Oh, so that’s what ethicists do »« Your morning innuendo-laden entertainment

Comments

  1. Anri says

    We should ask the publishers to create a cover with a non-white family and watch the monumental freakout.

    Goats on fire all the way down.

  2. says

    What’s the most creepy? The guns? The weird smiles? The fact that mom and dad are in their early 20’s and have a teenage daughter? The fact that the artist seems never to have looked at a gun before? Or a human face? Or three-dimensional reality? Or that someone thought it would be a good idea to make this into a children’s book?

    Brrr!

  3. opposablethumbs says

    Holy fuck that’s creepy. The Stepford gun-fondlers, ugh.
    .

    create a cover with a non-white family and watch the monumental freakout

    :-D

  4. Jeremy Shaffer says

    Anri and Tony- And headed by a same-sex couple wearing Darwin fish t-shirts.

  5. says

    Come join 13-year-old Brenna Strong along with her mom, Bea, and her dad, Richard, as they spend a typical Saturday running errands and having fun together. What’s not so typical is that Brenna’s parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defense. The Strongs join a growing number of families that are standing up for their 2nd Amendment rights by open carrying and bringing gun ownership out of the closet and into the mainstream.

    My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again.

    Home School Teachers:
    This book is an excellent text to use as a starting point on the discussion of the 2nd Amendment.

    “Outstanding, outstanding…every person should buy 5 copies of this book. Very well done…I believe long overdue.” James Towle, Host–American Trigger Sports Network.

    “I love it…boy does this fill a vacuum!” Alan Korwin, gunlaws.com

    “Love the book.” Mark Walters, Host– Armed American Radio

    “Wow we have two geniuses…” “The book by Jeffs and Nephew makes me proud…” “a wholesome children’s book on the joys of having parents carrying guns openly.” J. Hood

    “Delicious.” Doug Giles, Author and Host–Clash Radio

    “Very good message in this book.” Jules Arnold–Sons of Liberty Riders

    “Loved it, I ordered a copy for our school’s library” John Roshek, Founder–Citizens League for Self-Defense

    Source.

  6. davenash says

    The most creepy? It’s those eyes– all six of them. They’re glazed and zealous, bright and hollow.

    Daddy’s pistol does appear to be strapped to his wrist, but how else can the, erm, artist show both the sturdy magnificence of the gun and Daddy’s hand shoved deep into his trouser pocket where he… well, we all know what is happening in there, don’t we?

  7. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Shouldn’t it be called “My Parents And I Work Toward The Victory Of WOTAN?”

  8. Jeremy Shaffer says

    Odd how daddy’s hand, his right one, just disappears like that. I suppose we’re to assume it’s in his pocket, and with the bad artwork that’s very likely, but it just looks way off. Can we say “accidental discharge”?

  9. says

    Scary, scary, scary
    Dad looks like the serial killer in a bad movie, everybody horribly blonde and blue eyed
    Unabashedly racist, because we all know against whom blonde blue eyed people need to defend themselves. Horrible villains armed with Skittles who coincidentially have less white skin.

  10. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    How fun to have the guns easily accessible when one of their children gets cranky with the other or with their parent when they forbid them to go out/see their friends/play their game.

  11. says

    From Inaji’s link:

    My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again.

    I’m sure this book has a nice segment on respecting the right of others to live their lives without the threat of gun violence around them.
    It also probably has a section on using non-violent means to resolve a conflict, and only drawing a gun as a measure of last resort.
    Oh, and it *surely* has a section acknowledging the right to life of all human beings, and how precious that right is.
    Hmmm, and come to think of it, the book simply _must_ discuss-in great detail-the hazards of having a gun at home, and how the potential for gun violence in the home is increased by the presence of a firearm.

    All of that is in the book, no?

  12. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Where is the chapter on gun safety? You know, the one that says you shouldn’t carry a loaded gun in public, which is an inherently unsafe act. Make the weapon intrinsically safe by unloading it while in public.

  13. Saad Khan says

    I just had to look this up on Amazon to make sure it isn’t a hoax. Unbelievable.

    I did find this gem of a review while I was there though:

    “Perfect companion book to My Parents Open Container”

  14. twas brillig (stevem) says

    re georgewiman @2:

    What’s the most creepy ? The guns? The weird smiles? The fact that mom and dad are in their early 20′s and have a teenage daughter?

    I wouldn’t call it creepy, (with all those implications…) But just plain weird. All 3 appear to be the same age, ie teenagers. And, yes, their eyes are, ugh, just openly staring. The “mother” (on the right), looks younger than the central “girl”. Before I head off into art criticism; I think these complaints are valid. That couple behind the lead figure do not appear to be her parents, in the least. They look like classmates of hers, in her “open carry” high school.

  15. says

    Saad Khan:

    I just had to look this up on Amazon to make sure it isn’t a hoax. Unbelievable.

    Personally, I find it quite believable. The US has some really fucked up priorities.

  16. AlexanderZ says

    UnknownEric the Apostate #8:

    “My Parents And I Work Toward The Victory Of WOTAN?”

    Operation Wotan, more likely.

  17. says

    I wonder how many pro artists the authors tried to recruit before finding Loma Bergman on Deviantart.(Which is not meant to be a slight to Deviantart, there are some wonderful artists there. There are also lots of crappy ones, however.)

  18. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    The arm poses are the classic tell-tale sign of an artist who can’t draw hands and knows it. Reminds me of a woman who used to turn out numerous painting of woodland bunnies to hang on the walls of a local restaurant. They were all contorted into unusual positions so as to hide their not-drawn paws behind burdocks and flower patches.

  19. says

    It’s great fun to make yourselves feel superior, pointing out all the badness in the artwork, all while ignoring the actual content of the book, eh?

  20. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Yes, Inaji. It’s all about making myself feel superior. I care only about the bad art, which indicates that I don’t care at all about the horror that is the book.

    Back off. You know damned well I care about this stuff.

  21. Steve LaBonne says

    That’s a parody, right? Somebody PLEASE tell me that’s a parody. What’s that you say? Oh shit, we’re even more fucked than I thought…

  22. rabbitscribe says

    The central protagonist is 13. Ain’t that a bit long in the tooth for an illustrated children’s book?

  23. HappyNat says

    Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any.

    I can only imagine the face on the librarian when you ask for “pro-gun children’s books”. I’m tempted to try it but I actually like my local library so I’d like to be welcomed back.

  24. says

    Huh-he?

    That’s all a can say. My brain locked up in refusal to accept this as real. I must be dreaming. I probably ate something bad for dinner and thi is the nighmare that resulted?

  25. Moggie says

    You folks complaining about daddy’s hand are missing the obvious: he’s so deeply committed to the 2nd amendment that he had his right hand surgically replaced by a gun. He never has to worry about drawing, plus even Obama can’t take his gun away!

  26. says

    lindsay #37

    Also published by White Feather Press–”Raising Boys That feminists Will Hate”:
    http://store.whitefeatherpress.com/books/doug-giles/raising-boys-feminists-will-hate.html

    The description of that book is utterly amazing. I know it is likely real and that people do hold these views, but it is so hard to force myself to think that because it feels like such a parody of these types of attitudes and because I do not think I have ever met someone like that, it is so different from my normal circle of acquaintances. White Feather admits they started as a vanity publisher, with standards this low they might as well still be one.

  27. says

    lindsay #37

    Also published by White Feather Press…

    Then there’s this little gem, Church And State:

    It’s the not-too-distant future, and in the wake of a nuclear terrorist attack, the President has signed the Freedom from Religion Act, which outlaws any public expression of religion. But what will the President do now that his wife and son are dead and he has converted to Christianity? Will he stand true to his newfound God, or will he buckle under political pressure? It was his lifelong dream to be President, but now he stands poised to lose it all, just for following the convictions of his heart.

    Quite the right-wing agenda, that publishing house seems to have.

  28. says

    From lindsay’s link @37, the details of the book:

    Parent, if you have a young son and you want him to grow up to be a man, then you need to keep him away from pop culture, public school and a lot of Nancy Boy churches. If metrosexual pop culture, feminized public schools and the effeminate branches of evanjellycalism lay their sissy hands on him, you can kiss his masculinity good-bye because they will morph him into a dandy. Yeah, mom and dad, if – if – you dare to raise your boy as a classic boy in this castrated epoch, then you’ve got a task that’s more difficult than getting a drunk to hit the urinal at Chili’s. Read this bold and hard-hitting guide by Doug Giles, the politically incorrect master, on how to raise your son in a world which more and more seems to hate masculinity.

    screw all that gender essentialism.

  29. Hoosier X says

    “Raising Boys That Feminists Everyone Will Hate”

    Fixxored. You’re welcome, White Feather Press.

  30. mykroft says

    Anri@1
    I do like the idea of writing a parody of this book, with a non-white family. Show a black or Hispanic middle class family, with guns on their hips as in this book. They could talk about how threatened they feel in this culture, which is why they carry.

    The only problem with the concept is, like with this book, some will think it’s a good idea.

  31. says

    okanogen cascades:
    Out of the 22 reviews for that book, 17 gave it one star. Yep, sounds like a good companion piece.
    I was really wanting an ‘about’ blurb on the book though :(

  32. gog says

    The faces are weird, look the same and are asymmetrical in a disturbing way. If it were a piece of modern art, then I would have more to say about it than “ew.”

  33. microraptor says

    Lorna Bergman could’ve gotten a job writing for Marvel in the early ’90s, since an inability to draw hands and feet was not a problem for artists back then.

    She needs to add more pouches for that. Also, everyone needs some glowing, asymmetrical tattoos and absurd levels of bulging muscles, preferably in places that normal humans don’t actually see muscle growth even with heavy steroid use.

  34. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    It’s great fun to make yourselves feel superior, pointing out all the badness in the artwork, all while ignoring the actual content of the book, eh?

    The art is available. The content is not.

  35. says

    Azkyroth:
    Did you see Inaji’s comment @6? It discusses the material in the book. I do think criticism of the art is well within peoples’ rights, though. I would hate to see that overshadow the material within the book, but I don’t think that’s happened here yet.

  36. Knabb says

    That the art is as shitty as it is is a good thing. It’s bad enough that this thing was able to be published and gain some publicity in the first place, but the art at least makes sure it comes across less seriously. Plus, a culture that produces this shit with enough budget and backing to make the art look good on a technical level is probably more fucked up than one where it had to be produced on a shoe-string budget.

  37. says

    Inaji
    #28

    It’s great fun to make yourselves feel superior, pointing out all the badness in the artwork, all while ignoring the actual content of the book, eh?

    But the art is objectively bad. I mean, it’s just BAD. I am not an artist (of the drawing sort), but even I can see that it’s really, really badly done. I don’t know why this means I think I’m superior — I’m not, and if I tried to draw something similar, it would probably be even worse! But pointing out that this is just bad (because it is) does not mean I, or Josh, feel that we are superior. And superior to whom or what, anyway?

  38. Jeremy Shaffer says

    Every summer some friends and I make a weekend trip to the lake and a few years ago we started bringing one of the bizzaro fiction books (http://www.goodreads.com/genres/bizarro-fiction) to pass around and read aloud. Those are, as their name suggest, often bizarre if more than a little stupid, though they seem fully aware of that. Having read the synopsis of a few of these books from White Feather that have been posted makes the bizzaro books look downright artful.

  39. Ichthyic says

    Ideas for sequels:

    “Mommy and Daddy spend a day with the FBI”

    wherein we learn that mommy and daddy belong to a special militia group…

    “My Visit to the Hospital”

    wherein we learn the joys of accidentally shooting your own offspring.

  40. Rey Fox says

    Don’t you see? His hand IS the gun. *dramatic chord*

    The quality of the art means they didn’t have the finances to hire a real artist. Probably just had somebody that somebody at the company knew do it for “exposure”.

  41. Rey Fox says

    wherein we learn that mommy and daddy belong to a special militia group…

    Would it be a well-regulated one?

  42. Ichthyic says

    if – you dare to raise your boy as a classic boy in this castrated epoch, then you’ve got a task that’s more difficult than getting a drunk to hit the urinal at Chili’s.

    Oh, how I wish this were true; that it really was difficult to raise misogynist, homophobic, racist, bigots. maybe someday, it will be, and even the satire will seem out of place.

  43. Ichthyic says

    Would it be a well-regulated one?

    nope. Hence the visit from the FBI…

    you’ll have to read the book to find out more!

  44. says

    So easy to stereotype the images because you disagree with open-carry. Even the title of the article is a blatant stereotype.

    I have seen people open carry, I admit it is more rare where I live, but it is legal. First of all, I actually like the fact that they are carrying pistols and not assault rifles. I cannot condemn someone for wanting to protect themselves in a legal manner. If you want to outlaw fire arms many states do, it means you need to convince your fellow man that it’s preferable to alternative.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

    District of Columbia (Washington DC) by far has the worst gun violence of any listed and yet ownership is the lowest! In contrast Vermont is 42% ownership and yet has the lowest gun violence statistics, and the highest level on gun ownership is Wyoming and even it is on the low end of gun violence. How does this support gun control?

    I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence. If a community feels safer with gun control or without gun control, I won’t hold it against them.

  45. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    WA, you delusionally feel safer, but you are absolutely safer if nobody but the police are carrying loaded guns, either open or concealed, in public. The only intrinsically safe firearm is the unloaded one.

  46. vereverum says

    She is left-handed. That used to get you burned at the stake.
    Perhaps the RW is becoming more inclusive? Is there hope for them?

  47. says

    Wes Aaron:

    I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence. If a community feels safer with gun control or without gun control, I won’t hold it against them.

    Oh, yeah, because *feelings* are a great foundation for legislation.
    I think you’re at the wrong blog buddy. Feeling don’t trump science, logic, or reason in the case of gun control.

  48. says

    For a moment, I thought I had gotten my Pharyngula tab confused with another blog I read every day: Awful Library Books.
    This title would look right at home on a shelf next to something by Doris Sanford.

  49. opposablethumbs says

    Wes Aron, try comparing the stats for firearms crime (particularly gun deaths) and for violent crime in general between any state you like, USAnia as a whole, and any other first-world country.

    Have you no idea how much we look at you in pity and horror?

  50. opposablethumbs says

    there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence.

    Look at Europe. Look at the bloody stats. You’re deliberately delusional.

  51. says

    If a community feels safer with gun control or without gun control, I won’t hold it against them.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, people and communities largely have a grossly distorted view of crime and the dangers they face. Using their “feelings” is a terrible basis for law. This scary boogieman, bad stranger that is going to attack you, and you will protect yourself with a firearm you are carrying is far down the list of worries. The vast majority of homicides are carried out by friends and family members, and in the US most of those are firearms related, mainly handguns like the ones the people on the cover of this book are carrying around. Just having that firearm around and easily available makes it more likely to be used, and it is unlikely it will be used in a heroic act.

  52. whiskytangofoxtrot says

    but you are absolutely safer if nobody but the police are carrying loaded guns

    We’d probably be safer if fewer police were carrying them, too.

  53. whiskytangofoxtrot says

    Sorry, I guess the “cite” attribute on the blockquote tag doesn’t do anything. That was in reply to Nerd of Redhead on post #60.

  54. Ichthyic says

    So easy to stereotype the images because you disagree with open-carry.

    it’s not even specific to open carry, the dislike goes much further, and with good reason. but gun culture delusionists of course would be unable to even understand that. What’s the point of trying to explain it to you? you’ve been brainwashed into thinking guns = good.

  55. Ichthyic says

    We’d probably be safer if fewer police were carrying them, too.

    works here in New Zealand.

  56. Ichthyic says

    I cannot condemn someone for wanting to protect themselves in a legal manner.

    I can.

    just because something is legal, doesn’t make it a good idea.

  57. Ichthyic says

    I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence.

    …as he cites a correlational study only, limited in scope to the US only, and ignores the conflicting factors.

    out here in this strange land, we’d probably call you an idiot.

  58. Ichthyic says

    I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence.

    actually there’s plenty, if you aren’t a biased ingorant yokel like yourself.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

    this, because someone already mentioned Europe, where you can also readily find the positive results on gun violence resulting from gun control.

  59. toska says

    Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any.

    But did you find any anti-gun children’s books? No? Perhaps that gap should be filled to. How about a gun safety book that instructs children to never, ever touch a gun. Never. How about you add that to this book: “Mommy and Daddy open carry, but I am never ever allowed to touch their guns because guns could kill me.

  60. robro says

    …there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence

    Trick word. The same trick word used by creationists, climate change deniers, and host of others. There is evidence, but does the evidence prove anything? Perhaps not, particularly when the criteria for proof hasn’t been specified so that it’s easy to dismiss any evidence we have that doesn’t suit their biases.

  61. Ichthyic says

    “Mommy and Daddy open carry, but I am never ever allowed to touch their guns because guns could kill me.

    yeah, that was the first page of the sequel I suggested: “My Visit to the Hospital”

    ;)

  62. chigau (違う) says

    I just figured out why I have Duelling Banjos as today’s earworm.
    Yes. I am ashamed.

  63. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Even as someone who as issues with irrational fear I boggle at these open carry people. How can that disconnect between their real level of safety and their perception of it be anything other than unhealthy?

    As to the art, well, I’ve read on the order of 1500 kid’s picture books over the last several years and seen the covers of at least 10 times more as I sought new ones from the library. I have to say that that level of art is not uncommon. Mind you, there’s also about the same amount where the art is so good that you wonder how the artist could have afforded to spend that much time on a kid’s book.

  64. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Seatbelt laws and carseat laws don’t prevent automobile deaths, therefore… what, Wes?

  65. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Seatbelt laws and carseat laws don’t prevent automobile deaths, therefore… what, Wes?

    Therefore nice Aryan people like those on the cover need to be free to run over the brown people with knives lurking around literally every corner of every structure, so they can feel safe, of course.

  66. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    “Raising Boys That feminists Will Hate”
    Note also that they can’t write a book about raising male children without including in the title implied derogatory, mocking comments about others. They couldn’t just say, “Raising Strong, Principled Boys”. They have to glory in the idea of pissing off the Enemy.

  67. says

    Just the artwork alone reminds me of the “reviews” on some crazy book I saw on Amazon called “My bosses naked punishment”. Short version of the combined reviews, when I decided to see just how horrible it could possibly be..: Stupid premise, a plot that I suspect would remind me of the joke I saw about an adult dice games, where the dice came up as “smash”, “someone else’s face”, and, “on floor”, followed by an ending that, apparently, didn’t even try to involve anything remotely erotic. (It came up, for no logical reason at all as a “recommended” after finishing a crazy murder mystery, in which part of the story took place in a nudist resort, so.. by extension, this, to Amazon, meant I had to be looking for sleazy books, with plots that “should have been” written by a small child… Thanks Amazon, just what I was looking for!) Pretty sure the artwork on the cover could have been done by the same person that did the one for this book, or really close to it.

    That said.. looking over the cover.. doesn’t the “dad” look a lot like another women, with a fake mustache? lol “Bone structure, how the F does that work?”

    But, yeah, wow… I suppose they will publish any nonsense. I look forward to its review on the Sarah Palin channel. She might actually manage to read most of the pages, assuming the words are small enough.

  68. 2kittehs says

    Icthyic, #75:

    We’d probably be safer if fewer police were carrying them, too.

    works here in New Zealand.

    Works overall here in Australia, too.

    The thought of spending time among Open Carry types gives me the wibblies. I’d be wondering if they’re really so scared someone’s going to attack them (and convinced their own training and reaction times would make any difference) or if it’s that they want to frighten and intimidate everyone around them.

  69. anteprepro says

    Is this a reboot of Final Fantasy Seven? I don’t know why they made Barrett white, and shrunk his gun arm. Cloud’s haircut is very modest. And what, Tifa is blonde and using a gun now too!? NERD RAGE!!!

  70. Ichthyic says

    The thought of spending time among Open Carry types gives me the wibblies

    ditto.

    one the one hundred and one reasons I left the US.

  71. Ichthyic says

    They couldn’t just say, “Raising Strong, Principled Boys”. They have to glory in the idea of pissing off the Enemy.

    authoritarianism: it’s what makes gun culture so great!

  72. Mark Jacobson says

    Wow. I just noticed the dad was wearing a hat. Now the color of his moustache makes much more sense.

  73. says

    Well where to start. First of all I have never said that more gun control cannot prevent gun violence. In many ways I would like to see better laws on gun registration, and removal of auto fire weapons and high capacity clips as a whole. So even in my own state I can see reasons for more restrictive gun access.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7HPTWtZ9rs

    Let’s take into account only the first world countries. (Yea because your positions sounds more reasonable when you exclude the poorer countries of the world.) There is evidence that if you are part of a first world country that gun control is beneficial, as pointed out to me in a previous thread. (In Canada handguns aren’t illegal and in some places you can even carry them just like the states, the only big difference is the registration process to own a gun.) I’m not against this or banning guns outright if the majority agrees that is for the best, I just think it is obvious that you’re stereotyping them because they don’t agree with you. But if you think that ignoring what people care about for their safety and community is the best approach. They should just get over it. Well that is their problem. You just miss the point. I won’t condemn someone just because they grew up with different views than me, only their actions should be reason to condemn.

    I prefer not to limit my search to just a select group of nations, if I’m going to look outside the US for answers since the data in the country is non specific.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
    What a shocker it’s not specific there either. Well if you want to limit the data to support your argument then that is your first mistake. Does the US need stricter gun laws? I can definitely see areas in need of improvement. Gun show vendors, the gun buying process, regular registration and licencing to own a firearm and there are others. So do I reject the evidence? No. But I don’t find the evidence for banning guns any more compelling than allowing communities to decide what is in their best interest.

  74. says

    Wes… The problem with guns in the US is, as you say, not just a case of people having them, but.. the overall perception of needing them, the absurdity of the ease to get them, the lack of even vaguely sensible restrictions on who can, and even basic things, like, as you say, trying to make open carry “everyplace”, instead of placing sensible restrictions on such a thing. We might not need to go as far as some countries, where you can own any damn gun you want, as long as its locked up most of the time, and only taken out at a shooting range, but we need something.

    No the real major, serious, problem in the US is that there seems to be, for every sensible, rational, person that thinks too much ammo is too much, that obviously dangerous people, who might kill someone with one, shouldn’t have one **at all**, and a long, long, long laundry list of entirely sensible, reasonable, rational, limitations on them, like at least 5 times as many irrational, unreasonable, insensible, clowns, who fight tooth and nail against ***any*** legislation, of any kind, what so ever, no matter how minor, inoffensive, or even mostly useless, that might keep their half wit cousin, or themselves, or some domestic abuser, or just anyone at all, from getting their hands on one.

    Its like suggesting that there is a sensible set of circumstances for the use of amphetamines, and therefor the restrictions on buying shit with them in them is too restrictive, and failing to notice that 90% of the idiots cheering your statement are crack heads and people who want to build their own meth labs. We are well aware that the problems we have here are not the same as other countries. We are also well aware that there is no way in hell, with the 2nd. Amendment wackos in charge of deciding what is a sane and reasonable set of changes to bring about a safer environment, there is no way **at all** that anything will ever be actually passed, or that, even if it is, it won’t be fought tooth and nail, and, in the end, still leave us with a country in with more problems, because everything from how the laws get enforced (or even if they get enforced) to the reasons people carry the guns around, to where they are allowed to do so, contribute to an overall attitude that is dangerous and lethal.

    The simple reality is that far too many of the “open carry” advocates in the US seem to be people whose view of **other countries** and their solutions to **any** problem is just about identical to that of the cliched response you see by the stereo typical “muscle head military type”, in movies about alien visitors – “There the enemy, and nothing about the enemy is ever good, or right, or American, or should be allowed to undermine our rights, or liberties, or safety, or blah, blah, blah. So, shoot first and ask questions later!” I would love to see us adopt a lot of things from other more sensible countries. Its just.. about as likely as me sprouting wings, and discovering I can suddenly fly. Its never going to happen, especially with the current idiots in charge of the NRA and others running the show (and, most of them being the same people that think everything else “foreign” is somehow a conspiracy against their country as well).

  75. opposablethumbs says

    Yea because your positions sounds more reasonable when you exclude the poorer countries of the world

    Yeah, because the USA is a rich country. Comparing like with like. Idiot.
    .
    Wes Aron #95

    I have never said that more gun control cannot prevent gun violence.

    Wes Aron #59

    I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not evidence that proves definitively that gun control prevents gun violence.

    Idiot^2. You’re either too stupid to realise we can scroll back up and see what you wrote only a few hours earlier, or too stupid to realise that your own two comments are in direct contradiction with each other, or you’re incapable of expressing yourself clearly so that you write diametrically opposed statements when you mean only one of them (wonder which one).

    Yes, yes, go on then, tell us that it is semantically possible to logic-chop your two statements into really teeny tiny pieces and make it look like they don’t completely contradict each other. Bravo. The facts remain: compare the USA with socio-economically comparable nations everywhere else in the world and look at the rates of gun crime, gun woundings and gun deaths (including accidental ones – all those kids who thought it was a toy, all those geniuses who thought it wasn’t loaded or forgot there was a round in the chamber).

    Either way you’re not making yourself look too good here, pal.

  76. Matt Penfold says

    “I prefer not to limit my search to just a select group of nations, if I’m going to look outside the US for answers since the data in the country is non specific.”

    What you need to do is look at murder rates, and murders committed with firearms. If you had bothered to do that you would find the US does very poorly. For example, if the England and Wales had murder rates using firearms on a par with the US the murder rate in total would be about four times higher than it is. England and Wales have very tight restrictions on gun ownership, and an outright ban on handguns.

  77. says

    One thing that irritates me with open carry nuts: They’re selfishly giving themselves a feeling of safety at other people’s expense and seem oblivious to it. We’ve already got too many gun owners with hair trigger tempers and bullies who use open carry to intimidate others.

  78. anteprepro says

    Wes Aaron,
    1. Ever hear of confounding variables? That’s why, when looking at whether gun control actually helps, we compare the U.S. to the other countries that are comparably wealthy.
    2. Your bullshit about Americans obsessed with guns being concerned about their safety or just having different opinions or whatever is sheer NRA apologia. They only need guns because other people needs. Their opinions is what has poisoned our politics such that true gun control is impossible and made us an outlier among first world countries with a massive murder rate.

  79. Matt Penfold says

    “1. Ever hear of confounding variables? That’s why, when looking at whether gun control actually helps, we compare the U.S. to the other countries that are comparably wealthy.”

    Which really only gives you Western Europe, Canafa, Australia and New Zealand. Oddly all seem to have fewer firearms killings than the US.

  80. opus says

    My standard reply to the Wes Aarons of the world: You are correct – Guns don’t kill people.

    Americans with guns kill people.

    There’s just enough truth in it to really piss of any of them with a connection to reality.

  81. says

    I’ve never worked out why that “people kill people” thing is supposed to make me think ownership of guns isn’t a problem. If people kill people, then it would be a spiffingly good idea to not allow people to own convenient and easy-to-use devices with which they may kill people.

  82. says

    Wes Aaron, #95
    I find it amazing that you think it is unreasonable and unfair to compare the US to country that in many ways economically and yes, even socially similar to the US. Those are the countries where actual comparisons can actually be made and have far more limited confounding factors. The story you linked to uses Honduras as an example. And sure, it has fewer firearms per capita, but it has many, many other factors that make it extremely different. There are huge gang and organized crime problems the US simply does not have. Only 6% of murders in the US are gang related, but 30% of all murders in the Americas are related to them. Countries like Columbia, Honduras and Venezuela are affected by this to a far, far higher degree than the US. And that is just one big problem, one directly related to crime that makes it difficult to do any comparison. There are so many others. Only someone that was ignorant, or wanted to make their cases look better would make a simplistic comparison of murder rates between those countries.

  83. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    ’ve never worked out why that “people kill people” thing is supposed to make me think ownership of guns isn’t a problem.

    All it is, is non-sequitur slogan, designed to deflect criticism, that is missing three words. It should correctly read: “People use guns to kill people”.

  84. says

    I used to open carry, because I lived in a neighborhood where I felt it was an appropriate safety measure. You know what I didn’t do much of for that entire year? I didn’t smile a whole bunch, because I was constantly concerned for my safety. If someone is legitimately afraid enough that they feel like they need to open carry a firearm, they’re probably not actually very happy about the situation at all. The smiling folks doing the open carry thing? Those are the assholes who enjoy “offending” liberals, and who like the passive bullying of having other people know they’ve got lethal force on their belt.

  85. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    They couldn’t just say, “Raising Strong, Principled Boys”. They have to glory in the idea of pissing off the Enemy.

    I haven’t seen the book, but I’m already 99% certain they do not want strong or principled boys, but instead authoritarian-subordinate boys who are pants-wettingly terrified their own shadow will call them Unmanly at any moment.

  86. nutella says

    @ BronzeDog:

    One thing that irritates me with open carry nuts: They’re selfishly giving themselves a feeling of safety at other people’s expense and seem oblivious to it.

    Oblivious? No. Frightening other people is the POINT of the exercise.

  87. says

    Kagehi @89

    That said.. looking over the cover.. doesn’t the “dad” look a lot like another wom[a]n, with a fake mustache? lol “Bone structure, how the F does that work?”

    while I don’t have any issue with eviscerating the art (because lets face it that’s fucking terrible), don’t do this. I don’t think I’d be the only person to say so.

  88. says

    Daz @103

    I’ve never worked out why that “people kill people” thing is supposed to make me think ownership of guns isn’t a problem. If people kill people, then it would be a spiffingly good idea to not allow people to own convenient and easy-to-use devices with which they may kill people.

    emptyquote

    wait I don’t think I can emptyquote here.

    I think there is a kind of paranoid fear of “others” in that sentiment. It would be to defend themselves and their families (and families “like” them, for varying degrees of “like”) against those unlike (also to varying degrees) them. As long as the unlike class doesn’t get the same access (which is handy, because it’s easier to keep those dirty unlikes away from your way of life when keep them legally disarmed in the face of your legal armament), everything is hunky dory.

    I also think there’s a strong likelyhood than the people sitting at the boardroom tables of the world(also known as the 1%) exploit that kind of fear because it serves their disposable-resource based capitalism and short term greed.

  89. says

    I like that people can literally be randomly gunned down anywhere and Wes has his feefees all reserved for the people walking around with sophisticated projectile weapons.

    Not a single shit given to those who don’t want to or cannot learn to operate and carry a gun. (and yeah carrying a weapon you don’t know how to use is literally less than worthless.)

    We’re all bullies for not being all right with the fact that someone with an open carry could at any moment pull it out and shoot us and there’s nothing we could do about it. Sure they’d get arrested or shot themselves but little comfort to whoever they shoot first right?

  90. says

    Wes Aaron:

    But I don’t find the evidence for banning guns any more compelling than allowing communities to decide what is in their best interest.

    You still haven’t presented evidence that shows communities need to open carry. You keep asserting that their “feelings” on the matter are of importance. “Feelings” aren’t evidence.
    Also, the discussion is not on banning guns. Quit trying to move the goalposts. You gundamentalists love to shift the discussion from gun control to banning guns. Not going to happen here.
    Gun control =/= banning guns.

  91. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gun control =/= banning guns.

    Really WA, how is saying you don’t carry loaded weapons in public banning guns? Seriously? By the way, the same folks for concealed/open carry, won’t allow the CDC or any federally funded researcher from obtaining accurate statistics about misfires, accidental discharges, etc….Almost like they know it won’t be favorable to carrying loaded weapons in public.

  92. says

    sorry.
    the second part wasn’t a direct reply to you. “emptyquote” was me saying I echo the sentiment without needing to add anything. then I said that I can’t emptyquote on pharyngula, so I’ll add something with content only tangentially related to your post.

    Unless you didn’t get the content itself…? :<

  93. says

    opposablethumbs 97: Maybe you should read the quotes you claim are contradictions. There not! Saying I would like to see better evidence doesn’t mean, I am dismissing or claiming that there is not benefit from that action.

    anteprepro 100: 80% of all homicide in the US is done by people the person knows or has a personal relation with. It takes people you know to make a person angry enough to want to kill in four out of five homicides. Guns account for 68% of homicides. And the homicides account for 35% of gun death. So your point is what? I have already looked at these statistics and posted them on a previous post. Suicide death by guns outweighs homicide by a rate of almost 2-1! Reducing gun deaths by suicide would seem to be the greater problem. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t merit in restricting gun access as I have stated countless times I have no problem with, but if you want to take the power to choose away from states and make it a federal law you need evidence strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the state is incapable of doing this.
    http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

    Kagehi 96: In many ways I completely agree that there is a social disconnect in this country. We do have a unique factor involved the second amendment, but I find it more simplistic and almost shocking that nobody has even taken the time to look at poverty levels vs gun violence. Given that the majority of US citizens are under mountains of debt and when this country collapses we are going to be under the debt of the country. The poverty levels and raise in gun violence seem to be better correlating factors. Just 20-30 years ago it was more uncommon for families to need two working parents, now that is more and more a reality. Raising the minimum wage and reducing poverty levels will reduce welfare and violence, I haven’t gotten any argument here yet. And given that the legality of guns has been around the whole time it doesn’t correlate with the rise in violence other than it is a convenient weapon.

    Travis 104: Actually I am surprised you thought that as well. I was saying why pick only a group of countries and not all when looking at the evidence. First of all I have no illusions that the US is only comparable to first world countries, we struggle behind no first world countries in education, and other avenues as well. So it seems silly to exclude them to make a better argument. I look at it all and determine whether there is need or not. I just haven’t been presented with strong enough evidence that banning all guns will solve gun violence.

    Tony 113: I wasn’t attempting to move the goal posts, I was pointing out that I agree that better gun control is needed, but stereotyping your opposition isn’t going to produce results. Which in many of the posts or subject headings has been a constant. It seems like a disconnect between what is happening and what is relevant. For instance the Minnesota shooting I looked up the law. Apparently there is no open carry law, you need a permit to open carry or conceal carry. Well did he have one? Had his neighbors involved police to make sure it was legal when he is riding around on his mower open carrying the pistol? I understand that you have good reasons for your position. I just want to make sure that the evidence is also reflective of this. As for this post I stated simply that I didn’t conclude from the picture that it was going to teach children to carry guns. It is a person telling their view of this situation as a child in a family where this is common. I actually was pleased to see that there was no assault rifle being carried. It might be interesting or it may be a non factor. But until I have read the book I won’t condemn it. For parents who do open carry it may prove helpful in explaining to their child why they do. Maybe even for children who their parents don’t carry but their friends does, it may also help. But since I don’t know what the content is I won’t assume it is propaganda or brain washing.

    And to the rest if you assume that when someone argues your position, that they are automatically against it, that is your bad. I want to be better informed and have stronger evidence, but I won’t hold it against a person that they disagree with me. In the end I get a better more informed conclusion that can change with the evidence.

    As for the NRA, well there is some merit in their actions, but like many other organizations they tend to be too conspiratorial or over the top. So just like the Democratic or Republican party I have to analyze what they promote to determine if they are acting in a way that is beneficial to the US.

  94. says

    Correction: First of all I have no illusions that the US is only comparable to first world countries, we struggle behind no first world countries in education: it should be non first world countries.

  95. PatrickG says

    @ Wes Aaron:

    It’s really hard to engage with you seriously when you seem to fail to read your own linked material. You said:

    if you want to take the power to choose away from states and make it a federal law you need evidence strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the state is incapable of doing this.
    http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

    LOLGunCat say: “Oh hai, evidenzes. I can haz you from Wes Aaronz linky?”

    People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels

    I’d say some states seem pretty incapable of — or completely lack the desire to? — reducing gun violence, wouldn’t you? By the way, your link had absolutely nothing to do with open carry anyway. You want to know what your linked site says about open carry?

    Claims that open carrying is needed for self-defense are belied by the available research. Even when a gun is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that it is no more likely to reduce a person’s chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.3 One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim’s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.4 Instead of improving safety, open carrying needlessly increases the likelihood that everyday interpersonal conflicts will turn into deadly shootouts.

    Finally, you at 118:

    In the end I get a better more informed conclusion that can change with the evidence.

    Bullshit. You obviously don’t even read the evidence that you think supports your position. Why should we believe you’ll seriously evaluate anything said in this thread? Your claim of contrarian argument for further edification is weak sauce, son.

  96. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And to the rest if you assume that when someone argues your position, that they are automatically against it, that is your bad. I want to be better informed and have stronger evidence, but I won’t hold it against a person that they disagree with me. In the end I get a better more informed conclusion that can change with the evidence.

    Except your evidence is weak sauce compared to first world country data. Almost like you know you are lying and bullshitting, and you haven’t shown that carrying loaded weapons in any form is intrinsically safer than carrying unloaded weapons. And what makes you case total and utter bullshit apologetics is this: Nobody can study if carrying concealed/open is intrinsically safe. Which says the backers know it isn’t that safe, and must by all means foul, avoid that coming out with real and impartial evidence…..

  97. toska says

    @Wes Aaron

    As for this post I stated simply that I didn’t conclude from the picture that it was going to teach children to carry guns.

    Ok, but what about the content that Inaji posted in #6? What about the fact that the author specifically states he wrote it because there wasn’t any “pro-gun” children stories, so he wanted to fix that? I think those statements heavily imply that this book is definitely meant to be pro-gun propaganda for children.

    The problem with the picture is that the artist stereotypes their own position. Look at that nice (read “white” here), happy family. Do you really think this book would be attractive to pro-gunners if the family were black? Or would they consider that to be scary for children? That is what people are making fun of here. The prejudices of the artist and of the pro-gun subculture in general.

  98. ironflange says

    Amazon has a preview page. It’s in Comic Sans. Plus, I could pull better artwork than that out of my ass.

  99. says

    Wes Aaron @118:

    I wasn’t attempting to move the goal posts, I was pointing out that I agree that better gun control is needed, but stereotyping your opposition isn’t going to produce results.

    If that’s the case, then why did you introduce banning guns into the conversation?

    And to the rest if you assume that when someone argues your position, that they are automatically against it, that is your bad. I want to be better informed and have stronger evidence, but I won’t hold it against a person that they disagree with me. In the end I get a better more informed conclusion that can change with the evidence.

    You have used the feelings of a community to make arguments against evidence based gun control legislation.

    My position is that stricter gun control measures are needed in the United States. The goal of these measures should be to reduce firearm related violence and suicides. The goals should be informed by empirical evidence, not, as you state, the feelings of a community.

    Also, in my experience, people argue against positions that they don’t agree with.

  100. says

    This:

    As for this post I stated simply that I didn’t conclude from the picture that it was going to teach children to carry guns.

    Is really dumb. I doubt the goal of the book is to teach children to carry guns.
    The book is clearly meant to influence children into believing that it is reasonable to carry a concealed firearm. It’s meant to sway children into thinking there’s nothing wrong with carrying a gun in public. It’s a pretty damned pro-gun book.

  101. says

    Okay no more talk about banning, and since I already conceded that I am not against more gun control, why did you claim I was dismissing this? If I accept the measures are lax and in need of tweaking, and you keep arguing that I don’t understand your position, they only option I’m left with is that restrictions aren’t enough. Well that would be banning, so my bad for taking it on an unintentional tangent.

    Tony 125: You seem strongly against open carry of any kind so that would seem to be banning guns from this action. If you only want tighter gun laws then there will be communities where open carry would still be a reasonable option. As stated in one of my previous posts, if people live in more rural or mountainous areas it is more likely they will have to contend with wildlife. Mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, and many other wild animals are not only capable of attacking a person, but in many cases killing them. A rancher may have need for open carry to protect cattle, and as for people living in these communities children aren’t off limit to predators. There have and will be cases where these animals will attack and if your not armed you may be helpless to prevent a child, pet, or other small animals from these dangers. In normal city life you most likely won’t have a strong chance of being in a situation that requires this kind of defense, but even there you can find many examples where guns have protected people from those intent on doing bad. And many of those you would see as villains may be off duty police officers or military just not in uniform. You make wild assumptions that you must always assume they are dangerous, I agree that there is a rational level of caution needed, but your responses seem to border on a knee jerk reaction to the gun not the situation. Also what part about the man in Minnesota had nothing to do with open carry? The guy in Riverdale with an AR-15. Yeah these are different in their outcomes but both had a person open carrying a firearm. In the first case it wasn’t legal without a proper licence. In the second case what I found most interesting is that if he hadn’t had the AR-15 I doubt many customers would have reacted to him in the manner that they did. Even the person filming the event was only alerted to the pistol after noticing the assault rifle. As for the article it is about open carry, I looked at the website for the book for more answers. Conceal carry is really a non issue here conceal carry laws are very particular that you cannot show the weapon to anyone even if your trying to diffuse a situation, the only time you reveal the weapon is when your going to use it or if an officer asks you to show them the weapon, otherwise you aren’t allowed to keep your conceal permit, defeats the purpose of conceal carry. As for open carry, people many times children, may in their regular lives interact with these situations. You can either condemn the person or evaluate the situation without a presumption. I tend to find that the latter is less likely to lead to violence.

    And my point about only picking first world countries was simply to point out that if you include all countries the evidence loses it’s significance, and if it can’t hold up to a little scrutiny then that doesn’t qualify as strong evidence at best there is a correlation. But correlation doesn’t prove causation. You claim I want to move the goal post? I have accepted that better gun laws are needed but I am unwilling to assume that there is a blanket fix all to the problem. Guns have been in our culture from centuries before the founding of this country, so if we were more peaceful before and we aren’t now, what changed? Actually we haven’t changed much in the violence department so much as the social department. Well we live in ever expanding communities with little room and relief from the constant interaction with people who we don’t agree with or just seem to want to anger us. People spend a vast majority of their time locked away from their community. It takes far more work to make a days living, and our culture is so bound up in entertainment and avoiding reality that we have created a mass population of sheep that accept what is handed to them, because that is easier. Guns make killing easy, and we are an impatient culture. Now add to this large amounts of debt and what do you get a volatile cocktail of impatience, constant worry, and bitterness towards others. Do I think my answer is best? I’m not sure and the evidence against isn’t any better. I am looking for causal evidence not correlating evidence. I don’t dismiss the correlating evidence, I just don’t give it any special treatment until a causal link is evident. So if you think my evidence is weak, yours may also look just as weak to the opposition.

  102. anteprepro says

    Wes Aaron, Doctor of Sophisticated Gunology

    Tony 125: You seem strongly against open carry of any kind so that would seem to be banning guns from this action.

    Opposition to open carry is apparently the same as banning guns now. Because it is “banning” guns in one context. Ooooookaaaayyy..

    As stated in one of my previous posts, if people live in more rural or mountainous areas it is more likely they will have to contend with wildlife. Mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, and many other wild animals are not only capable of attacking a person, but in many cases killing them.

    And this is irrelevant. Why?

    Well let’s actually wikipedia what open carry means….

    “open carry is shorthand terminology for ‘openly carrying a firearm in public’, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer.”

    Shooting animals on your farm or something is not open carry, you disingenuous fuck. Key words are “public” and “casual observers”.

    In normal city life you most likely won’t have a strong chance of being in a situation that requires this kind of defense, but even there you can find many examples where guns have protected people from those intent on doing bad.

    And you are just going to ignore all the cases where guns help people do bad? Or where guns contribute to accidental loss of life? Or where owning a gun increases the lethality of suicide attempts?

    You make wild assumptions that you must always assume they are dangerous, I agree that there is a rational level of caution needed, but your responses seem to border on a knee jerk reaction to the gun not the situation.

    Absolute projection. You are the one saying that the world is dangerous enough that people are justified to carry guns with them at all fucking times. Who is the one making wild assumptions about dangers here?

    Conceal carry is really a non issue here conceal carry laws are very particular that you cannot show the weapon to anyone even if your trying to diffuse a situation, the only time you reveal the weapon is when your going to use it or if an officer asks you to show them the weapon,

    Absolute bullshit. You aren’t allowed to brandish your weapon to intimidate people, true. You are allowed to brandish your weapon in a situation that would be considered “self-defense” aka “to diffuse a situation”.

    And my point about only picking first world countries was simply to point out that if you include all countries the evidence loses it’s significance, and if it can’t hold up to a little scrutiny then that doesn’t qualify as strong evidence at best there is a correlation.

    Confounding. Variables. You. Shithead.

    But correlation doesn’t prove causation.

    I fucking hate this phrase. Because idiots like Wes Aaron always use it as an excuse to dismiss facts whenever they want to stop thinking.

    Guns have been in our culture from centuries before the founding of this country, so if we were more peaceful before and we aren’t now, what changed?

    We were more peaceful then!? Who fucking says that? Duels? Slaughter of Indians? A fucking Revolution and then a fucking Civil War?

    But aside from that: technology! Guns got more lethal! Which is why a scoff at people who defend their “right” to Glocks due to laws written in the era of the fucking musket.

    Guns make killing easy, and we are an impatient culture.

    The bold part is the important part. Yet you spend all your focus on the “impatient culture”. Oh yes, foolish us for focusing on the danger of guns themselves, when it is so obvious that your faux-sociology and armchair cultural psychological assessment is the REAL way of getting to the root of the problem. Gun apologia just makes someone an expert on everything, doesn’t it?

    Do I think my answer is best? I’m not sure and the evidence against isn’t any better.

    I just heard the burden of proof quietly weeping over in the corner.

    I am looking for causal evidence not correlating evidence.

    Hahahaha. You are pulling possible answers out of your ass as an excuse to dismiss actual data. “Causal evidence”? Bull fucking shit.

    I don’t dismiss the correlating evidence, I just don’t give it any special treatment until a causal link is evident.

    America has shitty gun control and a lot of guns and a lot of gun deaths.
    Other Western First World countries have good control, a various amount of guns, and much less gun deaths.

    No causal link evident? You are a fucking denialist.

  103. anteprepro says

    Also, let me just highlight this bizarre “exchange”:

    Wes Aaron making apologies for Gun Fetishists:

    I’m not against this or banning guns outright if the majority agrees that is for the best, I just think it is obvious that you’re stereotyping them because they don’t agree with you. But if you think that ignoring what people care about for their safety and community is the best approach. They should just get over it. Well that is their problem. You just miss the point. I won’t condemn someone just because they grew up with different views than me, only their actions should be reason to condemn.

    Me at 100:

    Your bullshit about Americans obsessed with guns being concerned about their safety or just having different opinions or whatever is sheer NRA apologia. They only need guns because other people needs. Their opinions is what has poisoned our politics such that true gun control is impossible and made us an outlier among first world countries with a massive murder rate.

    Wes Aaron, supposedly replying to me:

    80% of all homicide in the US is done by people the person knows or has a personal relation with. It takes people you know to make a person angry enough to want to kill in four out of five homicides. Guns account for 68% of homicides. And the homicides account for 35% of gun death. So your point is what? I have already looked at these statistics and posted them on a previous post. Suicide death by guns outweighs homicide by a rate of almost 2-1

    80% of all homicide being done by someone you know kinda puts the lie to the claim that people need to walking around in public with guns for their own personal safety. Guns accounting for 68% of homicides also puts the lie to the claim that guns aren’t dangerous and makes the whole argument of “I need guns to defend myself” circular. People need guns because other people have guns. That is basically the entire defense of guns.

  104. says

    daz @112

    Tashiliciously Shriked
    Twas your content I didn’t get. But then I seem to be going through some sort of misreading-things patch lately so it’s quite probably me not you.

    Let me try and make it coherent in a non sarcastic way.

    People in a position of privilege, especially historical kinds, are resistant to the idea of losing or even sharing that privilege. When couched in an extremely fearfull (as in full of fear, I am using poetic license (and also explaining it so you can’t grammar-soviet me (I may have promised to not be sarcastic, but I didn’t promise to not be snarky (not at you in, general))))) manner, the people who hold privilege are more likely to seeing any sharing or taking in a negative light. The ongoing marriage debate is a good example of this

    I would possit that a lot of the popular support of the opposition to same sex marriage can probably be attributed to a lot of religious families with a historical privilege of marriage being driven with fear at their historical culture being “threatened”. That was a long sentence I’m sorry.

    With gun control, there is a lot of fear of criminals and (among a non-insubstantial subset of pro-gun people) immigrants/non-themselves (which can include citizens of the same country, except of a different race or religion. The privileged advocate himself is a representative of the proper identity of all true Scotsmen). It can almost be described as the paranoid notion of the barbarian at the gates (a fitting metaphor considering white flight). Now, you’d want a gun to protect yourself with in that kind of atmosphere when you never what gangbanger, drugrunner, pusher, pimp, serial killer or crazy person you’ll run into. *they* will be, after all.

    So you gotta wear your gun loud and proud, like a police officer, or a soldier, or a freedom fighter, or what have you. Those undesirable elements of course can’t legally carry a gun, they’re all *criminals* (or crazy people), which means you’ll always be on top of them if they go for a weapon. That fear you’ll instill in them (and of course your crack aim and solid nerves) will more than make you safe, especially if there are other people *just like you* packing heat nearby. And *only* just like you.

    That more people will die in general is sad, but a small price to pay to protect your safety, and the safety of everyone you love (and looks and lives like you). You owning a gun making your loved ones more likely to die in an accident or suicide (some of those suicides will also never become suicide-by-other-means. I seem to recall a Canadian study from five-ten years ago about the efects of the long-arms registry that went into this)) is seen as a tragic cost that happens to other people.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/scrapping-the-long-gun-registry-some-relevant-numbers-1.861912

    Number wise, from 1991, the year gun control was strongly implemented, the number of firearm homicide was 271 (total, so .97 per 100,000 population) and in 2010, when the federal longarms registry was scrapped was 170 (.5 per 100,000 population. (Disingenuously, the article bolds this number as 32%(111eleventyone!) of all murders, while declining to mention how many it was in 1991) ).

    These numbers aren’t huge, granted, but even saving 100 lives is worth some fucking registration on par with driving a goddamn motor vehicles.

    Which reminds me; whenever someone brings up cars as an example in gun debates I always want to slap a fucking driving school book and test in their faces and scream incoherently about how minimum training, followup, registration, aptitude test, and legal penalties applied to breaking those rules (often as a misdemeanor and not even criminal) are expected of vehicles which *can* kill people and not to firearms which are *only designed to be really good at killing things*.

    Now, the second part;

    I meant to link to a song by an english folk metal band called Skyclad, because on one of their albums they had a re-reading of the opening of “War of the Worlds”, except as businessmen and corporations as the object. It was a wonderful turn of a phrase I wanted to borrow and attribute and also lend a kind of sneering damnation in the description. It was a good joke, I’m sorry it didn’t work.

    Returning to privilege; those with the most of it in our current culture and economy are the 1%. Or even the 1% of the 1%. Money talks and makes friends, and can buy you a lot of voice. And they sure as fuck don’t want to see a decrease in *their* privilege.

    Because, remember, as much as the religious families are afraid of a shadow, the privileged top few *know* they’re going to lose a lot of their shit. They can’t not, they’ve been getting away with literally every single crime in the book because they can. The gravy train needs to keep rolling, and they can’t let any of that infinite (but ever so small and empty and frightningly *finite* it seems to those that much of anything) wealth and party go.

    Luckily, money talks, and they get to tell their bestest buddies, who are *also* really rich and powerful and privileged men, and those buddies tell *theirs*, and suddenly twelve hundred decides with the voices of four billion.

    The GOP especially, and our politics in general, is running on fear just as much as the consumerist society is. And the people at the top of the consumerist society are really good golf buddies with those politicians. Money and golf games talk.

    So you wanna keep your privilege going, and you’re using the fear of the loss of none of it for the plebes beneath you to fuel your own on the backs of the rest of the world. And any kind of fear of the other serves into that.

    So, to relate to your post tangentially;

    If guns kill people easily, then I need more of *my* people holding them and none of *not* my people holding them. After all, either you die from the gun, or you use it to kill everyone who isn’t Scottish.

    if i was *really* smart, I’d have turned this into a shaggy dog post.

    feel free to kill me.

  105. says

    Tashiliciously Shriked 131

    Wow. That’s a helluva long comment to clear up a misunderstanding. I’m flattered. (Really, I am; no snark intended.) And yeah, I agree.

    On the subject of the car-related-metaphor my favourite is traffic lights. Quite clearly they are an unconscionable limitation of freedom of movement!!! Scrap them at once!!11!!!! Because obviously, no liberties should ever be bounded by law in the name of public safety.

  106. forestdragon says

    You know, it’s really sad when a stand-up comedian seems to have the best idea for gun control – five thousand bucks per bullet.

    People keep saying a gun’s a tool – sure, a tool for killing things. AKA, a weapon. Comparing cars to guns is like comparing apples to lawnmowers. How about comparing them to other weapons, say, knives? Or if you must compare ranged weaponry, how about bows/crossbows? You have to load each shot separately and it’s very obvious if the weapon is loaded. They’re also used for hunting and target shooting, but there’s damn few stories of accidental bow shootings and I’ve yet to hear about drive-by bowshootings or somebody running amuck at a school/business/mall with a crossbow.

  107. says

    Wes Aaron:

    You seem strongly against open carry of any kind so that would seem to be banning guns from this action.

    I’m not advocating for banning guns and I think it’s pretty smarmy of you to say that in a gun discussion. All too often, pro gun advocates complain about “banning guns”, when that’s not on the table. For the thousandth time-I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS.
    I oppose open carry laws (where’s the evidence that supports this as a reasonable position?) because public safety trumps the imagined fears of gun toting 2nd Amendment worshipers.

  108. says

    Wes Aaron:

    You make wild assumptions that you must always assume they are dangerous, I agree that there is a rational level of caution needed, but your responses seem to border on a knee jerk reaction to the gun not the situation.

    Fuck off with this shit. That’s not what I’ve said. What I have said, several times now, is that there is no way to determine who is a “good guy with a gun” and who is a “bad guy with a gun”. When open carry advocates walk into a Target toting their weapons, how the hell is anyone supposed to know that these are responsible gun owners? They’re walking around with weapons developed for the purpose of killing people. Yes, that’s unnerving to say the least. And it’s not a knee jerk reaction to be fearful of someone walking around with guns. You don’t need them in Target, McDonald’s, or most of your day to day duties. I’m not talking about off duty police officers, or members of the military. I’m not talking about ranchers either.

  109. Menyambal says

    Wes Aaron, guns have not been a part of this nation, the USA, in any substantial way. Yeah, the frontiersmen carried guns, but the city-builders were close behind, and didn’t have guns. The cowboys didn’t have gunfights — the shootout at the OK Corral was very uncommon, and was triggered (heh) by the refusal to turn in guns while in town … and we still know the name of it because it was so rare.

    The whole gun mythos is being pushed by the NRA, and by a nostalgic conservative base who look back to the 1950s, which was spent looking back at when men were mythical men. The NRA is a shill for the gun industry, and for itself, of course.

    Even the NRA knows how different guns were back in the 1780s, but they carefully fail to make the fact obvious to their membership. A recent American Rifleman article covered just how expensive guns were then, how slow they were to load, and how incredibly inaccurate they were — then skipped over all the implications, while the rest of the magazine raved about 2nd Amendment gun rights.

  110. vaiyt says

    You are allowed to brandish your weapon in a situation that would be considered “self-defense” aka “to diffuse a situation”.

    Which won’t work if the other guy thinks just like you, because they’ll see you brandishing a gun as a reason to brandish their own gun. Congratulations, you just escalated the situation instead of defusing it!

  111. says

    Hmm. Had an amusing thought. There is a book I read recently called “How Sarah became a nudist.” The premise behind it was that people could choose “lifestyles” which would be protected by a specific government agency, but that, as a result of the usual bureaucratic idiocies, when created these “lifestyles” granted tax breaks, and special privileges, exclusive to that group. People, of course, cheated, so, again, the brain damaged people in the government decided to stop the cheating by mandating specific requirements for those that registered a lifestyle. In the case of nudists, it meant you could now be arrested for a) owning, b) wearing, or c) buying clothes, of any kind, other than shoes.

    So, maybe open carry people would be, I don’t know.. not allowed to own, wear, or buy bullet proof vests, or other forms of protection, or, for that matter, attempt to hide behind objects, or other people, to avoid bullets. Assuming they somehow survived, they would be arrested for breaking the law, as per their registered life style. lol

    (The most disturbing thing about the book was just how plausible, to me at least, it could be for some moron to go from passing a law to, say, protect evangelicals from being forced to confront evolution, or the like, to such a law being extended to protect everyone from things that offended them, somehow, to the circus we call government deciding they don’t want people “cheating the system”, to finally robbing people of rights (such a owning clothing, in the case of the book’s story), while claiming to be “protecting them”. But, it would be just.. amusing as all heck if the “gun nut” lifestyle had similar blindingly stupid requirements, don’t you think? ;)

Leave a Reply