Virginia declares emergency Militias threaten to seize Gov.

[Vassenor]

National Guard are under the control of the State, not Federal.

I’m saying who would it fall too if the state government wasn’t available to take control.

There is more to the State government than just the Governor.

[The Lone Alliance]

Because you don't have any.

It's a fool's errand anyway, you can't factually verify intent.

I did finally find something about gun violence and economic inequality that shows that a far more effective way of gun control would be to simply reduce income inequality to the point that less people commit suicide, murder, or other crimes of necessity.

https://zachmortensen.net/2018/02/20/yo ... -one-will/

And their solution is to reduce income inequality to reduce the causes for gun violence....

That sounds pretty leftist right?

It's an interesting study but it'd be hard to prove but under their belief if the US had the income equality of Canada murders would be cut nearly in half.

I know you libertarians will boo and hiss at the idea of welfare but that's not for you.

[Telconi]

It's a fool's errand anyway, you can't factually verify intent.

I did finally find something about gun violence and economic inequality that shows that a far more effective way of gun control would be to simply reduce income inequality to the point that less people commit suicide, murder, or other crimes of necessity.

https://zachmortensen.net/2018/02/20/yo ... -one-will/

And their solution is to reduce income inequality to reduce the causes for gun violence....

That sounds pretty leftist right?

Boom.

You don't have to ban guns

While I certainly have issues with the stated objective, I would agree that improving people's lot in life and thus reducing the desire to commit violence is certainly a superior alternative to ham-fisted gun bans.

[The Lone Alliance]

While I certainly have issues with the stated objective, I would agree that improving people's lot in life and thus reducing the desire to commit violence is certainly a superior alternative to ham-fisted gun bans.

There's another article of theirs I'm reading through pointing out that game theory supports CCWs.
https://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/15/sh ... ay-a-game/

And for the hell of it:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ed-states/

I've gone through the Pew research on gun control and I find it very interesting that 57% of homes have no guns and 60% of people support further gun control.

Which leads me to wonder if 57% of that 60% are part of the people who own no guns.

Considering 72% of gun owners say they could never see themselves not owning a gun, that makes it clear that at least the vast majority of gun owners own a gun because they believe they have a need too.

And since the greatest need listed is protection I have to assume that's because most gun owners own guns for protection.

So that means that gun owners who are the least likely to support a total 'gun ban' and more strict gun control because the vast majority of them outright believe they would never give up at least one gun.

So that leaves only the people who own no guns who would support increased gun control up to a total total gun ban.

And for that we have to wonder what kind of people would not own a gun for protection.

Well there are the people who don't like guns of course but they aren't the vast majority, no the vast majority of a reason you wouldn't own a gun is because you live somewhere where you don't need a gun.

Likely a nice safe community with a good police force, middle or upper middle class, maybe even rich, a place where the only crime you have to worry about is the occasional car break in or some domestic violence incident.

Or someone deciding to play target practice while you're shopping at Target.

So of course those people would support an outright gun ban, for them they don't need a gun and they can't see why anyone else would want a gun. They don't hunt they go to the grocery store, they don't need to protect themselves because they have security guards and the police are barely 5 minutes away, and for them the government will never become tyrannical because for them the government doesn't see them as a problem. For them the only threat of guns is a mass shooter.

So it'd be quite easy to convince them that more gun control and banning guns is the solution to all their problems because they don't really have any problems in the first place.

Now let's pull out the Guardian 2015 gun survey (Which let's be honest is likely inaccurate because I'm sure if the Guardian asked all of you guys if you owned guns you'd all tell them you lost them in a boating accident)
https://interactive.guim.co.uk/embed/20 ... r-heatmap/

Okay mostly rural followed by suburban.

There's a wealth gap too but that's to be expected because guns aren't cheap.

Funny enough they found there were a growing group of minorities and women who were buying handguns for protection... which likely means they live and work in an area where they need said protection.

So I've argued about what part of the country doesn't need guns, let's argue what parts of the country would need a gun for protection?

Rural is a good place to start, remote locations where no one can hear you scream, police can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to show up.... if someone wanted to do harm to a rural person and they're physically capable well anyone without a gun is shit out of luck.

So banning guns is obviously not supported out there and for them banning guns only puts their lives at risk.

And then we have the other category, poor people in high crime areas.

Which I'm sure for them guns is a mixed bag, they can't count on the police to protect them because they're poor and thus unimportant, hell if they're a minority they're far more likely to fear the police for all the right reasons. So again if you can't trust the police then it's no surprise they might have a gun.

Some might support gun control because they believe it'll get more guns off the streets but quite frankly there's been little evidence that it actually works, we haven't been able to keep drugs off the streets what's to suggest we'd do any better with guns?

[Tarsonis]

Clearly not, considering 90+% of the fucking state is rallying against him and the Dems in office.

Dirt and crops don’t vote

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny

[Tarsonis]

Oh yes the poor farmer Is being oppressed by the evil city folk. Do stop this utter nonsense

Why do you repeatedly call us farmers? Besides, we are being oppressed. It is our right to own guns and to do so without infringement.

Because San looks down on them.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Because San looks down on them.

San is an urban Jewish liberal. A walking caricature in fact. It's only to be expected.

[Tarsonis]

Because San looks down on them.

San is an urban Jewish liberal. A walking caricature in fact. It's only to be expected.

Not sure what being Jewish has to do with anything

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Not sure what being Jewish has to do with anything

It can't, because that would be *gasp* anti-semitic!

[Tarsonis]

Not sure what being Jewish has to do with anything

It can't, because that would be *gasp* anti-semitic!

Well, given that there are plenty of non-Jewish urban liberals who thumb their noses at the people they think of as peasants, there's no reason to make the correlation to Judaism beyond anti-semitism that I can think of. And since you declined to provide one, well you know what they say about ducks and hand grenades

[The Lone Alliance]

Well, given that there are plenty of non-Jewish urban liberals who thumb their noses at the people they think of as peasants, there's no reason to make the correlation to Judaism beyond anti-semitism that I can think of. And since you declined to provide one, well you know what they say about ducks and hand grenades

Is it the same rule behind not feeding them bread except more explosive?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Well, given that there are plenty of non-Jewish urban liberals who thumb their noses at the people they think of as peasants, there's no reason to make the correlation to Judaism beyond anti-semitism that I can think of. And since you declined to provide one, well you know what they say about ducks and hand grenades

American Jews are essentially a race of urban liberals. I can't believe that's somehow a surprise to you.

[Tarsonis]

Well, given that there are plenty of non-Jewish urban liberals who thumb their noses at the people they think of as peasants, there's no reason to make the correlation to Judaism beyond anti-semitism that I can think of. And since you declined to provide one, well you know what they say about ducks and hand grenades

American Jews are essentially a race of urban liberals. I can't believe that's somehow a surprise to you.

Because the stereotype is no more true than saying blacks are a race of urban liberals. And it's not that I was shocked, its that i take umbrage with people who make comments agreeing with me while incorporating their bigoted nonsense. It's hard enough defending my positions without having then tainted by association.

[Bombadil]

Ultimately the move is counter-productive, instead of being able to manage the day with the goodwill of a majority of protestors they've likely inflamed the issue, lost majority support among those attending and attracted even more of those who'd look to stir trouble by making such a news item of it.

[Tarsonis]

Ultimately the move is counter-productive, instead of being able to manage the day with the goodwill of a majority of protestors they've likely inflamed the issue, lost majority support among those attending and attracted even more of those who'd look to stir trouble by making such a news item of it.

The electric boogaloo is coming

[The Lone Alliance]

Ultimately the move is counter-productive, instead of being able to manage the day with the goodwill of a majority of protestors they've likely inflamed the issue, lost majority support among those attending and attracted even more of those who'd look to stir trouble by making such a news item of it.

The electric boogaloo is coming

I wonder if Tasers are going to be banned?

If all the protesters brought tasers that'd technically not be deadly weapons but it would be enough to taze any nut that tries to start something violent.

[Vassenor]

Ultimately the move is counter-productive, instead of being able to manage the day with the goodwill of a majority of protestors they've likely inflamed the issue, lost majority support among those attending and attracted even more of those who'd look to stir trouble by making such a news item of it.

By doing what? Preparing for the worst case scenario?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Because the stereotype is no more true than saying blacks are a race of urban liberals. And it's not that I was shocked, its that i take umbrage with people who make comments agreeing with me while incorporating their bigoted nonsense. It's hard enough defending my positions without having then tainted by association.

Now you're just being obtuse. American Jews are much wealthier and better educated than your typical American, while also being predominantly liberal Democrat voters. Blacks vote for the Democrats sure, but the majority live in the more rural South and it'd be hell of a stretch to consider them elitists. I'm actually surprised there aren't more active liberal Jews here, but I guess they have better things to do than post in Nationstates forums.

[Bombadil]

Ultimately the move is counter-productive, instead of being able to manage the day with the goodwill of a majority of protestors they've likely inflamed the issue, lost majority support among those attending and attracted even more of those who'd look to stir trouble by making such a news item of it.

By doing what? Preparing for the worst case scenario?

The worst case scenario is everyone turning up angry and armed in defiance. If they'd simply highlighted the threat, engaged in dialogue with the protest leaders and managed things out at least there'd be less of a case to say 'they're oppressing our rights, to war..' as opposed to declaring a state of emergency, because people will bring weapons and there will be violent confrontation now.

Again, to be fair, I don't know the extent of the threats and organisation but, honestly, I doubt anyone would really storm the legislature, these people are all mouth and no action in general.

[Albrenia]

The electric boogaloo is coming

I wonder if Tasers are going to be banned?

If all the protesters brought tasers that'd technically not be deadly weapons but it would be enough to taze any nut that tries to start something violent.

I don't even know if Tasers count as guns, since they lack most of the hallmarks of a gun outside of the general handgun-ish shape. Yet another point of US laws I am ignorant of.

[Tarsonis]

Because the stereotype is no more true than saying blacks are a race of urban liberals. And it's not that I was shocked, its that i take umbrage with people who make comments agreeing with me while incorporating their bigoted nonsense. It's hard enough defending my positions without having then tainted by association.

Now you're just being obtuse. American Jews are much wealthier and better educated than your typical American, while also being predominantly liberal Democrat voters. Blacks vote for the Democrats sure, but the majority live in the more rural South and it'd be hell of a stretch to consider them elitists. I'm actually surprised there aren't more active liberal Jews here, but I guess they have better things to do than post in Nationstates forums.

And again, and irrelevant point because the views stated aren't held solely or majorly by urban Jewish liberals but urban liberals in general. The specification of Jewish is completely pointless outside of denigrating said group.

[The Two Jerseys]

I did finally find something about gun violence and economic inequality that shows that a far more effective way of gun control would be to simply reduce income inequality to the point that less people commit suicide, murder, or other crimes of necessity.

https://zachmortensen.net/2018/02/20/yo ... -one-will/

And their solution is to reduce income inequality to reduce the causes for gun violence....

That sounds pretty leftist right?

Boom.

You don't have to ban guns

While I certainly have issues with the stated objective, I would agree that improving people's lot in life and thus reducing the desire to commit violence is certainly a superior alternative to ham-fisted gun bans.

But they can't do that, because if the serfs become economically self-sufficient they might start voting Republican.

[Vassenor]

By doing what? Preparing for the worst case scenario?

The worst case scenario is everyone turning up angry and armed in defiance. If they'd simply highlighted the threat, engaged in dialogue with the protest leaders and managed things out at least there'd be less of a case to say 'they're oppressing our rights, to war..' as opposed to declaring a state of emergency, because people will bring weapons and there will be violent confrontation now.

Again, to be fair, I don't know the extent of the threats and organisation but, honestly, I doubt anyone would really storm the legislature, these people are all mouth and no action in general.

So basically the side that keeps engaging in alarmist rhetoric about how the state is coming for their guns any day now is engaging in alarmist rhetoric about how this protest is going to go and we're acting like the state is at fault for not pandering to them.

[Greed and Death]

I’m saying who would it fall too if the state government wasn’t available to take control.

There is more to the State government than just the Governor.

The National guard aren't relevant Trump nationalized them and sent them to the Mideast.

[Risottia]

So NSG what are your opinions.

Snax Rebellion 2: Virginian Boogaloo.