Guns and the art of victim blaming

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.
Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

I think both are bad, and both sides to be hilarious in their reaction to this.

 

[Artemus]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.
Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

I think both are bad, and both sides to be hilarious in their reaction to this.

Trump's proposal to ban bump stocks is the first of a huge number steps that need to be taken toward rational gun laws.

Happy?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.
Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

I think both are bad, and both sides to be hilarious in their reaction to this.

Trump's proposal to ban bump stocks is the first of a huge number steps that need to be taken toward rational gun laws.

Happy?

I think your use of the word "rational" is incorrect, but yes. It amuses me to see you say something nice about Trump, in a sort of a schadenfreude way.

 

[Jarhyn]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.
Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

I think both are bad, and both sides to be hilarious in their reaction to this.

Trump's proposal to ban bump stocks is the first of a huge number steps that need to be taken toward rational gun laws.

Happy?

I think your use of the word "rational" is incorrect, but yes. It amuses me to see you say something nice about Trump, in a sort of a schadenfreude way.

Nothing bad to say about this, other than it doesn't go far enough.

 

[marc]

This weekend, I injured myself with a gun. At the range. By myself. No one but me was hurt. It was just my pinky finger on my weak hand... and it was something very stupid.. I violated gun safety rule #3... be aware of what is behind your target. In my case, it was my pinky.
Funny this came up... I think (need to do some research here - this is by personal knowledge - not scientific) the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

Who agrees with me that the gun that wounded my finger (which has an 80 round magazine, and due to loopholes in the law, does not require a background check or age restriction to purchase or use) should be BANNED?
I think it should. This gun is too dangerous.

Read more about this gun here:

Show

It was a staple gun. I was mounting a target on the backstop, and while holding the target in place with my left hand, my pinky wrapped around to the backside of the cardboard backstop. With my right hand, I impaled my pinky as I stapled the target to the thin cardboard backstop that had my pinky behind it. I'll be fine.

Interesting straw-man story. As usual arguments against gun control usually misrepresent what advocates actually want, in favor of presenting the paranoid fantasies the NRA favors.

 

[marc]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.

It is not that people don't want to say anything good about him. It is just that he seems incapable of doing anything good, unless it is self-serving in some way. I've heard there were a couple good things in the tweeks to NAFTA that he made, some bad stuff as well, but it was surprising that it wasn't a complete disaster.

Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

Most who favor Trump at this point falls into one of three categories. 1) people who do not get actual news, just right-wing propaganda 2) the trump cultist, think most white nationalists fall into here, 3) Russian bots

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.

It is not that people don't want to say anything good about him. It is just that he seems incapable of doing anything good, unless it is self-serving in some way. I've heard there were a couple good things in the tweeks to NAFTA that he made, some bad stuff as well, but it was surprising that it wasn't a complete disaster.

Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

Most who favor Trump at this point falls into one of three categories. 1) people who do not get actual news, just right-wing propaganda 2) the trump cultist, think most white nationalists fall into here, 3) Russian bots

So what do you think of Trump's proposed bump-stock ban?

 

[marc]

So what do you think of Trump's proposed bump-stock ban?

I'm very surprised by it, and happy that it is being done.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what do you think of Trump's proposed bump-stock ban?

I'm very surprised by it, and happy that it is being done.

So you are happy with something Trump is doing. Got it.

 

[Gun Nut]

the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

But this still leaves a significant enough set of occurrences where someone other than the handler is harmed and that that moves it from a private issue about personal rights to a public issue about group rights.

Right... like buckets and babies drowning... every bucket has a warning not to let babies near a bucket full of water.. how about a sticker on a gun that indicates bullets come out the front end... that should do the trick, I guess.

 

[Gun Nut]

This weekend, I injured myself with a gun. At the range. By myself. No one but me was hurt. It was just my pinky finger on my weak hand... and it was something very stupid.. I violated gun safety rule #3... be aware of what is behind your target. In my case, it was my pinky.
Funny this came up... I think (need to do some research here - this is by personal knowledge - not scientific) the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

Who agrees with me that the gun that wounded my finger (which has an 80 round magazine, and due to loopholes in the law, does not require a background check or age restriction to purchase or use) should be BANNED?
I think it should. This gun is too dangerous.

Read more about this gun here:

Show

It was a staple gun. I was mounting a target on the backstop, and while holding the target in place with my left hand, my pinky wrapped around to the backside of the cardboard backstop. With my right hand, I impaled my pinky as I stapled the target to the thin cardboard backstop that had my pinky behind it. I'll be fine.

You have drawn a false equivalency. Staples are not bullets, and outside of situations too bizarre or stupid to be important to the discussion, a staple will not kill or even significantly main most people. Bullets, on the other hand (or pinky...)...

no, but staple guns are GUNS. So are you saying that guns are not dangerous, it's just those darn bullets? That's a new take on the topic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

But this still leaves a significant enough set of occurrences where someone other than the handler is harmed and that that moves it from a private issue about personal rights to a public issue about group rights.

Right... like buckets and babies drowning... every bucket has a warning not to let babies near a bucket full of water.. how about a sticker on a gun that indicates bullets come out the front end... that should do the trick, I guess.

Or just make liability insurance a required component of gun ownership.

 

[Gun Nut]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.
Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

I think both are bad, and both sides to be hilarious in their reaction to this.

bump stocks exist due to an ignorantly created gun control law relating to safe rates of fire.
I'm all for sane gun control laws, but only if they are written by gun safety experts, and not willfully ignorant politicians that ultimately just make it worse... like by creating the demand and allowance for bump stocks.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Right... like buckets and babies drowning... every bucket has a warning not to let babies near a bucket full of water.. how about a sticker on a gun that indicates bullets come out the front end... that should do the trick, I guess.

Or just make liability insurance a required component of gun ownership.

Just like cars? If I never take my care off my property I do not need registration or insurance.

 

[Gun Nut]

Right... like buckets and babies drowning... every bucket has a warning not to let babies near a bucket full of water.. how about a sticker on a gun that indicates bullets come out the front end... that should do the trick, I guess.

Or just make liability insurance a required component of gun ownership.

Worth discussion. I don't immediately disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Right... like buckets and babies drowning... every bucket has a warning not to let babies near a bucket full of water.. how about a sticker on a gun that indicates bullets come out the front end... that should do the trick, I guess.

Or just make liability insurance a required component of gun ownership.

Just like cars? If I never take my care off my property I do not need registration or insurance.

Required insurance for carrying in public, but not for storage on personal property sounds reasonable. This sort of exists, optionally, but for legal fees.

 

[Elixir]

Worth discussion. I don't immediately disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Right... like buckets and babies drowning... every bucket has a warning not to let babies near a bucket full of water.. how about a sticker on a gun that indicates bullets come out the front end... that should do the trick, I guess.

Or just make liability insurance a required component of gun ownership.

Just like cars? If I never take my care off my property I do not need registration or insurance.

Required insurance for carrying in public, but not for storage on personal property sounds reasonable. This sort of exists, optionally, but for legal fees.

...but should a bullet stray off your property, then you're liable?

 

[Artemus]

There hasn't been much talk of Trump's Bump Stock Ban proposal. I can guess why.

Those who favor the proposal don't want to say anything good about Trump.
Those who favor Trump don't want to say anything bad about his proposals.

I think both are bad, and both sides to be hilarious in their reaction to this.

Trump's proposal to ban bump stocks is the first of a huge number steps that need to be taken toward rational gun laws.

Happy?

I think your use of the word "rational" is incorrect, but yes. It amuses me to see you say something nice about Trump, in a sort of a schadenfreude way.

Why would it amuse you? I'll acknowledge when I agree with any politician's view regardless of how I feel about their other political stances.

 

[Gun Nut]

Worth discussion. I don't immediately disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Or just make liability insurance a required component of gun ownership.

Just like cars? If I never take my care off my property I do not need registration or insurance.

Required insurance for carrying in public, but not for storage on personal property sounds reasonable. This sort of exists, optionally, but for legal fees.

...but should a bullet stray off your property, then you're liable?

... should your vehicle roll down your driveway.....

 

[Artemus]

no, but staple guns are GUNS. So are you saying that guns are not dangerous, it's just those darn bullets? That's a new take on the topic.

 Equivocation.

 

[Jarhyn]

This weekend, I injured myself with a gun. At the range. By myself. No one but me was hurt. It was just my pinky finger on my weak hand... and it was something very stupid.. I violated gun safety rule #3... be aware of what is behind your target. In my case, it was my pinky.
Funny this came up... I think (need to do some research here - this is by personal knowledge - not scientific) the vast majority of UNINTENTIONAL injuries from firearms injure the handler of the firearm, and not someone else.

Who agrees with me that the gun that wounded my finger (which has an 80 round magazine, and due to loopholes in the law, does not require a background check or age restriction to purchase or use) should be BANNED?
I think it should. This gun is too dangerous.

Read more about this gun here:

Show

It was a staple gun. I was mounting a target on the backstop, and while holding the target in place with my left hand, my pinky wrapped around to the backside of the cardboard backstop. With my right hand, I impaled my pinky as I stapled the target to the thin cardboard backstop that had my pinky behind it. I'll be fine.

You have drawn a false equivalency. Staples are not bullets, and outside of situations too bizarre or stupid to be important to the discussion, a staple will not kill or even significantly main most people. Bullets, on the other hand (or pinky...)...

no, but staple guns are GUNS. So are you saying that guns are not dangerous, it's just those darn bullets? That's a new take on the topic.

You are drawing a dishonest false equivalency. "Gun" as used in "staple gun" and gun as used in "OMG look out, he has a gun!!!" Are two distinctly different intents and meanings of the utterance "gun", and these do not communicate the same idea with respect to your intended conclusion.

To make this false equivalency again would be an outright gnostic lie, given the clearly described falseness of said equivalency, or an admission that you are incapable of parsing simple language and communicating in a way that is anything but "not even wrong" with regards to any utterance of "gun".

Please stop either arguing disingenuously or idiotically (pick one).