Gun Control: US and Global

[Jarnhamar]

And here's some protestors explaining what the assault weapons they want to ban are.


https://youtu.be/ENN1eeyuLPY

My two favourite answers when asked if they knew what assault weapons were.

"Yeah, it’s um, assault weapon. It’s like, um – I kind of do, but kind of don’t.”

“No, I guess. But assault weapons, like, does that sound safe to you?”

 

[kkwd]

Here is a commentary from CBS News.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-could-marchforourlives-be-a-setback-for-gun-control/

Commentary: Could #MarchForOurLives be a setback for gun control?

"Corruption?" "Slaughter?"  "Hunted prey?" This is the sort of language one would expect to hear directed at the Parkland attacker and other gun-wielding criminals.  These killers were rarely mentioned. Instead, the vitriol was directed at Republican lawmakers and the people who vote for them, people who "put guns ahead of our kids," was the common refrain.  Or as one sign read "Our Blood, Your Hands."

And then there was the NRA.

"NRA = Murder" signs were widespread at Saturday's rally, along with "The NRA Supports Terrorists" and "[Expletive] the NRA." At least one rally featured chants of "Hey, Hey, NRA—How many kids did you kill today?"

So how does it feel to spend a day being called a child murderer on national television?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Here is a commentary from CBS News.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-could-marchforourlives-be-a-setback-for-gun-control/

How does it feel?

It doesnt mean anything. Especially when you consider the source.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Yeah, because anyone who raises their hand in gesture is channeling fascism and are doing so because of their handlers (or because they are too stupid).

Perhaps most famously, it has been used as a defiant gesture against fascism, but is also interpreted as a symbol of defiance against oppression in general

 

[Jarnhamar]

How does it feel?

It doesnt mean anything. Especially when you consider the source.

I've read not a single member of the NRA have been mass shooters.

Perhaps most famously, it has been used as a defiant gesture against fascism, but is also interpreted as a symbol of defiance against oppression in general

I wouldn't say that that's it's most famous incarnation but you might be right. I caught a video of young David Hogg talking about how they have to use their white privilege to combat racial disparity in how shootings are covered. Maybe he is fighting oppression after all.

 

[Pencil Tech]

Perhaps most famously, it has been used as a defiant gesture against fascism, but is also interpreted as a symbol of defiance against oppression in general

Not  a comment on your post itself, but I was amused by the file name of the photo you posted which says it's Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics. It's actually John Carlos and Tommie Smith at (I believe) the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Trivia note: John Carlos played briefly for the Mtl Alouettes as a wide receiver.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Holy shit.  My google fu is weak!!!!  I will find the right picture.

Apologies for the misstep - the photo that I posted occurred at the 1968 Mexico City games and was in fact quite a bit more Black Power inspired IIRC.

Perhaps there is a lesson there - images can be interpreted in so many ways, all of which make assumptions about the intent of the person in the image.  The rather more obvious lesson of not trusting everything you read on the internet, and that verification is an individual responsibility is not lost on me either...

Here is the correct photo of Jesse Owens, which I have clearly conflated in my mind with the 1968 incident. 

Thanks for pointing out my error - more than just a tad humbling for me. 

 

[Pencil Tech]

Holy crap.  My google fu is weak!!!!  I will find the right picture.

Apologies for the misstep - the photo that I posted occurred at the 1968 Mexico City games and was in fact quite a bit more Black Power inspired IIRC.

Perhaps there is a lesson there - images can be interpreted in so many ways, all of which make assumptions about the intent of the person in the image.  The rather more obvious lesson of not trusting everything you read on the internet, and that verification is an individual responsibility is not lost on me either...

Here is the correct photo of Jesse Owens, which I have clearly conflated in my mind with the 1968 incident. 

Thanks for pointing out my error - more than just a tad humbling for me.

Yes you're right, Mexico City, that's where it was.  8)

 

[Remius]

I Wonder if this might set a precedent in other states...


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-assault-weapons-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-judge-rules.html

 

[Brad Sallows]

:2c: Without a flat palm, a raised arm isn't a Nazi salute.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I Wonder if this might set a precedent in other states...


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-assault-weapons-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-judge-rules.html

This was tried before, IIRC. It failed in higher court because there was no specific definition of an 'assault rifle'. It tends to vary by cause and speaker. The AR-15 does not fit the most relied on version, as it does not have the capability of select fire (full auto). Gun grabbers always focus on the looks of something to determine cause. There is too much disparity in the terms. I've put together the below picture. The magazines are all interchangeable. The rifle, is a Mini-14 that started life as the top rifle Mini14 Rancher (#1). Next, and updated version, with a composite stock (better and more stable than wood), +5 round mag and a flash suppressor (#2) Lastly, the bottom. Extendable stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, +5 round mag, etc. Oh yeah, it's also black and scary looking. Depending on where you are in the country, in most states, #1, 2 & 3 are favourite hunting and varmint guns. In California, #2 & 3 are considered assault weapons. Put a ten round mag on #1, it also becomes an 'assault weapon', but the original 5 round mag makes it legal to own otherwise. If all you own is #1 and you have any magazine, that fits (AR mags), over the five round original mag in your possession in California, you are committing a felony. These are just a couple of the reasons that it is difficult to ban something without a standard and based on looks. I've also included a brief history of the AR-15, which was originally designed as a new lightweight civilian rifle. It was not until later when the military got interested, that the M-16 developed from the civilian version. Not the other way around. The M-16 is properly a variant of the AR-15 civilian hinting and target rifle. The AR in AR 15 Stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle. https://www.ammoland.com/2016/04/ar-15-rifle-historical-time-line/

 

[Remius]

Interesting.  The law Mass. has, is based on the former federal ban.  I could be wrong but it survived several constitutional challenges.

Maybe that’s what some states might aim for given this ruling.  The law might be strong enough to hold. 

Whether it actually has a desired effect is another issue...

 

[Jarnhamar]

Still targeting ambiguous "assault weapons" when what probably constitutes as a general description of that accounts for maybe 1% of types of firearms used in homicides in the USA.

 

[Remius]

Still targeting ambiguous "assault weapons" when what probably constitutes as a general description of that accounts for maybe 1% of types of firearms used in homicides in the USA.

Likely that stat accounts for ALL gun related incidents as well.

But “assault weapons” seem to be the biggest culprit in mass shootings.  But...

Mass shootings still account for only a tiny amount of gun related deaths in the US.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Likely that stat accounts for ALL gun related incidents as well.

But “assault weapons” seem to be the biggest culprit in mass shootings.  But...

Mass shootings still account for only a tiny amount of gun related deaths in the US.

Pistols still seem to be used twice as much as rifles in mass shootings.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

[Remius]

Pistols still seem to be used twice as much as rifles in mass shootings.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

True but the high number of casualities between both types is likely the driving factor.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not like gun owners around the world haven't been saying it all along.

They won't stop at guns. More inanimate peices of metal will be smelted into the idol of social engineering rather than to lock up crazy bozos.

:sarcasm: I'll bet there's a fair bit of magnet fishing going on also. With no registry, we'll have unregistered knives in every pocket. :sarcasm:

 

[Jarnhamar]

London's mayor is taking a 180. Police apparently can or will soon be allowed to stop citizens in the street and search them if the police feel they might be carrying a knife. Previously the mayor was against that as it could lead to Islamophobia and racism.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A meme does not create facts (and usually distorts them to make point, which is usually wrong).

If one looks up just Wikipedia (I know, not perfect, but still a minimally trustworthy start), one sees that, while crime, and violent crime in particular, has been steadily dropping in New York (so that it is now one of the US cities with the lowest crime rates - so why use it to make a point?), It still had 290 homicides in 2017, down from 306 in 2016, with a rate of 3.4 per 100,000, while London had 110 homicides in 2017 and 130 in 2016, for a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

We are nowhere near being the same and New York is still twice the homicides number of London.

So where does this sudden concept that they are the same comes from? It comes from statistics from the first three months of 2018 only. Statistically, this means nothing. You may have an unusual low number in NY or an unusual high number in London - or a combination of both - that will resorb itself after the whole year is over, or not, as 2018 as awhile could be a statistical anomaly itself. But a three month period, or even one year, completely out of norm does not mean anything in the statistical world - nor does it factually prove any point on a given subject.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks for the insight into murder rates.

The stats are not the point and really have little to do with the actual proof of the pictures. I can't change the wording, it's not my meme. However, I won't get sidetracked on stats, because as we know and you've shown, stats will be what the poster feels works for them. The words may not stand a microscope, but I don't think you can really call the words wrong until you try adding whatever context suits your fancy.

The point of the meme was to show the futility, uselessness and social dumbing of society by banning inanimate objects. Plus the ridiculouness of politicians and neanderthals that fail to see the corelation of crazies and killing. It's a slam on British gun confiscation. As in, "Well, we took all the guns and the murders got worse. We'll do knives next."

We knew it wouldn't stop with guns and were called crazy for it.