Gun Politics

[Unagi]

Too many people view a gun as a magical talisman of power.

Nah. I look at it as a tool you can just point at someone and make them dead in an instant. Nothing magical about it. It's lead and gunpowder. It's quite effective. The power is not imagined.

[Smoove_B]

I think the "magical" part is in thinking carrying one somehow imbues them with the ability to "save the day" if something happens. In the same way I carry a pocketknife at all times so I can help with cutting open a box or removing plastic wrap, they believe having a gun on them confers the magical ability to respond to a "bad guy" that is doing something.

And I bet money more than half of the people that are vocal about carrying guns (or that would flash a gun at kids) are just looking for any excuse to take it out and start blasting.

[GreenGoo]

And I bet money more than half of the people that are vocal about carrying guns (or that would flash a gun at kids) are just looking for any excuse to take it out and start blasting.

And the other half are carrying because of that first half.

[Kraken]

Mass. senate finally passes its gun bill. Still needs to be reconciled with the house-passed bill.

The Massachusetts Senate approved a sweeping gun bill Thursday designed to crack down on “ghost guns,” toughen the state’s prohibition on assault weapons and outlaw devices that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic machine guns.
...
On ghost guns, the bill would toughen oversight for those who own privately made, unserialized firearms that are largely untraceable. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice reported recovering 25,785 ghost guns in domestic seizures.

The Senate bill would make it illegal to possess devices that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic machine guns, including Glock switches and trigger activators. It would also ensure gun dealers are inspected annually and allow the Massachusetts State Police to conduct the inspections if a local licensing agency can’t or won’t.

Other elements of the bill would ban carrying firearms in government administrative buildings; require courts to compel the surrender of firearms by individuals subject to harassment protection orders who pose an immediate threat; ban the marketing of unlawful firearm sales to minors; and create a criminal charge for intentionally firing a gun at a dwelling.

Maybe not newsworthy in other states, since we already have some of the toughest gun laws and least gun violence...and we aim to keep it that way.

[Punisher]

I also find this interesting.

Trissel disputed Lucas’ claim that the group’s argument was based on emotion, and she said she felt talked over.

“Since a state legislator had shown a weapon, I felt all the more powerless,” she said. “I felt scared. I felt alone. I was timid and almost petrified with fear.”

They disputed his claim that they were being emotional and then immediately went into her emotions.
I'm ok with her having her feelings but don't say your questioning is not emotional then immediately complain with your emotions.

No, I think you are missing what is being communicated with your comparison of these two statements.

The first comment about Trissel is that their arguments about gun control were not based on emotion, as Lucas insisted.

You then go on to conflate that with their complaint about Lucas's behavior, which was described by telling us about how it affected her.


Why can she not do that?

I said I was ok with her emotions. I think that if even seeing a gun makes her petrified with fear then.
1. She is emotional about guns in the first place. It wasn't pointed at her. He wasn't robbing her. He was making a point about being armed. Might not have been the best way to go about it but I don't understand why it would cause her to be petrified. But that may be me.
Or
2. She is just saying that to make it emotional and get more attention.
If she is petrified from seeing a gun on someone with no ill intent then how does she go out at all with all the illegal guns in criminals hands?
I was brought up around guns so they were never frightening and just a tool. I remember doing some target shooting as a kid and enjoyed it.
I'm not ok with all the illegal guns in criminals hands, but I really don't see a problem if a law abiding citizen carries. Heck, if someone is carrying concealed then most people won't even know there is a gun near them.

[LawBeefaroni]

outlaw devices that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic machine guns.

Good luck with that. It's already outlawed at the federal level. Yet the most popular modern handgun in the world is convertible to full auto with a $50 part, available by the caseload on the black market and online. I don't think a single crime Glock is taken off the street here in Chicago without a switch.

Not saying it's a bad thing to outlaw it at the state level but expect more, not less, until the feds actually crack down.

[YellowKing]

I was brought up around guns so they were never frightening and just a tool.

Exactly, so you don't have a way to see it from her point of view.

I mean, I don't understand why people are afraid of clowns, but I know there are people afraid of clowns and I believe their fear is genuine.

[Alefroth]

Heck, if someone is carrying concealed then most people won't even know there is a gun near them.

Which is exactly what the emotional gun flasher didn't do.

[Unagi]

If she is petrified from seeing a gun on someone with no ill intent then how does she go out at all with all the illegal guns in criminals hands?

She was 'almost petrified' (to be clear), and felt timid and alone... But honestly, she is 17 and sitting in a congressman's office who suddenly confronts her in a way that she has never been confronted in her entire life -and you fault her for having an emotional reaction to that while saying you are also totally OK with her having an emotional response to it? All the while, you don't seem to also find it 'interesting' that the congressman felt the need to brandish his concealed weapon, instead this is about her just trying to get more attention.

The point is that the two things; "her non-emotional argument for more gun control being talked over by this congressman", and "her emotional reaction to having a handgun flashed to her by that congressman" are seprate things. You make it sound like her emotional reaction diminishes her gun-control argument and supports his counter-point that her position is only emotional. It doesn't.

I was brought up around guns so they were never frightening and just a tool. I remember doing some target shooting as a kid and enjoyed it.

Well good for you. She was brought up with fellow students being slaughtered at school.

I'm not ok with all the illegal guns in criminals hands, but I really don't see a problem if a law abiding citizen carries.

Where have you been? Do you think these students are concerned about 'illegal guns in criminal hands', or do you think they are concerned about 'legal guns in the hands of someone who has yet to break a law'?

[YellowKing]

Also placing blame on a female for being "emotional" sounds *exactly* on brand for these types.

[Punisher]

If she is petrified from seeing a gun on someone with no ill intent then how does she go out at all with all the illegal guns in criminals hands?

She was 'almost petrified' (to be clear), and felt timid and alone... But honestly, she is 17 and sitting in a congressman's office who suddenly confronts her in a way that she has never been confronted in her entire life -and you fault her for having an emotional reaction to that while saying you are also totally OK with her having an emotional response to it? All the while, you don't seem to also find it 'interesting' that the congressman felt the need to brandish his concealed weapon, instead this is about her just trying to get more attention.

The point is that the two things; "her non-emotional argument for more gun control being talked over by this congressman", and "her emotional reaction to having a handgun flashed to her by that congressman" are seprate things. You make it sound like her emotional reaction diminishes her gun-control argument and supports his counter-point that her position is only emotional. It doesn't.

I was brought up around guns so they were never frightening and just a tool. I remember doing some target shooting as a kid and enjoyed it.

Well good for you. She was brought up with fellow students being slaughtered at school.

I'm not ok with all the illegal guns in criminals hands, but I really don't see a problem if a law abiding citizen carries.

Where have you been? Do you think these students are concerned about 'illegal guns in criminal hands', or do you think they are concerned about 'legal guns in the hands of someone who has yet to break a law'?

See, Im not sure I agree about being concerned about " 'legal guns in the hands of someone who has yet to break a law'?"
That sounds a lot like blaming someone for something they might do. You "might" decide to drive my car into a Walmart. Should your driving privileges be removed?

Also msybe I did connect the two things to her. I guess a big part is that to me it really sounds like an exaggeration on her part. You mention brandishing but he didn't brandish, he showed them. He didn't draw it. He didn't use it in a threatening manor. I see it more as him just showing that he believes in carrying.

[Zarathud]

Any person in authority flashing a gun to intimidate a 17 year old over an argument is acting to intimidate the kid. It makes them an asshole who can’t complain about the emotional response they intended to provoke.

If you use a gun to settle an argument, you shouldn’t have one. It doesn’t matter whether you pull the trigger.

[RunningMn9]

Also placing blame on a female for being "emotional" sounds *exactly* on brand for these types.

I think about this sort of thing every time I hear about how women can be "too emotional". It's always from some asshole that is constantly yelling about something. Apparently they don't understand that anger is an emotion too.

[RunningMn9]

See, Im not sure I agree about being concerned about " 'legal guns in the hands of someone who has yet to break a law'?"
That sounds a lot like blaming someone for something they might do.

It also sounds a lot like every school shooting, which is what this kid is scared of.

[hepcat]

I was brought up around guns so they were never frightening and just a tool.

I'm not trying to pile on you, but I just want to say that for every single person on Earth, even those who have only heard of a gun, the very first thought that comes into their mind when shown a gun in a public setting or a private one isn't "Oh, what a great tool, I wonder what he's going to build with that?". It's "I wonder if he's going to shoot that?".

[LawBeefaroni]

If you use a gun to settle an argument, you shouldn’t have one. It doesn’t matter whether you pull the trigger.

Often that's a crime. I guess in Indiana, flashing it is not, but pointing it at someone would be a felony.

Also of note, only lawmakers and their staff are allowed to carry in the Indiana statehouse so Lucas is a hypocrite for all the 2A shit he does. He's a privileged class who can go armed to intimidate those who can't.

Also let's not forget his other privilege. This minor inconvenience was the second that we know of. Total hypocrite and probably shouldn't be carrying, let alone a state rep.

[Punisher]

I was brought up around guns so they were never frightening and just a tool.

I'm not trying to pile on you, but I just want to say that for every single person on Earth, even those who have only heard of a gun, the very first thought that comes into their mind when shown a gun in a public setting or a private one isn't "Oh, what a great tool, I wonder what he's going to build with that?". It's "I wonder if he's going to shoot that?".

It's all good. The main reason I stick around is because we can all have different opinions and not need to take anything personal.
I mentioned my experience because our experiences shape our opinions and I wanted my experience to explain some of my feelings towards this.

[Isgrimnur]

Context: Here's part of the 10m video.

[hepcat]

No one appears overly emotional in that clip. But my belief he shouldn't be flashing a gun to kids remains. As lawbeef noted, it's called conceal and carry for a reason.

[Smoove_B]

It's all good. The main reason I stick around is because we can all have different opinions and not need to take anything personal.
I mentioned my experience because our experiences shape our opinions and I wanted my experience to explain some of my feelings towards this.

You're right, but our filters are also at play. For our generation (using it broadly), we graduated high school 30+ years ago. It's a different world now for kids in a school environment. The number of emergency shooter drills they've all experienced in a place where guns have no business is beyond depressing. That kids (kids!) need to think about where to hide in a classroom in case someone starts shooting should be considered a giant social failure. Instead, people call it freedom.

But getting back to filters, I've been told a few times by different people that I present an imposing and threatening demeanor while simply standing around. Perhaps it's my shape or whatever resting expression I have on my face, it apparently makes people uncomfortable sometimes. It's not something I'm actively doing; it's not something I see or sense. But I try to remember it when (for example) I'm walking through a parking garage at work in the evening and there's a lone woman a few dozen steps ahead. Or on a sidewalk. I am not personally thinking I'm about to be assaulted or fearing for my own safety, but I can appreciate that my filter is different than theirs.

I could totally understand how someone might freak out if I stepped into an elevator with them, so I try to be aware of how I'm acting. I wouldn't (for example) flash a gun then at a woman in an elevator and say, "It's ok - we're protected" like some type of goon. If you can't imagine that school kids coming to a legislative hearing to ask for gun control measures might be a bit freaked out when you flash a gun at them in place where guns have no business, then perhaps you shouldn't be able to carry said gun.

[Isgrimnur]

Wayne LaPierre resigns as NRA leader, days before start of his civil trial

Jury finds NRA and Wayne LaPierre liable in civil corruption trial

Wayne LaPierre diverted millions of dollars away from the National Rifle Association to live luxuriously, while the gun rights group failed to properly manage its finances, a jury found Friday.

The verdict comes after five days of deliberations and ends a seven-week long civil corruption trial in New York City.

The case against the NRA was brought on by a lawsuit filed in 2020 by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused LaPierre and other current and former executives of flouting state laws and internal policies to enrich themselves.

The other defendants were John Frazer, the NRA’s corporate secretary and general counsel, and Wilson “Woody” Phillips, its former treasurer and chief financial officer.

The jury ruled largely in favor of James, finding that the National Rifle Association failed to properly run its nonprofit and its assets at any time between March 20, 2014 and May 2, 2022.

Jurors also determined that LaPierre, Phillips and Frazer all violated their statutory obligation to discharge the duties of their position in good faith.

If jurors found the individual defendants liable, they had to recommend the amount of money that each defendant would have to repay the NRA.

They said LaPierre caused $5.4 million in monetary harm to the NRA, but that he has already repaid at least $1 million of that. The 74-year-old appeared stoic as the verdict was read.

Phillips caused $2 million in monetary harm to the NRA, they found, while Frazer did not cause any monetary harm to the group.
...
Jurors also found that the NRA violated the law by failing to adopt a whistleblower policy and that eight employees suffered because of the violation.

State Supreme Court Judge Joel Cohen will have the final say over remedies. As early as July, he could decide whether any of the individual defendants should be permanently barred from serving on the board of any charity in New York and whether an independent monitor should oversee the NRA’s finances.

[Unagi]

Letitia James is a rock star.

[Alefroth]

Am I getting this right? LaPierre is only being made to return the money he misused?

[Zarathud]

The judge decides further penalties, the jury was asked to determine the facts.

We’ll see if the IRS imposes an excise tax for the misused funds to punish him where the civil case didn’t. Charities and directors who misuse charitable or exempt funds are subject to penalties.