American Politics: Speaker's Corner

[Valrifall]

Blame the Dems for hating guns

Pretty much. People keep asking why gun owners don't rally to the side of the Dems or leftists whenever something bad happens to them but no shit they're not gonna risk life and limb for you when you'll turn around and try to restrict their rights lol. Dems made enemies of gun owners, you can't expect them to come rushing to your aid after spending decades trying to roll back every single compromise ever made and constantly find new things to ban.

It's not about that, really, it's more to do with the fact that the militias and gun-owners are still predominately right-wing, so those folks are just flat-out more likely to agree with the GOP whenever they target people. Like, guns are still an effective partisan indicator and I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that all these people would just convert to Democratic politics if they became more 2A friendly. My understanding is that anti-communism is still dominant in those circles, in spite of trends of minorities and leftist buying more guns of late.

[Ifreann]

Trying to pretend trivia is a delineating factor in the conversation is threadbare.

How do I put this in a way you'll relate to.

Imagine a person who has never seen a movie before, hysterically screaming that Ed Wood was the greatest director whoever lived, and calling everybody who disagrees stupid.

That's essentially what San is doing here in relation to guns.

I mean, Lumen certainly tends towards hysteria, but he's not far from wrong. The Washington Post recently published a graphic and disturbing report about the nature of the physical damage inflicted upon the human body by the .223 Remington(5.56 NATO) round as fired from an AR-15 style rifle.

Any bullet can kill, and instantly, when it hits a vital organ. The higher speed of a bullet from an AR-15 causes far more damage after it hits the body and drastically reduces a person’s chances of survival.

“As that bullet slows down,” said trauma surgeon Babak Sarani, an authority on casualties from mass killings, “that energy is so massive it has to go someplace, and your body will literally tear apart.”

What follows is the graphic recreation of the fatal gunshot wounds suffered by Noah Pozner, aged 6, who died at Sandy Hook, and Cadet Peter Wang, aged 15, who died at Parkland.

[Tarsonis]

You can't say that something isn't dictatorial cause legislature voted on it. Expusling three Dems for protesting when they didn't even do anything violent is absolutely undemocratic. There's been plenty off far right dictatorial governments thats voted on absolutely barbaric things.

Elections have consequences.

[What is the world really]

You can't say that something isn't dictatorial cause legislature voted on it. Expusling three Dems for protesting when they didn't even do anything violent is absolutely undemocratic. There's been plenty off far right dictatorial governments thats voted on absolutely barbaric things.

Two* They kicked out the two black men but kept the white lady, which is a bit on the nose if you ask me.

[Bombadil]

You can't say that something isn't dictatorial cause legislature voted on it. Expusling three Dems for protesting when they didn't even do anything violent is absolutely undemocratic. There's been plenty off far right dictatorial governments thats voted on absolutely barbaric things.

Elections have consequences.

Elections are consequences as well, something the Republicans are going to learn as they continue to lose at a national level.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pretty much. People keep asking why gun owners don't rally to the side of the Dems or leftists whenever something bad happens to them but no shit they're not gonna risk life and limb for you when you'll turn around and try to restrict their rights lol. Dems made enemies of gun owners, you can't expect them to come rushing to your aid after spending decades trying to roll back every single compromise ever made and constantly find new things to ban.

It's not about that, really, it's more to do with the fact that the militias and gun-owners are still predominately right-wing, so those folks are just flat-out more likely to agree with the GOP whenever they target people. Like, guns are still an effective partisan indicator and I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that all these people would just convert to Democratic politics if they became more 2A friendly. My understanding is that anti-communism is still dominant in those circles, in spite of trends of minorities and leftist buying more guns of late.

Oh yeah I'd wager probably 60-70% of the gun owning base would still remain solid Republican voters even if the Dems totally dropped the topic, but especially nowadays even gaining one or two million more solid voters could near permanently (at least until the party dies and rebuilds itself) lock the GOP out of power federally. Not like it'll happen of course, but a broad base of non-Trumpist voters is hypothetically possible for the Dems to assemble.

[Bombadil]

It's not about that, really, it's more to do with the fact that the militias and gun-owners are still predominately right-wing, so those folks are just flat-out more likely to agree with the GOP whenever they target people. Like, guns are still an effective partisan indicator and I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that all these people would just convert to Democratic politics if they became more 2A friendly. My understanding is that anti-communism is still dominant in those circles, in spite of trends of minorities and leftist buying more guns of late.

Oh yeah I'd wager probably 60-70% of the gun owning base would still remain solid Republican voters even if the Dems totally dropped the topic, but especially nowadays even gaining one or two million more solid voters could near permanently (at least until the party dies and rebuilds itself) lock the GOP out of power federally. Not like it'll happen of course, but a broad base of non-Trumpist voters is hypothetically possible for the Dems to assemble.

The gun debate is relatively low as a factor for voting, the top two are inflation, if you're Republican, and abortion, if you're Democrat, both at around 30%.. gun control is about 6%.

It's not really the factor that will swing elections.

[Tarsonis]

How do I put this in a way you'll relate to.

Imagine a person who has never seen a movie before, hysterically screaming that Ed Wood was the greatest director whoever lived, and calling everybody who disagrees stupid.

That's essentially what San is doing here in relation to guns.

I mean, Lumen certainly tends towards hysteria, but he's not far from wrong. The Washington Post recently published a graphic and disturbing report about the nature of the physical damage inflicted upon the human body by the .223 Remington(5.56 NATO) round as fired from an AR-15 style rifle.

Any bullet can kill, and instantly, when it hits a vital organ. The higher speed of a bullet from an AR-15 causes far more damage after it hits the body and drastically reduces a person’s chances of survival.

“As that bullet slows down,” said trauma surgeon Babak Sarani, an authority on casualties from mass killings, “that energy is so massive it has to go someplace, and your body will literally tear apart.”

What follows is the graphic recreation of the fatal gunshot wounds suffered by Noah Pozner, aged 6, who died at Sandy Hook, and Cadet Peter Wang, aged 15, who died at Parkland.

Yeah, I taught marksmanship in the USMC, I'm fully aware of the capabilities of the M-16 and it's civilian model, the AR-15. It's a great red herring, but the lethality of the AR-15 really has nothing to do with

1. Level of causalities in a mass shooting incident*
2. Mass shootings happening in the first place.


*With the exception of the Las Vegas shooting, in which case weapon capability was the direct factor in body count.


Also, nit pick but the NATO 5.56 is not the same as the Remington .223. They're similar but the 5.56 is a bit more powerful.

[Zurkerx]

Elections have consequences.

Elections are consequences as well, something the Republicans are going to learn as they continue to lose at a national level.

That's if they don't make it harder for people to vote or continue to make rule changes that benefit them. Or gerrymandered to the point where the opposition can't win.

But if this doesn't motivate people to vote, especially younger Americans, then we're in trouble though the GOP's actions on abortion especially has become rallying crime for voters, and I think this incident will be used as well. If Democrats can get those kinds of voters to vote for them, not just on the Federal Level, but also the State and Local Level, then maybe it would force the GOP to change.

[Tarsonis]

Elections have consequences.

Elections are consequences as well, something the Republicans are going to learn as they continue to lose at a national level.

Sure, but that doesn't refute the point.

[Bombadil]

Elections are consequences as well, something the Republicans are going to learn as they continue to lose at a national level.

That's if they don't make it harder for people to vote or continue to make rule changes that benefit them. Or gerrymandered to the point where the opposition can't win.

But if this doesn't motivate people to vote, especially younger Americans, then we're in trouble though the GOP's actions on abortion especially has become rallying crime for voters, and I think this incident will be used as well. If Democrats can get those kinds of voters to vote for them, not just on the Federal Level, but also the State and Local Level, then maybe it would force the GOP to change.

The base controls the Republicans and the base are in their own little local bubbles where they're winning. I don't think the Republican leadership can do much to change things.

The abortion issue, especially, is not going to go away, it might feel like a victory for Republicans right now but it's going to hurt them at the national level for years to come. It's not just the fact that they did it but the way that they did it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Oh yeah I'd wager probably 60-70% of the gun owning base would still remain solid Republican voters even if the Dems totally dropped the topic, but especially nowadays even gaining one or two million more solid voters could near permanently (at least until the party dies and rebuilds itself) lock the GOP out of power federally. Not like it'll happen of course, but a broad base of non-Trumpist voters is hypothetically possible for the Dems to assemble.

The gun debate is relatively low as a factor for voting, the top two are inflation, if you're Republican, and abortion, if you're Democrat, both at around 30%.. gun control is about 6%.

It's not really the factor that will swing elections.

Oh yeah in the grand scheme of things there aren't a massive amount of gun voters, probably 6 or 7 million, but those who are tend to vote very regularly with it as their primary issue. With the numbers the GOP is pulling nowadays even leeching a quarter of them off would be bad news for them given they seem determined to lose everyone outside the most core parts of their base.

[Ifreann]

I mean, Lumen certainly tends towards hysteria, but he's not far from wrong. The Washington Post recently published a graphic and disturbing report about the nature of the physical damage inflicted upon the human body by the .223 Remington(5.56 NATO) round as fired from an AR-15 style rifle.

What follows is the graphic recreation of the fatal gunshot wounds suffered by Noah Pozner, aged 6, who died at Sandy Hook, and Cadet Peter Wang, aged 15, who died at Parkland.

Yeah, I taught marksmanship in the USMC, I'm fully aware of the capabilities of the M-16 and it's civilian model, the AR-15.

With all due respect, are you? Teaching Marines how to get shots on target would, to my very civilian perspective, seem to be a very different matter to trying to deal with a body perforated by multiple .223 rounds.

It's a great red herring, but the lethality of the AR-15 really has nothing to do with

1. Level of causalities in a mass shooting incident*
2. Mass shootings happening in the first place.


*With the exception of the Las Vegas shooting, in which case weapon capability was the direct factor in body count.

I certainly don't think it's reasonable to say that mass shootings happen because this pattern of rifle is available to the general public. But it seems like a stretch to say that the casualty numbers have nothing to do with the efficacy of the weapon used.

[Tarsonis]

Yeah, I taught marksmanship in the USMC, I'm fully aware of the capabilities of the M-16 and it's civilian model, the AR-15.

With all due respect, are you? Teaching Marines how to get shots on target would, to my very civilian perspective, seem to be a very different matter to trying to deal with a body perforated by multiple .223 rounds.

"Dealing with the body" would be combat life saver, but yes the marksmanship course deals with far more than just hitting the black on an echo target at 500 yards.

Further, my job also had me, on occasion working with MPs on how to react to an active shooter at the civilian schools on base. I wouldn't call myself an "expert " but I know more than the average bear.

It's a great red herring, but the lethality of the AR-15 really has nothing to do with

1. Level of causalities in a mass shooting incident*
2. Mass shootings happening in the first place.


*With the exception of the Las Vegas shooting, in which case weapon capability was the direct factor in body count.

I certainly don't think it's reasonable to say that mass shootings happen because this pattern of rifle is available to the general public. But it seems like a stretch to say that the casualty numbers have nothing to do with the efficacy of the weapon used.

Nothing to do, in so much as to differentiate it with any other weapon. Despite what critics like to suggest, the AR-15 really isn't all that special. At ranges of 50 feet or less, like you'll typically find in a school, it really doesn't matter what weapon is used. A pistol or a shotgun will be just as, honestly if not more, effective than an AR-15. People are generally allergic to bullets. That some guns better at firing them than othersx doesn't really matter in an environment like a school with contained kill areas, and hallways that funnel traffic. A person with intent and anything more advanced than brown bess, is capable of walking into a school and causing wanton destruction.

I identified Vegas as an example because that is the rare occurrence where body count is directly linked to weapon capabilities., i.e a man in an elevated position unloading modified long guns into a crowd at 300 yards.

[The Black Forrest]

[
Nothing to do, in so much as to differentiate it with any other weapon. Despite what critics like to suggest, the AR-15 really isn't all that special. At ranges of 50 feet or less, like you'll typically find in a school, it really doesn't matter what weapon is used. A pistol or a shotgun will be just as, honestly if not more, effective than an AR-15. I identified Vegas as an example because that is the rare occurrence where body count is directly linked to body count, i.e a man in an elevated position unloading modified long guns into a crowd at 300 yards.

It seems to be the weapon of choice for those seeing to go out in a “blaze of glory”. I forgot where I read the article; it said 5 of the top 10 mass shootings were AR-15 style weapons.

Do they keep stats of the weapons involved with shootings?

[Washington Resistance Army]

[
Nothing to do, in so much as to differentiate it with any other weapon. Despite what critics like to suggest, the AR-15 really isn't all that special. At ranges of 50 feet or less, like you'll typically find in a school, it really doesn't matter what weapon is used. A pistol or a shotgun will be just as, honestly if not more, effective than an AR-15. I identified Vegas as an example because that is the rare occurrence where body count is directly linked to body count, i.e a man in an elevated position unloading modified long guns into a crowd at 300 yards.

It seems to be the weapon of choice for those seeing to go out in a “blaze of glory”. I forgot where I read the article; it said 5 of the top 10 mass shootings were AR-15 style weapons.

Do they keep stats of the weapons involved with shootings?

They're the weapon of choice for everybody tbh, it's the most commonly owned firearm in the country by a mile. Everyone makes copies of them and they're dirt cheap. It's less a statement of how deadly they are and more just how cheap and readily available they are.

[The Black Forrest]

It seems to be the weapon of choice for those seeing to go out in a “blaze of glory”. I forgot where I read the article; it said 5 of the top 10 mass shootings were AR-15 style weapons.

Do they keep stats of the weapons involved with shootings?

They're the weapon of choice for everybody tbh, it's the most commonly owned firearm in the country by a mile. Everyone makes copies of them and they're dirt cheap. It's less a statement of how deadly they are and more just how cheap and readily available they are.

That may be. It’s just interesting to hear arguments of “oh they are not that bad”

Maybe the cheapness could be addressed by taxing the crap out of them since they are the weapon of choice.

[Tarsonis]

[
Nothing to do, in so much as to differentiate it with any other weapon. Despite what critics like to suggest, the AR-15 really isn't all that special. At ranges of 50 feet or less, like you'll typically find in a school, it really doesn't matter what weapon is used. A pistol or a shotgun will be just as, honestly if not more, effective than an AR-15. I identified Vegas as an example because that is the rare occurrence where body count is directly linked to body count, i.e a man in an elevated position unloading modified long guns into a crowd at 300 yards.

It seems to be the weapon of choice for those seeing to go out in a “blaze of glory”. I forgot where I read the article; it said 5 of the top 10 mass shootings were AR-15 style weapons.

Oh it definitely is, but that has very little to do with the capabilities of the weapon. I would assert the use of the AR-15 has far more to do with culture. It's easily the most fetishized weapon in the US.

Do they keep stats of the weapons involved with shootings?

Yes, though naturally, bias tends to factor in what gets emphasized in the reporting.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They're the weapon of choice for everybody tbh, it's the most commonly owned firearm in the country by a mile. Everyone makes copies of them and they're dirt cheap. It's less a statement of how deadly they are and more just how cheap and readily available they are.

That may be. It’s just interesting to hear arguments of “oh they are not that bad”

Maybe the cheapness could be addressed by taxing the crap out of them since they are the weapon of choice.

Then they just move on to the next cheap gun and the cycle repeats forever. This hypothetical already played out in the 60s with the Saturday Night Special craze, once Congress went after them gang members and drug dealers just moved on to other cheap handguns like the Tec-9 and nothing changed. There will always be market demand for cheap firearms (to cater to poorer folks who can't drop $6,500 on a rifle that would make JSOC blush) and people will step in to fill that demand.

[The Black Forrest]

That may be. It’s just interesting to hear arguments of “oh they are not that bad”

Maybe the cheapness could be addressed by taxing the crap out of them since they are the weapon of choice.

Then they just move on to the next cheap gun and the cycle repeats forever. This hypothetical already played out in the 60s with the Saturday Night Special craze, once Congress went after them gang members and drug dealers just moved on to other cheap handguns like the Tec-9 and nothing changed. There will always be market demand for cheap firearms (to cater to poorer folks who can't drop $6,500 on a rifle that would make JSOC blush) and people will step in to fill that demand.

That’s the beauty of taxes. You just keep applying them if not do mass allocations.

Weapon starts becoming the gun of choice…tax….the next one…tax….there is a family of guns…tax them all.

[Tarsonis]

Then they just move on to the next cheap gun and the cycle repeats forever. This hypothetical already played out in the 60s with the Saturday Night Special craze, once Congress went after them gang members and drug dealers just moved on to other cheap handguns like the Tec-9 and nothing changed. There will always be market demand for cheap firearms (to cater to poorer folks who can't drop $6,500 on a rifle that would make JSOC blush) and people will step in to fill that demand.

That’s the beauty of taxes. You just keep applying them if not do mass allocations.

Weapon starts becoming the gun of choice…tax….the next one…tax….there is a family of guns…tax them all.

Yeah, except then you run into the millions of gun owners who have said weapons, commit no crimes with them, and will strenuously object to punitive taxes.

[San Lumen]

You can't say that something isn't dictatorial cause legislature voted on it. Expusling three Dems for protesting when they didn't even do anything violent is absolutely undemocratic. There's been plenty off far right dictatorial governments thats voted on absolutely barbaric things.

Elections have consequences.

This line has nothing to do with what occurred here. This was undemocratic move straight out of a dictatorship and its quite interesting they expelled the two black members but kept the white woman. That's certainly going to piss off the black vote in Tennessee.

[San Lumen]

I will not as it’s a a stupid choice. This is a dictatorial move. Expelling people because you don’t like their beliefs. Nothing these three people did warrants expulsion.

It literally isn't a dictatorial move, though. The legislature voted, that's not a dictatorship. You can cry about how you don't like the way the legislature voted until the cows come home and nobody is going to stop you. But the fact remains that this was democracy in action.

it absolutely is. Nothing these members did warranted being expelled.

[United Calanworie]

That’s the beauty of taxes. You just keep applying them if not do mass allocations.

Weapon starts becoming the gun of choice…tax….the next one…tax….there is a family of guns…tax them all.

Yeah, except then you run into the millions of gun owners who have said weapons, commit no crimes with them, and will strenuously object to punitive taxes.

Isn't that the beauty of democracy, or something?

[El Lazaro]

I will not as it’s a a stupid choice. This is a dictatorial move. Expelling people because you don’t like their beliefs. Nothing these three people did warrants expulsion.

It literally isn't a dictatorial move, though. The legislature voted, that's not a dictatorship. You can cry about how you don't like the way the legislature voted until the cows come home and nobody is going to stop you. But the fact remains that this was democracy in action.

This so-called “democracy in action” shown by cracking down on political opponents, blatantly violating democratic norms, and suppressing voters is how the majority of dictatorships begin. Outside of monarchies and military regimes, all dictatorships pretend to have a democratic or popular mandate because they, at one point in time, governed after winning elections and then worked to stop others from doing the same.