Chris Hayes had a good segment this morning about guns and the NRA.

[DanTex]

What I found most interesting were Guardian reporter Gary Younge's comments about the NRA conference. One observation was that the people there seemed like ordinary, friendly Americans, until you start talking about guns, at which point they flip a switch and start spewing a bizarre and paranoid gun ideology full of conspiracy theories, for example, one person compared Obama's America to Rwanda, with the white people as the Tutsis. And I gotta say, based on my personal observations of gun nut culture, rings true...

Another very quote that made me chuckle: "never before have so many people painted scenarios in which I might be killed unless I have a gun."

Here's the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/47049493#47049493

[krispos42]

1. Well, when you constantly ask a group why they want to do something...

...such as carry a gun, eventually you ask the question so many times you make the other person sound weird.

This also works for fire extinguishers, seatbelts, smoke detectors, locking your doors at night (I don't want to be around somebody that can't sleep at night unless their doors are locked!), etc.

[villager]

2. That damned fire extinguisher lobby! Supporting so many rightwing candidates

...spewing paranoid, thinly-veiled racist scenarios, thirsting for apocalyptic violence...!

[krispos42]

3. So, do you have a fire extinguisher in your house?

If so, why?

[DanTex]

4. I have two fire extinguishers, so that when Eric Holder confiscates the first one...

...I'll still have one left to hit Hillary Clinton over the head with when she tries to force me into a collective farm!

The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with fire-suppressant liquid foam!

[LAGC]

5. The NRA does tend toward hyperbole...

But then again, so does the Brady Bunch.

That's what happens when both groups are run by rabid Republicans.

[krispos42]

6. Notice that the person I was talking to didn't respond?

I know why.


So, to conclude this little scenario, since she didn't speak up when challenged by anti-fire-extinguisher forces, she found her ability to keep what is basically a pressurized bomb in the same house where her kids were severely curtailed and increasingly expensive until she finally says "fuck it", sells the extinguisher, and buys a fire blanket to wrap herself in until the professional firefighters can show up with their equipment.

[DanTex]

11. Probably because the fire extinguisher analogy is absurd.

Actually, there are risks associated with a fire extinguisher, and sometimes it is better to let the professional firefighters deal with a fire because you can put yourself at greater risk. But for some reason the fire extinguisher nuts don't start getting paranoid if you point this out. With fire extinguishers, we can have exactly what the NRA and the gun crazies prevent us from having with guns: a rational discussion about what is the best role fire extinguishers should play in society in order to maximize safety and well-being.

And I imagine that if 30,000 people died every year from fire extinguishers, there would be some recognition that we probably need to rethink a few things...

If you watch the entire segment, you'll see that the point Gary Younge was making is that the pro-gun ideology is driven by irrational fear and paranoia, much of which is manufactured. Fear on one hand that liberals are going to come around and take your guns and then enslave you with their communism. And on the other hand, fear that there are bad guys around every corner waiting to kill you the unless you have a loaded gun on your person at all times. There is a huge difference between rational concerns and safety precautions, and the looniness that Gary Younge observed at the NRA convention.

[krispos42]

12. It's an analogy, and all analogies have their limitations.

Plus, let's face it, fire extinguishers just aren't as sexy as guns. Whether they are successful at putting out fires or not, if anybody dies in an incident when a fire extinguisher is used, the guy wielding the thing isn't going to jail. It's all just an accident. If they guy gets over-confident, gets trapped, and burns to a crisp... accident. Oh well. Or if the guy delays calling 911 until he's uselessly emptied a couple of canisters on a fire, thus resulting in a critical delay that crisps his entire family... oh well. Accident. Tragic hero, he'll have to live with the consequences of his error forever, etc., etc., etc.

This used to be more or less how guns were treated, until a group decided to do their damndest to disarm everybody by law or persuasion. I'm waiting for a group to arise citing a study that the false confidence of having a fire extinguisher in the house actually results in more deaths, and therefore should be outlawed. Citing, of course, the multiple incidents a year of people delaying calling 911, getting trapped while trying to get to a fire, etc. I'm sure if I give a think-tank enough money, they'll be able to come up with a study showing that we'd actually be safer if we didn't have extinguishers in our homes. It might save X lives a year, and isn't it all about the children anyway?



But the simple fact is: most gun deaths are suicides, something on the order of 60% of the number you stated. A large number of suicides are also done with non-gun objects, and our suicide rate is in line with the rates of western nations with much stricter gun laws and far lower ownership rates of guns.

And in case you haven't noticed, the anti-gun ideology is also driven by fear. A CCW permittee carried a gun... FEAR HIM. HE'S PARANOID AND DANGEROUS. We have to ACT. We don't know what he might do! We don't want HIM by our schools or in our MALLS... he might spontaneously decide to pump 20 rounds into a playground or something equally horrendous.

Never mind that the odds of dying in a mass shooting are about the same as winning the lottery, the anti-gun movement continues to flog this like Cheney flogged terrorism.



For 2005, the numbers look like this:
Year___1______2_____3_____4____5+
2005 95.41% 3.81% 0.60% 0.12% 0.05%


If we assume 16,000 homicide victims in 2005, then the number of incidents can be calculated to be about 15,157 individual murder scenes, of which about 7 were "mass" murders with 5 more victims.

A hell of a lot more people win the Powerball than get killed in mass murders. And yet... it's an ongoing cause of moral panic. The same liberals who poo-poo BushCo's drastic measures to protect us from international (read "evil, evil Moose-limbs&quot terrorism are willing to engage in political battle to protect us from mass shootings. In both cases, the real threat to everyday life is not the mass murder, it's the everyday death and destruction.

But the issue is that liberals want to curtail gun ownership because it is believed it will curb violence. Okay, fair enough, I can understand that viewpoint. However, this does not address the root causes. Much like Cheney/Bush want to spend a few trillion dollars fighting and occupying foreign nations rather than spend a few billion dollars to get off of oil and make angry Middle Easterners somebody else's problem, the left is willing to spend lots of money and political capital fighting guns rather than legalizing drugs or getting universal single-payer health insurance with mental-health coverage and a prescription plan.

For which I read that it doesn't matter if conditions are shitty, a couple million people are in prison, and vast numbers of people who need mental health treatment and/or pharmaceuticals aren't getting them, just as long as they aren't hurting anybody.

A comprehensive disarming of America might reduce violence and murder somewhat. Or it might not. However, it would do nothing for the incarceration rate, the crime rate, or the general health and well-being of the American population as a whole.

If the drug-legalization movement had gotten major legislation passed under Clinton in 1993 rather than the assault-weapons ban and the Brady background check, the country would have been a hell of a lot better off.

[X_Digger]

13. Funnily enough..

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/115014-extinguishers-banned-as-a-fire-safety-hazard

Fire extinguishers could be removed from communal areas in flats throughout the country because they are a safety hazard, it has emerged.

The life-saving devices encourage untrained people to fight a fire rather than leave the building, risk assessors in Bournemouth decided.

Leave it to the UK..

[iverglas]

15. ... and some things just aren't analogies at all

Plus, let's face it, fire extinguishers just aren't as sexy as guns. Whether they are successful at putting out fires or not, if anybody dies in an incident when a fire extinguisher is used, the guy wielding the thing isn't going to jail. It's all just an accident. If they guy gets over-confident, gets trapped, and burns to a crisp... accident. Oh well. Or if the guy delays calling 911 until he's uselessly emptied a couple of canisters on a fire, thus resulting in a critical delay that crisps his entire family... oh well. Accident. Tragic hero, he'll have to live with the consequences of his error forever, etc., etc., etc.

That must have actually hurt, I imagine.

I mean, twisting one's self into knots that tight, all to produce something that is so totally unrelated to someone intentionally using a firearm to commit a crime or to injure or kill someone else, or even themself ...

[krispos42]

18. Oh, boy, the Anti-Analogy Crusader is back

Hello iverglas!

[iverglas]

16. and the straw flies

That post wandered around so, we're just breaking it down.

A comprehensive disarming of America might reduce violence and murder somewhat. Or it might not. However, it would do nothing for the incarceration rate, the crime rate, or the general health and well-being of the American population as a whole.

(a) Somebody must be talking about comprehensively disarming somebody.

(b) If drug traffickers did not have firearms, about how long would they and their trade last?

[krispos42]

19. Answers

a) At no point did I say complete disarmament, or speak of a disarmed America. A significantly-less-armed America is what I was referring to.

b) The Mexican government and international arms sales, where they're getting their guns now. Of course, a cartel with billions in annual revenues can also make their own guns. Their trade, naturally, will last as long as their product is illegal and in high demand.

[iverglas]

17. and more straw

And in case you haven't noticed, the anti-gun ideology is also driven by fear. A CCW permittee carried a gun... FEAR HIM. HE'S PARANOID AND DANGEROUS. We have to ACT. We don't know what he might do! We don't want HIM by our schools or in our MALLS... he might spontaneously decide to pump 20 rounds into a playground or something equally horrendous.

I'm actually not the only poster here who has said that my objection to the carrying of firearms in public doesn't have a whole lot to do with this "fear" you quote someone as bleating about.

It has to do with the nature of civilized societies, and the uses that civilized societies allow to be made of their public spaces, and the behaviours that civilized societies permit in those public spaces.

And behaviours that carry elevated risks of harm, in the aggregate and regardless of any individual's personal qualities and proclivities, and that intimidate and exclude by their nature, aren't behaviours that people who care about inclusion and public safety approve.

[ellisonz]

24. "Never mind that the odds of dying in a mass shooting are about the same as winning the lottery

...the anti-gun movement continues to flog this like Cheney flogged terrorism."

Damn krispos42, that's some incendiary shit. Your argument here is basically that pro-gun control advocates are opposed to guns because they are worried about themselves, but the truth here is that most of us are not afraid for ourselves, we are afraid of where we are going as a society. It's not about DanTex, iverglas, or myself, it's about the Trayvon Martin's of the world. You see, having not been steeped in Libertarian non-sense we are able to concern ourselves we more than our own lives. We know that we are all in this boat together and that an injury to one is an injury to all. We also know that contrary to your attempts (and those of your compatriots) to distract from the issue that the presence of guns increases the severity of violence. This has been shown time and time again in academic study and is born out by common sense.

Dear krispos42, one day I hope you to will be able to walk and chew intellectual gum at the same time!

Now to put out that pile of burning straw that is your post:

[krispos42]

26. The examples you present...

...are mass shootings and the potential thereof. Oh, the 30-round magazine for a military-derived rifle... be concerned! Be concerned! Spend a lot of time and spill a lot of ink and flex a lot of political muscle to do something about that! This happened because of the NRA and the gun-nuts and the Republicans! This is a call to action!

Example: look what happened after the Giffords shooting a year ago.


The advocates, including the "liberal media" (Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell" spend quite a bit on time on this, hammering home on the extended magazine that the shooter had and announcing how this was the preferred equipment of the mass shooter.

And you want me to not address it?


"...the truth here is that most of us are not afraid for ourselves, we are afraid of where we are going as a society."

Here, let me give you a hand up on the wagon. I worry about this constantly, too. Hell, I listen to political podcasts all through the work day... I get it hammered into my ears!

But I do know this... guns are used by people to both commit and prevent evil from happening. People owning guns doesn't make them become violent criminals, and a violent criminal is a violent criminal whether or not he has access to a pistol or shotgun.

So you'll excuse me if I want to focus on things like drug legalization, tax reform, international trade reform, and universal comprehensive single-payer health insurance, because unlike widespread gun ownership, all of the things I just mentioned are both much more damaging to American society AND have no positive side whatsoever for anybody but the top 0.1%!!!

[ellisonz]

27. "a violent criminal whether or not he has access to a pistol or shotgun."

A violent criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a violent criminal without a gun.

[krispos42]

28. And the violent criminals with guns will be the last disarmed.

If at all.

Their victims will be the first because, after all, they're law-abiding.


All in all, I'd rather cut the number of violent criminals in half by improving the lives of all Americans rather than make the existing pool of violent criminals slightly less dangerous by making a bunch of voters angry and motivated.

Your call.

[iverglas]

14. now, now

Why, I attended a convention of the National Extinguisher Taskforce of Users and Proprietors -- NEXTUP -- just last month here in Canada. We all expressed our keen admiration of the current right-wing government, which had promised never to establish a registry of fire extinguisher owners, and vowed to keep the pinkos who would limit the extinguishing power of our extinguishers out of office.

We take our rights and freedoms seriously up here.

And we make sure to carry our fire extinguishers everywhere we go, even just to the corner store for a pack of Export A and some Smarties. And especially when we're hanging around at Tim's imbibing caffeine. You just never know when somebody might set a serviette on fire and wipe out all the families peacefully eating donuts.

[ellisonz]

25. Terrorist!

[villager]

7. so, do you support industry oversight making them safer?

if so, why?

[krispos42]

8. Ah ah ah... no distractions, no branching n/t

[villager]

9. "no distractions, no branching?" You've just denounced the entire rhetorical basis

...for your strawman argument, and indeed, this entire sub-forum!

[shadowrider]

10. OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'S

I can't answer the question, let me change the subject, quick!

[villager]

20. Exactly my point!

Thanks for the confirmation!

[shadowrider]

21. Hint: I was talking about you.

[villager]

22. Hint: As it turned out, you weren't

Mirrors, etc?

[HALO141]

23. First of all,

It's difficult to take this information at face value being presented, as it is, through the lens of a segment entitled, "The Plague of Guns." It would be interesting to sit down and discuss Gary Younge's experience with him directly but, since we can't do that, I have to season his words with more than a grain of salt. I suspect Mr. Younge's suspicions of racist undertones have much more to do with his own expectations than he lets on.

When you go to an event like the NRA convention you will meet a large number of local citizens - Average people with a higher than average interest in the relative subject matter. When you ask them pointed questions about their concerns you're going to get a regurgitation of polarized rhetoric from their side of the debate. Some of them have probably just swallowed the slogans and looked no further. Many, though, will fall back on these cliches simply because they are unaccustomed to having to justify their position as if they're in a debate setting. The spend the bulk of their time in the company of like-minded individuals and when they're not they usually avoid controversial topics. The vast majority of us don't make our living with our words so it's expecting a bit much to think that they will express themselves with the same alacrity as a journalist or political opinion show host.

Also... If you walk around a car show interviewing people and asking them why it's so important to have spare tire you will, no doubt, hear many, many scenarios revolving around the impending doom of anyone who ventures out without one.

(edited for typo)