by null ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 40 of 50 Next » Last » Search these comments
And after all these years I found out that men can also be "EMPOWERED".
White: good
Rural: good
Married: good
Older: good
Conservative: good
So gun owners are usually good people. Ok!
Quigley saysWhite: good
Rural: good
Married: good
Older: good
Conservative: good
So gun owners are usually good people. Ok!
Yep, as long as they aren't Liberals.
and I'm not sure that gun control would have much of an impact on gangs and gang violence.
It will have ZERO impact on gangs, it will just remove the ability of lawful citizens to protect themselves.
A better method would be to require training and licensing for gun owners and stiff penalties for people without licenses.
and stiff penalties for people without licenses. That would unfortunately lead to a (hopefully temporary) even higher incarceration rate, which is already a problem.
anon_61c8a saysA better method would be to require training and licensing for gun owners and stiff penalties for people without licenses.
That already exists in many states.
anon_61c8a saysand stiff penalties for people without licenses. That would unfortunately lead to a (hopefully temporary) even higher incarceration rate, which is already a problem.
How's that working out in Chicago, Oakland, Newark, Camden, Detroit, etc. which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country?
Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.[15][16] Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings in the US account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths[17] and the frequency of these events steadily declined between 1994 and 2007, rising between 2007 and 2013.[18][19]
The article posted by BO is ubsurd in its inclusion only of legal gun owners.
This is not about violence. This is about how having a gun make people feel.
For sure, it reassures them.
Fucking White Male saysThe article posted by BO is ubsurd in its inclusion only of legal gun owners.
This is not about violence. This is about how having a gun make people feel.
For sure, it reassures them.
But it’s difficult to define a single culture behind gun ownership and the opposition to gun control legislation that sometimes accompanies that. More importantly, blaming something as vague as “culture” isn’t exactly helpful for identifying ways to reduce the US’ high death toll.
What is the point of that sort of study?
Fucking White Male saysWhat is the point of that sort of study?
It is to show that they are using guns to mask other problems. Problems that are really not addressed by the guns.
The right to self defense is the most inalienable right there is.
What is the point of that sort of study?
Is it not clear that the people who conducted this study have an agenda? Is it not clear that the author of OP's article has an agenda? If not, why mention the aspects of gun control?
In fact, the "death toll" is well established by facts in the wiki entry I cited as being nearly entirely due to 1.) suicides(which arguably would happen anyway) and 2.) homicides, committed overwhelmingly by people not included in the study.
Fucking White Male saysWhat is the point of that sort of study?
Is it not clear that the people who conducted this study have an agenda? Is it not clear that the author of OP's article has an agenda? If not, why mention the aspects of gun control?
I'm sure they do have an agenda. But as some people have noted, the whole concept of the "gun culture" is something strangely engrained in this country. I think its an interesting question that the well off white collar urban types (who by definition probably have the most to lose) and the poor white rural types (who don't have much to begin with) feel this overwhelming "need" to have guns with all the various trimmings. In other words, while some wealthy whites may indeed have a sidearm - the "gun culture" types who get the stock modifications, clip modifications, etc are usally poor - why the paradox?
The OP article was trying in an extremely sneaky way, to cast aspersions on the above segment of American population. They did this by asking which group or culture was “responsible” for opposing gun legislation, and why. Then they used a lot of dog whistle race-baiting terms to suggest that white older rural conservatives are somehow bad and/or antisocial, and certainly not sophisticated, educated, or “properly cultured” enough to understand right from wrong. And that this is why, in addition to them being poor (or losers) they “bitterly cling” to the gun which is their talisman of power.
A gun is a source of direct power. Unsubtle as it is, it’s enough to make a lot of relatively powerless (but law abiding) people feel like they have some power. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The right to self defense is the most inalienable right there is.
Which society is the most violent?
The one that revolves around twerking and songs celebrating the short, fast paced life of drug dealers with their Bitches and Money and Flashy Cars?
Or the one that revolves around line dancing and songs about your dog passing away?
I must have forgotten the statistics where it showed Older, White, Rural, Married Men with legally purchased guns were dealing drugs, killing people in drive-bys, robbing liquor stores at gunpoint, etc. in the Urban areas where the vast, vast majority of violent crime happens.
But the right to self defense doesn't equal a right to any weapon that exists in the world today.
Nobody is arguing against the right to self defense. People are only arguing about what weapons citizens should be allowed to possess
IOW - when you are sitting down at Applebees and remove your phone and gun and place them on the table to eat? Do you do so with the express intent to annoy/unsettle the non-gun carriers or you don't care about the fact that it makes the non gun carriers uncomfortable?
The manner in how you are looking at things is already flawed. And that’s really the issue. Do you understand any hobby in which you don’t engage? Do you understand, for example, baseball cards where a perfectly nice Mike Trout card out of the pack is a $1-2 card, but if it’s graded as a 10, it’s a $50 card. I guarantee you would not be able to tell the difference, but in the hobby word it’s all the dnifference. At least to some hardcore collectors.
Why does it matter?
Comments 1 - 40 of 50 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,201,546 comments by 14,250 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now