By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas (19 Students, 2 Teachers Dead)

Chrkeller said:

 

There is absolutely nothing 'strawman' about this country having a 100% refusal about even discussing logical gun laws.  This is where we are and have been for decades.  

I am not a right-winger. I am not an NRA member. I vote straight Democratic and vote for the third of that party that prescribes social democracy when they are on primary ballots. I am a POC. My family are BIPOC. I still have concerns about gun laws because of how they are used to harm people who look like me and my family, even if we are non-gun owners, such as the examples I provided. I was genuinely asking about how enforcement of a ban would work without disproportionately harming people who look like me and my family, and you respond with a very yt perspective about hunting deer with no intentions of addressing these questions. So I guess you're keeping continuity with "having a 100% refusal about even discussing logical gun laws"? Any law is going to have to be enforced, and how that enforcement is going to happen is quite important in determining which gun laws are "logical." If you're not interested in discussing enforcement and the potential problems surrounding it, then you are part of the group who has a "100% refusal ... discussing logical gun laws." 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 25 May 2022

Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Chrkeller said:

There is absolutely nothing 'strawman' about this country having a 100% refusal about even discussing logical gun laws.  This is where we are and have been for decades.  

I am not a right-winger. I am not an NRA member. I vote straight Democratic and vote for the third of that party that prescribes social democracy when they are on primary ballots. I am a POC. My family are BIPOC. I still have concerns about gun laws because of how they are used to harm people who look like me and my family, even if we are non-gun owners, such as the examples I provided. I was genuinely asking about how enforcement of a ban would work without disproportionately harming people who look like me and my family, and you respond with a very yt perspective about hunting deer with no intentions of addressing these questions. So I guess you're keeping continuity with "having a 100% refusable about even discussing logical gun laws"? Any law is going to have to be enforced, and how that enforcement is going to happen is quite important in determining which gun laws are "logical." If you're not interested in discussing enforcement and the potential problems surrounding it, then you are part of the group who has a "100% refusal ... discussing logical gun laws." 

I think common sense gun laws include allowing people to own hunting rifles and home defense (e.g. shotguns).  First step is to acknowledge high powered 45 rounds per minutes high capacity mags simply shouldn't be readily available for the average person to buy.  Does this fix everything?  No.  But at least start with weapon type.



Chrkeller said:

I think common sense gun laws include allowing people to own hunting rifles and home defense (e.g. shotguns).  First step is to acknowledge high powered 45 rounds per minutes high capacity mags simply shouldn't be readily available for the average person to buy.  Does this fix everything?  No.  But at least start with weapon type.

Immediate questions: to continue the dialogue. Who are the new laws going to be enforced by? Specifically, how do you address rural and exurban sheriffs and police departments who practice "nullification" and states/counties that set up "second amendment sanctuaries"? Will there need to be funding allocated to the ATF to hire new, very large nation-wide police force that does raids in rural areas when state law-enforcement refuses to assist in enforcement? Are people who already own to-be-illegal guns allowed to be grandfathered in their ownership or will they have to forfeit them to comply with the law? If they are grandfathered in their ownership does that solve the problem given how many guns are already out there, often in white-supremacist hands? If they must forfeit them, how is this to be enforced? Will we expand prison populations to house those who disobey, despite having the largest prison population per capita in the world already? Or will fines and confiscations be the only enforcement mechanism and we hope that after decades of being fined the number of illegal firearms will naturally fall off at a rapid enough rate that they are hard to obtain within some of our lifetimes? If we just accept that this will be disproportionately enforced, how do we combat the inequalities in convictions, prison populations, economic well-being, etc among different ethnic groups due to the uneven enforcement of these laws? Will black, indigenous, and other people of color get reparations because the law only de-facto applies in our communities and not the second amendment sanctuaries where white people live? Will stop and frisk be explicitly outlawed so that those of us who don't own guns but look a certain way aren't racially profiled on the premise that we might have an illegal gun but really it is because of our race? Will regular police patrols be limited to shotguns or will they be exempted as they tend to be in current legislation? If they are exempted, why? 



Like I said, nothing will change because common sense is immediately met with paranoia and nonsense. Thanks for proving my point.



Chrkeller said:

Like I said, nothing will change because common sense is immediately met with paranoia and nonsense. Thanks for proving my point.

Yeah, you obviously are white. Otherwise you would understand quite well that concern about the white-supremacist police forces and institutions in this country is not unjustified. Typical yt settler-colonizer mentality. 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Chrkeller said:

Like I said, nothing will change because common sense is immediately met with paranoia and nonsense. Thanks for proving my point.

Yeah, you obviously are white. Otherwise you would understand quite well that concern about the white-supremacist police forces and institutions in this country is not unjustified. Typical yt settler-colonizer mentality. 

non sequitur

At the very least we stop future sales of high powered, high capacity semi automated weapons of war.  Just start there. 

But you and others don't want any limitations, we would prefer dead children.  Which is your opinion, I just don't share it.  We could at least attempt to try, but we won't because money.   



Chrkeller said:
sc94597 said:

Yeah, you obviously are white. Otherwise you would understand quite well that concern about the white-supremacist police forces and institutions in this country is not unjustified. Typical yt settler-colonizer mentality. 

non sequitur

At the very least we stop future sales of high powered, high capacity semi automated weapons of war.  Just start there. 

But you and others don't want any limitations, we would prefer dead children.  Which is your opinion, I just don't share it.  We could at least attempt to try.   

It isn't non-sequitur. When a white person tells a person of color that they are "paranoid" about the enforcement of gun laws disproportionately harming people of color (a proven fact with a plethora of data supporting it) their whiteness (and therefore limited perspective) is highly relevant to the discussion. I never said I don't support gun limitations by the way. I'd support any gun laws whose costs are felt proportionately by everyone, and therefore strongly considered. If white-supremacist Bob gets to keep his armory because of a grandfather clause and can use it to terrorize BIPOC people because he lives in a sanctuary county, while somebody who can't rely on police to protect them because of their race goes to prison because they carry a semi-automatic handgun for self-defense, I am going to oppose the law. But if the law equally applied to white-supremacist Bob in a sanctuary county, then it is far more palatable. 

But whiteness is often blindness on these topics.  



Is it ironic that I'm legitimately color blind?

Either way, start simple. Stop future sales.



sc94597 said:
Chrkeller said:

I think common sense gun laws include allowing people to own hunting rifles and home defense (e.g. shotguns).  First step is to acknowledge high powered 45 rounds per minutes high capacity mags simply shouldn't be readily available for the average person to buy.  Does this fix everything?  No.  But at least start with weapon type.

Immediate questions: to continue the dialogue. Who are the new laws going to be enforced by? Specifically, how do you address rural and exurban sheriffs and police departments who practice "nullification" and states/counties that set up "second amendment sanctuaries"? Will there need to be funding allocated to the ATF to hire new, very large nation-wide police force that does raids in rural areas when state law-enforcement refuses to assist in enforcement? Are people who already own to-be-illegal guns allowed to be grandfathered in their ownership or will they have to forfeit them to comply with the law? If they are grandfathered in their ownership does that solve the problem given how many guns are already out there, often in white-supremacist hands? If they must forfeit them, how is this to be enforced? Will we expand prison populations to house those who disobey, despite having the largest prison population per capita in the world already? Or will fines and confiscations be the only enforcement mechanism and we hope that after decades of being fined the number of illegal firearms will naturally fall off at a rapid enough rate that they are hard to obtain within some of our lifetimes? If we just accept that this will be disproportionately enforced, how do we combat the inequalities in convictions, prison populations, economic well-being, etc among different ethnic groups due to the uneven enforcement of these laws? Will black, indigenous, and other people of color get reparations because the law only de-facto applies in our communities and not the second amendment sanctuaries where white people live? Will stop and frisk be explicitly outlawed so that those of us who don't own guns but look a certain way aren't racially profiled on the premise that we might have an illegal gun but really it is because of our race? Will regular police patrols be limited to shotguns or will they be exempted as they tend to be in current legislation? If they are exempted, why? 

What kind of dialogues are you used to having where you spew out 20 questions at once for the other person to respond to? This seems more like an attempt to shut down the dialogue by simply overwhelming the other party.



Chrkeller said:

Is it ironic that I'm legitimately color blind?

No it's not ironic at all. It is par for the course and entirely expected. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/

"Instead, it encourages those who endorse this perspective to ignore the ongoing processes that maintain racial stratification in schools, neighborhoods, health care, and other social institutions. Can color consciousness draw attention to these issues? The research demonstrates that it can lead to more understanding of our racially stratified society and can give rise to a willingness to work for change. So from that perspective, it doesn’t seem worth abandoning just yet."