minor inconvenience. To protesters it doesn't matter but to people on the high way and roads it is a major deal that effects live in big way.

Not only that but it also puts the lives the protesters in dangers. There been major incidents where protesters been run over because they where standing in middle of the streets.

So no it's not a minor inconvenience. Their are so many better ways to get you're message out their with out endangering themselves and the public. So many better ways then what could potentially have devastating effects on peoples lives.

One thing point out if you're blocking traffic and pissing people off or putting people lives in danger no one is going to care about you're message. All they are going to care about is you're messing with their lives and not giving a damn about that in process. Thus the message falls on def ears.

 

[Marvolo]

I just found out that companies are making bulletproof backpacks. They have a ballistic shield in the back of the pack.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bulletproof-backpacks/story?id=53362546

That kids even need these is ****ing disgraceful.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I just found out that companies are making bulletproof backpacks. They have a ballistic shield in the back of the pack.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bulletproof-backpacks/story?id=53362546

That kids even need these is ****ing disgraceful.

We had these in the military, they've just been "adapted" for civilian uses now (and come in youth sizes, which as you said is ****ing insane.)

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It's more then just inconvenience. There been more then a number of instances where protest have actually put people in real danger of loosing their lives. All because EMS couldn't get to people needed help.

There one story about guy rushing his little girl to hospital because she was running a high fever. He couldn't get through because of protest and EMS couldn't get to him either. He had to hand his child over the divider and let EMS take his daughter while he sat and waited for the road to clear of protesters.

You think it's a minor inconvenience but to that working single mother who rushing to work or even trying to get home to spend a few moments with her kids its more then a minor inconvenience. To guy who holding down a job to support his family and risk loosing that job because there late it's more then a minor inconvenience. To protesters it doesn't matter but to people on the high way and roads it is a major deal that effects live in big way.

Not only that but it also puts the lives the protesters in dangers. There been major incidents where protesters been run over because they where standing in middle of the streets.

So no it's not a minor inconvenience. Their are so many better ways to get you're message out their with out endangering themselves and the public. So many better ways then what could potentially have devastating effects on peoples lives.

One thing point out if you're blocking traffic and pissing people off or putting people lives in danger no one is going to care about you're message. All they are going to care about is you're messing with their lives and not giving a damn about that in process. Thus the message falls on def ears.

1. A day of "inconvenience" is sort of the point.

2. The alternatives is actually the literal "least" one can do which is what certain folk deride at other times. "Oh... You just liked a post about issue X? You just sent a hashtag in support of Y? How about instead you actually do something?" (I actually agree to a degree in the hollowness of hashtag activism.)

SO... You shouldn't actually protest but you also shouldn't bring awareness in other ways either? What's left other than not doing things at all? In other words this line of thinking seems to simply be about telling people they shouldn't protest in the first place.

3. You know... Unless you can provide evidence of it actually happening most of those stories about people dying or nearly dying because of EMS/ambulances etc. being delayed by protests are often either fabrications or blown very much out of proportion.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anti-trump-protesters-block-ambulance/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/b...-kill-girl-waiting-for-transplant-in-memphis/

http://www.citypages.com/news/what-...vehicle-comes-upon-a-protest-photos/412534183

Has it happened? Could be. Though I only found one case in Berkley, Ca. and even then it seemed more due to bad protocol on the part of Police and EMS during a protest than the protest in and of itself.

Protest has been part of the American society from the start. We owe our existence as a nation to events like the Boston Tea Party after all. The point of protest IS to be disruptive or make a statement and sometimes that is indeed going to be inconveniencing as it was during the protests for Female Suffrage, Civil Rights and Racial Equality, the Anti-Vietnam War movement, workers' rights or any litany of mass movements that was trying to address some important issue facing the country.

And all the while as those protests happened many who don't think of themselves as reactionaries or bad people belittled those attempting to change the country so that it lived up to it's ideals or for a more just and safe society by essentially saying that there was no need to be SO disruptive.


Some leaders realize though the falseness of that outlook.

When we say that change through protest is illegitimate but also that even the mildest of activism is also pointless... Don't be surprised that a backlash that is more extreme and uncompromising is the eventual result.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

Extending my sympathies to the wounded, and the families and friends of the New Orleans mass shooting victims.

Another day in America.