General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 112

To clarify, you are talking about semi-automatic assault weapons correct?

 

I remember asking this dude I'm referring to "what do you need with over 100 handguns and a dozen rifles?" The only answer was "it's my right." It's so annoying.

 

I agree that can be annoying, but it brought me to a different place - why do as a country we deem acceptable for our government to over-arm itself? - nuclear weapons and so on - while at the same time frown on the individuals who do it and look at them as radicals. Guess people just like the feeling of safety in general...

 

Specifically the AR-15 yes, but more generally than that I'm pretty bitter about American fetishizing of tools design to kill living beings.

 

It's the mindset of "I need all these guns in case the police force or military decide to turn against us." that makes no sense. Just because it says we CAN bear Arms (still want a definition on this), that doesn't mean we need to be armed to the teeth "just cuz".

The only reason I don't own a gun is because I haven't gotten my California driver's license yet, I still have my Kansas one, and I need the CA ID to start the process. I only plan on getting something for home protection, and teaching my wife how to use it, whether it be a shotgun (20g so easier for a smaller woman to handle) or a revolver, probably a .22.

I'm not one for open carry, concealed carry, constitution carry, etc, but I do believe in home protection. If the shit really hits the fan, and I'm well within my rights, I'd like to be able to defend my family instead of waiting however many minutes for the police to arrive.

 

Awesome.

Clinton breaks from Obama, calls Orlando attack 'radical Islamism'

 

My issue with the focus on the AR-15, is that when we view the tools of killing, rifles only make up 2% (for perspective, hands and feet make up 6%). Meanwhile, handguns take up the vast majority of means of killing a year.

So even a ban of assault rifles wouldn't move the needle in any meaningful way.

I am opposed to a full gun ban, but I think that a full gun ban is at least more logical place to start the conversation than banning assault weapons and pretending that fixes anything.

 

Tbh most people who are pro gun control are likely proponents of decreasing military spending and limiting armed conflict with foreign parties. But you are right in that this devaluing of life for the sake of American power goes up to government officials.

 

Why not ban the manufacturing/sales of ammunition instead, that would make a lot more sense and would be easier to do.

 

Given that the weapon has been used in several devastating mass shootings, including this and the Sandy Hook shooting, you don't feel that this is indication that perhaps limiting its availability is a step in the right direction?

 

If you ban the gun itself, you need to ban the parts also. As of right now, I can go online and buy an "upper" (barrel) portion of that gun, and a "lower" (trigger assembly) portion. From there, with some simple machining that you can do at home, these parts can be turned into a fully functional weapon and not have a serial number (thought you're legally obligated to get it stamped with a number, and this is legal to actually build).

I might have gotten the "lower" portion wrong, I think the trigger assembly is sold as a third part and thats where the machining comes in.

 

I mean, I don't disagree with that. But you don't think that our focus on incidents like Sandy Hook is a product of the media focus. Kids are getting killed by handguns all day every day but it doesn't make headline news.

Not that there is any kind of scale of which shootings matter and which ones don't. But we are concerned about the assault weapons because they are the tool of suburban mass shooters, but still ultimately rare. Handguns are the tool of choice in the overwhelming majority of city and inner-city killings. Since these killings are so common, they rarely make headlines, so we don't focus on them.

 

Well said...

 

You bring up good points...

Politicians want to be able to hang their hat on getting legislation passed banning assault weapons so they can get in front of their constituents and proclaim they made the world a safe place - when in reality it probably isn't much safer (but a little safer may be better than nothing I guess). They can't go after the handguns that largely responsible because there is too much backslash - so unfortunately little will probably be done to help

 

Drawing attention to this because Clinton, once again, is playing with racial violence and doing so in order to combat Trump's rhetoric about "being right".

 

Agreed - she figured Trump will get a bump so she hopped right on that

 

It's funny how one of the more peaceful religions gets called out as a whole for being radical. I don't know too much about Islam, but isn't there come correlation between it and Christianity?

 

Abrahamic religions, Judaism Christianity and Islam. All have roots in the same ideas and origins in the same area. Too many similarities to list really.

 

Alright. I'm not too big on religion but I know there are some parallels.

 

Agreed. I'd arguably be even more concerned about those since there's increased safety risk (limited ability to regulate and quality control self made weapons)

I agree that all shootings, be there 50 victims or 1, are awful, and our gun control laws should reflect that. But if some of the most deadly shootings use the same weapon, I think it is worth targeting that weapon.

What do you think is an effective way to discuss these incidents without allowing racist dialogues to dominate, especially in cases where Islam or ISIS are singularly invoked?

 

If someone is a radical/terrorist from a specific faith then what is the problem with using that phrasing- isn't it just calling a spade a spade?

 

Yea, they're meant as "dummy" units, I guess. They lower portion which is where the clip/trigger goes, doesn't have the holes/slots machined into it for the trigger assembly. There are templates you can print out online that give measurements so you can make it functional.

 

It just shines a negative light onto the religion itself where in actuality the headline should read "brainwashed person opens fire", or something along those lines. At least that's the way I see it.

 

We can assess it in a way that isn't particularly focused on Islam and the designation of Muslim as inherently dangerous. For example, the man belonged to a security company, idolized the NYPD and desires to be a police officer, was very abusive towards his wife and by her account, was non-religious. Another co-worker said "anytime a woman or black person would come around" he would use slurs; his anger was constant. After his divorce, he seems to have found Islam, but the violence and hatred was already there and it is familiar to all of us who understand how masculinity, misogyny, racism and heterosexism work together, and often in the secular American context. They have been the content of many of the mass shootings we've experienced in this country, and this is only the second one to involve a Muslim man, but all have been committed by men more generally; the underlying issue, it seems to me, isn't so much the degree to which Islam is to blame or whatever, but how the violence implicit within the oppressive architecture of society can suture together any number of people to any number of ideologies and the result is the exact same: mass death and the number of these instances are increasing

If you read her entire statement, it was clearly meant to appeal to a particular sort of American for whom the usage of the term "radical Islam/jihadism" is important and they are the reactionary racists. And then she appealed to militarism to speak about fighting these phenomena. However one wants to refer to the act, this sort of opportunism plays into the game that Trump plays, which we understand to be explicitly racist.

 

I get the point i guess - that just seems to be turning a blind eye to a real problem that exists - there is a radical part of that religion that hates America and pretending that it doesn't seems counterproductive