/townhall/ - Townhall

>>11175
I think I made an error.  Change "Capital" in the graph to "Capita" or "Person".  While I think the meaning will still come through, usually I am wrong about these kinds of assumptions.  The intent is a measure of firearms per person on the independent axis.

>>11176

No, that's a good clarification.  I thought it was "Guns and/or Capital".

If the question is about how the presence of guns affects safety, I think it's pretty variable.  There's as many situations where more guns would've solved the situation as less.  Situations where we'd really rather the rampager didn't have guns and situations where a potential killer was stopped out the gate by an armed vigilante.

In the recent high profile Uvalde case, we'd probably be better off if the angsty teenager didn't have an assault rifle.  But there were plenty of other points in that situation where we had solutions aside from somehow preventing him from having a gun.  He couldn't even have entered the school if he hadn't crashed his car nearby right as a teacher happened to prop the door open.  The school's security guard wasn't actually in the building at the time and was unable to respond.  The police were (if I'm being charitable and not assuming bad intentions) too afraid to breach the classroom he barricaded himself in without more gear.  I have no idea where the town's SWAT team was, the group specifically trained and equipped to deal with this kind of thing.

It's a very complex issue with a lot of failure points.  To my knowledge we haven't even figured out the shooters motives.  Solving the rampage violence in America has a lot of potential answers and only limited examples of anything working in the past.  Examples that may not actually apply to America.

>>11175
Scott has a good blog post on this topic:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/

The recent events to me create this weird kind paradox.
Like, on one side, having a Police force being useless while a massacre is going on, only strengthens the resolve to have armed guards, reinforced classrooms maybe even armed teachers and students on the premise.
At the same time, looking at it from the viewpoint of a European where I can basically walk into any school and be told to leave or be escorted outside if needed, but without all of these heavy protective  measures applied and knowing that so far there hasn't been any instance of any sort of big massacre to date, it is kind of extremely silly.

I find debates on gun control and the right to arm bears is a bit tricky to walk in from the outside and I don't want to claim that more gun control or less gun control has any positive impact on the issue.

>>11175
> all the particulars to a God-given right to private arms are self-evident
Maybe the issue I could take a stab at could be the Gun culture itself?
Like, so many people going around believing that they are cowboys and God Himself willed them to bear guns and anyone who stands in their way can fuck off.
Maybe if culturally owning a gun was like owning a spatula, people won't be having any ideas of actually going out and making their stand.

>>11175
I don't consider guns and safety to be linked much to begin with.
Not in terms of overall societies, anyway.

>>11177
>we'd probably be better off if the angsty teenager didn't have an assault rifle
Very true.  I haven't read about the recent cases in detail to know how the person got the gun.

>a lot of failure points
Sounds like it.

>no known motives
I see.

-

Perhaps I should have added these charts as well, but this is my thinking on the Republican point of view.  Roughly, bad people will find a way to get guns (and I guess we assume the proportion of people who are 'bad' is relatively constant).  Good people will obey the laws and cultural norms.  Making gun ownership legal, convenient, and socially rewarding for good people makes society safer.

Not hard to do. Guns per Capita is readily available so you just need an equally measurable way to measure *safety* and jurisdictions that are otherwise statistically comparable. If it doesn't say the right thing try changing x to guns per homeowner. Guns per mile may also work.

>>11178
I read your post.  It sounds like guns/person is a factor in gun murders, but not the most important or high gun areas like Wyoming would have much higher murder rates.

>As the old saying goes, guns don’t kill people; guns controlled for robbery rate, alcoholism, income, a dummy variable for Southernness, and a combined measure of social deprivation kill people.

Sounds complicated, but OK.  Testing the Republican model would require separating good guys and bad guys in the analysis.  I doubt that's very feasible with large data sets.

>>11179
>only strengthens the resolve to have armed guards, reinforced classrooms maybe even armed teachers and students on the premise.
Oh yes.  There's always a call to station more guards at schools and arm teachers.

>God Himself willed them to bear guns and anyone who stands in their way can fuck off.
Basically.  And as Cheerful Bat's post referenced, guns per household is not a great deal higher in the US than Canada, but at least some of the households with guns have a lot of guns.  There are certainly people who look at guns as simple utility pieces, like spatulas and they do not have arsenals.  Mass shooting is most newsworthy when the shooter is using an arsenal.  I gather arsenals are not as popular in Europe.

>>11183
Something else to keep in mind is that gun murders are no worse than any other type of murder.
Murder is murder, regardless. You can kill with more than just a gun.
Frankly, i find this a rather strangely ignored thing in the debate. At least by one side, anyway. Like, sure, of course places without guns have less gun homicides. Doesn't mean they have less homicides overall.

>>11184
You can look at a gun as any other object, and still have a fair few of them.
I've got, if memory serves, eight. 2 bolt actions, 2 shotguns, 2 pistols, and 2 what would be labeled by some as "assault weapons".
I certainly don't consider myself some "John Wick" character, nor do I consider these firearms to be a gift from god.
I think they're neat. I think they serve a vital purpose. I think they're a good investment. And I think they're fun.

>>11185
>rather strangely ignored thing in the debate. At least by one side, anyway.
Is it correct to say the other side of the gun debate from your context is the liberal side?  How would you describe their argument?

One of the axis on the graph is safety.  And you can operationalize that as a lower probability of becoming injured or killed due to gunshot wounds (or perhaps  substitution weapons such as knives).  But you could also imagine diffusing gun violence in a way that causes fewer newsworthy incidents of mass shooting, while actually having the same number dead.  The issue is a bit like terrorism (or maybe these attacks are terrorism), in that it's hard to know how much this is a numbers game and how much optics, I guess.

>some as "assault weapons".
The first sentence of wikipedia seems to be a fairly precise definition for assault rifle (granted you said weapon -- are some assault weapons not rifled?)  "An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."  

I don't consider that I know much about guns (although I was in the military and technically am trained to maintain a 25mm machine gun).

Glad they are something you are good at.

>>11186
>The first sentence of wikipedia seems to be a fairly precise definition for assault rifle
Assault weapon and assault rifle are two different things.
As you say; An assault rifle is a select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge.
I've got no NFA pre- 86 firearms, nor do I have any dealer sample rifles, as I lack an FFL license.
So I lack any assault rifles.

>Is it correct to say the other side of the gun debate from your context is the liberal side?
In regards to that comment, yes. There's a focus on purely gun-related violence, as opposed to violence more generally.

As I said; You can kill with anything, and they're just as dead as they are with a gun. Lacking guns may well mean you're less likely of getting killed by guns, but that doesn't inherently mean you're less likely to get killed, at all.

> But you could also imagine diffusing gun violence in a way that causes fewer newsworthy incidents of mass shooting, while actually having the same number dead.
Perhaps. The question there basically comes down to, how committed are these people?
Would they simply not hurt anyone if they didn't have a firearm?
Or would they use another method, say a large motor vehicle, fire, or improvised explosives? Or potentially, as we see in foreign countries, would they attempt such things with a knife?

Ultimately, despite their media attention, however, these events are rare. Much as terrorism, I do not consider it to be a justification for heavy-handed government overreach, as we see with the TSA. Especially as, near as I can tell, all that truly occurs is targets change, in respects to their involvement. If that.

>>11177
> I have no idea where the town's SWAT team was, the group specifically trained and equipped to deal with this kind of thing.
Uvalde has a population of 16,000.  They don't have a SWAT team.  Border Patrol SWAT is the group that came in 40-60 minutes later.

>>11191
I can't say for specific times but at least as far as I understood, they were there well before the shooter was ultimately killed, told to stand by by local law enforcement despite being on scene and equipped.

>>11191

Border Patrol is who came in to solve the situation finally, but as best as I can tell Uvalde does have their own SWAT team.  Or at least claimed to a couple years ago.  I can't find any definitive proof.

>>11193
That does seem to be an issue of contention.

America is generally a more hateful and violent country with a worse people who believe in worse moral values values compared to other modern First World nations.

We have more child molestation and spousal abuse than others for the essential same reason as why we have more mass shootings as well as gang related deaths. Ethical rot. America is a "culture of hatred" and "culture of violence" in which people attacking, killing, and raping each other is tolerated socially more than other places if not actively celebrated in popular culture. That's that.

Having said what needs to be said, I generally agree that we need more strict laws to prevent serial rapists, illegal immigrant traffickers, drug dealers, and so on from getting firearms since it's beyond easy right now. But that will be difficult because U.S. law enforcement is a total joke all over. We already have laws against, say, adults having sex with children. They're not enforced. A law being enacted preventing somebody from using a gun on a child during said rape wouldn't really change things. However, I'd still want the legal changes made, for the sake of morality.

In short, America has more bad guys with guns and more dead good guys with or without guns because we have more bad guys and less good guys on general. Per capita in all cases.

>>11209
According to what? I don't think the statistics bear that out.
While we certainly have issues in some areas, I certainly wouldn't agree we have "per capita in all cases" less good guys and more bad guys.

>>11212
I mean, well, the fact that crime rates for all kinds of terrible criminal things are abnormally high in the U.S. compared to normal countries kinds of speaks for itself.

I'm not really an average American per se, but I can tell you in my own case that I rather hate the constant fear of being a victim that I must live with day by day, knowing that law enforcement in this corrupt place wouldn't actually help me if I was needing help.

>>11216
Are they? I'm not convinced that's true, having seen various crime statistics myself.
Perhaps there's data I've not seen. Or perhaps it's down to definitions of "normal" countries.

I don't disagree that our law enforcement is quite useless and corrupted, but that seems to me to be the case across the world. With many places far worse than us, due to their lack of a codified rights in their nations' foundings.

Personally, i think gun deaths, tragic as they are, are not the *point* of gun ownership or gun rights. The *point*, in my eyes, is that an armed populace is the backbone of a legitimate democracy. If the state has more military might than it's people, then democracy is a pathetic suggestion, a play the state puts on to make fun of it's subjects while letting internal state politics pick who does what.

As far as mass shootings go, problem to me seems that police don't respond to these things like they should, choosing time and time again to hide like craven cowards while innocent people get gunned down. Hell, i could see why would-be mass shooters would feel empowered based on basically every level of response from law enforcement. From feds who "knew about" the shooter before he shot, yet did nothing, to pathetic cowardly excuses for police officers waiting outside a school while the children inside get gunned down. Maybe if law enforcement and feds did their fucking job instead of bullying poor black people and harassing their political opponents, maybe it wouldn't be such an issue. I'm not necessarily against arming teachers as a broad concept. I think if i teacher feels safer with a firearm to protect their students and themselves, they should be allowed to do so, but maybe police officers should be an earlier line of defense than school teachers, yes?

>>11273
While it would be great if an armed populace would be the backbone of a free society and democracy in case of possible future tyranny, there's the fact that the majority of gun owners may vote for the tyranny and support the tyranny.

If you'd like a concrete example, look at Chancellor Palpatine being the most popular man in the galaxy and becoming Emporer to thunderous applause.

>>11273
Pretty much this. While deaths are debated because the data's fuzzy to say the least, the ultimate purpose of civilian armament is to facilitate defense against any who'd violate your rights.
Be it the government, a foreign state, or a common criminal, the reason for firearm ownership is to facilitate the means of defense and put that means firmly in the hands of the individual.

>>11417
1. Palpatine is a fictional character

2. The Republic certainly didn't have a constitutional right of armament for its citizens
Near as I can tell it varied immensely across the setting, because more or less planets governed themselves.

Which incidentally brings me to my third point;
3. The Empire was not voted for by the people.
The Empire was voted for by senators.
IE, the political class.
Politicians, I might add, who had been funding a brutal war purely built around them reneging on a tax break deal they gave to Outer Rim development.

I do not consider dishonest politicians and armed citizens to be equivalent.

>>11418
Well, to get to brass tacks about it, there's the specific fact that if the U.S. Republican Party and the broader U.S. ultranationalist movement take over American government and impose a fascist dictatorship in which nobody will be allowed to vote ever again... both you and I know that a large number of gun owners, maybe most of them, are political conservatives who would welcome a one-party-state in order to enact vengeance upon minorities and 'Make America Great Again' among other things.

I'd also like to point out how incredibly hostile to the point of outright intimidation gun owners in general have been to those such as transgender people, disabled people, Muslims, and others possibly owning firearms due to the conservative politics of gun owners in general. It's pretty effective victim disarmament. Honestly. If it was really about liberty, then the 2nd amendment would apply equally to everybody.

In a fascist America, there would be a lot of gun owners against the tyranny, but there would also be a great number in favor. In short, it would be a civil war. And I don't think we can say who wins necessarily before it happens, if it does.

Although, I keep seeing talk from conservatives online that if there was a civil war they expect to be better armed and thus win easily, just killing off minorities the same way an exterminator would kill off a house's bugs. Take that for what you will. I guess.

>>11420
>both you and I know that a large number of gun owners, maybe most of them, are political conservatives who would welcome a one-party-state in order to enact vengeance upon minorities and 'Make America Great Again' among other things.
That may well be a deluded paranoia you yourself hold. I'll certainly grant that.
I would ask, however, you not speak for me. As I most certainly do not thing a 'large number' would do such a thing.

>I'd also like to point out how incredibly hostile to the point of outright intimidation gun owners in general have been to those such as transgender people, disabled people, Muslims, and others possibly owning firearms due to the conservative politics of gun owners in general.
Citation absolutely needed.

My experience has universally been the exact opposite. With people quite happy to show others the hobby, as well as most certainly advocate that those who are at risk ought arm themselves.
Especially the disabled, as I see very helpful clerks offering different types of firearms more suited to, for example, one handed use.
This notion somehow gunowners are exclusionary is laughably inaccurate to say the least. Where do you get such a notion?
> then the 2nd amendment would apply equally to everybody.
It does.

>Although, I keep seeing talk from conservatives online that if there was a civil war they expect to be better armed and thus win easily, just killing off minorities the same way an exterminator would kill off a house's bugs.
Again; Citation absolutely needed.
I've never seen such a thing. Hell, I've never even seen people say a civil war would be easy.
But most certainly I've never seen such an "exterminator" notion from general gun-owning conservatives.
Who are you speaking of?
Or are you just going off of a personal bias, you've created to blanket label any of your enemies as evil, unreasonable monsters?

>>11421
I wouldn't characterize objective factual reality as "deluded paranoia", but at this point it's clear that different people of different political persuasions in America believe different realities, to which we literally can't even agree as a society if the Earth is flat or how old it is and so on... let alone come to agreement on morals. So... eh. That's that.

My life experience has been the exact opposite in terms of gun culture, with me getting nothing other than seething hostility that the 'wrong type of person' wants to be armed. As somebody who would likely be a gun owner myself in an alternate universe with another America, this applies to me personally, with me honestly not enjoying the fact that I'm not allowed to participate in anything firearm related culturally due to being a multiple marginalized minority. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to everybody. That's a fact.

Fundamentally, what's happening all over is that conservatives label everybody who's not them as evil, unreasonable monsters that must be passionately hated. This extends to conservatives firing people from their jobs, preventing them from voting, taking away their health care, censoring their free speech, kicking them out of their homes, and much, much more. It's weird as hell to me that you're playing a "No, U" kind of logical reversal game that I'm somehow being mean when I'm just standing from an objective perspective looking at how one tribe treats all non-tribe members. But, again, I guess that goes back to the above point about realities.

Anyways, this is getting besides the point.

If a conservative Republican is elected President and decides to reenact Trump aka declare himself eternal President for life no matter whatever the voters ever say again and vow to use political violence to support himself... you and I both know that a majority of Republicans and conservatives would support him. Out of not just blind tribal loyalty but based on the fact that a powerful leader can impose right-wing ideology with no opposition politically anymore. And many gun owners are of the politics that they they'd support this.

Granted, a lot of liberals, moderates, libertarians, and others who aren't as government worshipping as conservatives at the moment would resist. There would be a civil war. Not clear who would win.

But that's the point. Gun ownership is NOT a bulwark against tyranny. It CAN'T be. Because many ordinary people, including many gun owners, WANT tyranny.

>>11422
It's not "objective factual reality", though.
If it were, you'd be able to give citations or demonstrations or some other such point of link to demonstrate that.
Instead you cite your own personal experiences. Great, you've got anecdotal experiences, with their own contexts and circumstances I know nothing about to create that feeling.
I agree that you believe everyone on the right is an evil monster out to get you. That wasn't what was being disagreed with.

> with me getting nothing other than seething hostility that the 'wrong type of person' wants to be armed.
If I might be so bold, labeling everyone who is a conservative as an evil monster who'd murder you the second they get the chance and would support an orwellian fascistic dictatorship is probably the reason why you got that nasty response.

A general rule of thumb: Treat people poorly, they'll respond in kind.
If you'd like to get along, I assure you, it's easy. Most gun clubs and stores just want to get more people into the hobby. They don't really bother asking too many questions in so far as what you are, because it really doesn't matter. The common interest is important.

But obviously, if you start talking about how horrible and evil conservatives are, and how this is "objective factual reality" while giving nothing to demonstrate it and going directly against the people who'd call themselves conservative in that very store state they believe, not to mention the experiences of everyone who's known such people, yeah, obviously people're going to be mad at you and tell you to get lost.

>Fundamentally, what's happening all over is that conservatives label everybody who's not them as evil, unreasonable monsters that must be passionately hated.
Bro, have you seen your own posts?
And it's not like it's hard to tell this is the same guy who's been doing this for ages, too.
You're the one labeling all conservatives as evil monsters.
Fuck, dude, I'm conservative. i sure as hell don't do any of that.
You're making stuff up to suit your fear and paranoia.

> This extends to conservatives firing people from their jobs,
Riiight, because conservatives are renowned for cancel culture, firing people for political beliefs... Not like there's an entire plethora of people who've found themselves on the wrong side of a massive corporation and without employment because they dared say "Hey, maybe this 'positive discrimination' thing is wrong".

>It's weird as hell to me that you're playing a "No, U" kind of logical reversal game that I'm somehow being mean when I'm just standing from an objective perspective looking at how one tribe treats all non-tribe members.
Because your stuff is unsourced, unsubstantiated, and undefended.
You just say it as though it's divine truth.
It's not.

You are not God.
You do not get to just say "THIS IS THING THAT HAPPEN", and it become truth.
Hell, I wouldn't even accept that from god.
Evidence is required. Especially when you make shitty blanket statements of people, like you're doing here.

>If a conservative Republican is elected President and decides to reenact Trump aka declare himself eternal President for life no matter whatever the voters ever say again
Trump never did that.
No wonder you're so deluded.
You're literally citing events that never actually happened.
Then again, you considered Palpatine a real world example, so...

>you and I both know that a majority of Republicans and conservatives would support him.
You think that.
I sure as fuck do not.

Stop talking for me.
You are not me.
I am not you.
Stop assuming what I believe. You've already demonstrated yourself to be an absolutely shit judge of character on such things.
And I already said this, besides, at here >>11421
It was literally the first line.

I shouldn't have to ask you not to speak for me, twice, on the same fucking thing.

>But that's the point. Gun ownership is NOT a bulwark against tyranny. It CAN'T be. Because many ordinary people, including many gun owners, WANT tyranny.
According to the paranoid delusional guy on /townhall/ who gives nothing to defend his point, cites no sources, shows no examples save for fucking Palpatine, a character from a shoddy movie set in a fictional space setting with wizards with magical swords and laser bolts.

I don't believe you.
I have no reason to believe you.
You've given me no reason to believe you.

>>11422
I'm not sure where you're getting this perception of the pro-gun crowd. I'm pretty darn involved in the pro-gun community, and literally everyone I meet celebrates minorities arming themselves. They're the groups that should be armed the most.

Wherever you live that gave you the impression that everyone on the libertarian side of things wants some kind of religious trump-led regime to wipe minorities from the country must be an absolutely terrible place to live. If you can afford to move, I suggest you move pronto.

Thankfully most of the country isn't like that at all, so really anywhere but where you are should be fine.

>>11423
>>11424
In the hopes of the two of you seeing some connection to factual objective reality, see: https://www.salon.com/2022/07/25/malcolm-nance-on-the-insurgency-jan-6-was-a-template-to-do-it-correctly-next-time/

Read the whole thing.

I'm also curious about a fundamental ethical question.

Suppose for the sake of argument that my personal circumstances change and I decide to get armed as well as train myself for the purposes of self-defense against not just a right-wing government possibly taking over but also against me being attacked in some kind of personal assault by right-wing activists... me hoping I could prevent the next Buffalo grocery store shooting and Charleston church shooting by happening to be present to stop a potential right-wing mass murderer as well as me hoping not to be another street crime statistic at the hands of some random right-wing fellow who doesn't think I belong somewhere.

Given the passionate, seething hatred out there for me and people like me in America, particarly the conservatives who see us as evil monsters that must be culled, would you personally support my right to be armed? Would you give me specific, practical advice (i.e. this Baretta is better than this one)? Would you give me defense if somebody or some government tried to take away my weapons?

Suppose next we're not talking about me but an actual, genuine communist revolutionary who happens to think in her mind that there ought to be some kind of a violent revolt soon. And that's why she's getting armed and training. Would all of the above still apply?

Am wondering about the 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' side of this.

For me as a reformist centrist who voted for both McCain and Romney (no regrets) for President, I think that even somebody as immoral as a neo-Stalinist or neo-Nazi (not that there's a difference now between neo-Nazis and conservatives since they look the same, talk the same, act the same, and advocate for the same policies to be enacted) ought to be able to be armed since restricting civil rights due to a person's beliefs is a thought-crime issue that shouldn't happen. Same fundamental thing as freedom of speech. You have the 'right to be wrong'.

>>11425
>by thousands of Trump's armed followers,
Well good to know the article's already full of shit.
I've yet to see evidence of anyone entering the capitol building with a firearm, let alone "thousand of armed followers".
> At any point during those 187 minutes, Trump could have told his followers to end their attack on the Capitol.
Like when he told everyone to "go home"? Stating explicitly "We have to have peace, we have to have law and order, we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anyone hurt"?

Seems to me you grabbed a partisan opinion piece as though it was some kind of factual response.
It's not. It's sure as hell not evidence of anything, save for this particular author's political leanings.

>>11426
>Given the passionate, seething hatred out there for me and people like me in America, would you personally support my right to be armed?
Why on earth wouldn't I?

>Would you give me specific, practical advice?
Sure. Buy a CZ if you can find one. P09s are amazing pistols, and pretty much the best you can get in a 9mm. 20 rounds, assuming one in the chamber, and an arguably better quality to pistols twice the price.
Hammerfired is also better than striker, if you ask me. Both for safety, and in terms of general trigger feel. Drop the hammer into double-action, and a true safety isn't required, as that first pull requires a lot of force which makes it a much more obvious, intentional action.
This, compared to something like a glock, which has no safety and a lighter first trigger pull, seems a generally better idea, especially if you're new or want to carry it.

They're a bit of a pain to find, but gun shows are fairly regular, so just show up to one of them and you'll usually spot one.
Otherwise, I guess a Beretta is pretty solid. Bersas, while not necessarily the best made, are quite solid options. Simple enough that they shouldn't jam, same double-action function, and 380 is a little lighter in the recoil department.
A lot cheaper too, usually. Get the plus if you can get it, though, 'cause capacity is important.

As far as training, youtube is the best, I say. Though you can always look for one of the NRA classes, if you like. Personally, I never bothered, as I find little utility in learning basics that come 90% from, frankly, common sense. But some people find a little peace of mind from it.

>Would you give me defense if somebody or some government tried to take away my weapons?
Sure. Same as for anyone.

> I think that even somebody as immoral as a neo-Stalinist or neo-Nazi ought to be able to be armed since restricting civil rights due to a person's beliefs is a thought-crime issue that shouldn't happen.
Cool, we agree.
Personally, I'm quite happy to see proliferation of firearms go as far as possible, as I see it a much more important thing to arm individuals and ensure they have the means to resist whatever comes to their door, than it is to keep said arms out of the hands of those who'd do them harm.
'S why I am quite in favor of 3D printed firearms, such as the FGC9, lovingly named the "fuck gun control", with 9 denoting the caliber as 9mm.

>>11425
>Salon
Not off to a reputable start here.

>template to do it correctly next time.
Do what correctly next time? Was there an attempt at something?

>armed followers
...aaaand off the deep end already.

That entire article is written from a completely fictional perspective. There was no coup plot. There was no planning. No one was armed. Trump offered the national guard multiple times in the days leading up to it, and Pelosi turned it down every time. Many democrats knew days before that some people were looking to kick up a storm but kept quiet about it.

Then the actual day comes, and nobody is armed, capitol police let people into the building and even guided them through it, feds are running around trying to incite violence, and everyone eventually leaves with the biggest crime being theft.

An actual coup attempt wold have looked much different than Jan 6.

>>11426
>Given the passionate, seething hatred out there for me and people like me in America,  particarly the conservatives who see us as evil monsters that must be culled
You really need to move out of whatever crazy town you're in. America isn't like that.

>would you personally support my right to be armed? Would you give me specific, practical advice (i.e. this Baretta is better than this one)? Would you give me defense if somebody or some government tried to take away my weapons?
100%. Everyone has a right to be armed, and everyone has a right to know how to protect themselves against anyone who would take away their freedoms or life.

>Suppose next we're not talking about me but an actual, genuine communist revolutionary who happens to think in her mind that there ought to be some kind of a violent revolt soon. And that's why she's getting armed and training. Would all of the above still apply?
Certainly. Obviously a close eye should be kept on said person. Hopefully they don't start something. Perhaps a little bit of discussion could be had to calm 'em down if possible.

But they 100% have the right to be armed and well trained.

> I think that even somebody as immoral as a neo-Stalinist or neo-Nazi (not that there's a difference now between neo-Nazis and conservatives since they look the same, talk the same, act the same, and advocate for the same policies to be enacted) ought to be able to be armed since restricting civil rights due to a person's beliefs is a thought-crime issue that shouldn't happen. Same fundamental thing as freedom of speech. You have the 'right to be wrong'.
I 100% agree with you (except for the parenthetical which is just false).

>>11427
>>11428
>>11429
While it's depressing that the response to my shared news article citing all kinds of evidence including scholarly analysis by a prestigious expert in the subject is to assert a fictional reality and basically just go "nah", that's exactly what I expected, me being glad that you actually did read it and try to chew through it.

I remain worried about right-wing coercion and violence both in terms of random street attacks, mass murderer events, and a outright fascist takeover of the federal government given everything of the past two decades. And I feel like if I stay in America I probably should be armed to kill right-wing attackers in self-defense if I need to, as well as to resist a right-wing federal government if one comes about. I'd prefer not to do that, of course, but I don't seem to have a choice. It would also be nice if conservatism, fascism, ultranationalism, and neo-Nazism didn't all have completely blurred lines and didn't use the same rhetoric against the same victims to advocate the same platform policies, but, again, we don't choose such things.

If you want to counter with a conservative themed news piece about "Here's the evidence why Jews are inherently untrustworthy", "Here's why transgender people are trying to molest children in schools", "Here's why Putin should be supported in taking over Ukraine", or such, I confess that I'd have an extremely hard time with it. Yet I do commit to really reading it and treating it seriously. If you want to counter.

Thanks for the firearms related advice.

I've only ever heard that 3D printed weapons are pieces of garbage and fail after being fired once, though, so if you disagree with this please let me know why and show links.

>>11432
>While it's depressing that the response to my shared news article citing all kinds of evidence including scholarly analysis by a prestigious expert in the subject is to assert a fictional reality and basically just go "nah", that's exactly what I expected,
You've cited a Salon opinion piece, not a factual disertation.
This, all the more obvious by the article claiming people went armed into the capitol.

This is factually, objectively, and as a strict matter of reality not true.
If you believe blindly the article despite the complete lack of evidence in that regard, that just makes you a gullible fool who happily eats up the words of liars.

This aside; There's hardly any actual citations to much of anything in this article. It cites someone who wrote a bunch of books, a few more Salon opinion pieces, and a Yahoo opinion piece.

There is no scholarly analysis linked as far as I can see in the article. This seems to be just flat out an untrue statement.
Where did you get the idea that there was? Could you link it, perhaps, instead of the Salon opinion piece?

>>11432
>If you want to counter with a conservative themed news piece about "Here's the evidence why Jews are inherently untrustworthy", "Here's why transgender people are trying to molest children in schools", "Here's why Putin should be supported in taking over Ukraine", or such, I confess that I'd have an extremely hard time with it.
Neither of us have done anything nor said anything to suggest we believe that Jews are inherently untrustworthy, that Transgendered people are trying to molest children, or that Putin should be supported in Ukraine.

No statements of any kind have been made to suggest absolutely anything of the sort, and such a subject has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed as of yet here.

That is purely you trying to pin some nasty shit on us, because you lack an argument.

Plainly put: Go fuck yourself.
I am not the figment of your imagination.
I am not beholden to the insane fantasy you think of me.
I sure as shit don't appreciate it when someone throws such rotten presumptions my way.

>I've only ever heard that 3D printed weapons are pieces of garbage and fail after being fired once, though, so if you disagree with this please let me know why and show links.
Check out Print Shoot Repeat's channel.
He makes and shoots quite a wide range of 3D printed guns.

The FGC9 is probably one of the best examples, as it's been specifically designed from the ground up to use no firearm parts in places like Europe where more than just the upper receiver is regulated.

For legal reasons, I'll refrain from posting links or documentation to these items, but you can find them if you look hard enough.
Might have to use something other than Google, though. That one likes to manipulate results.

>>11435
>>11432
Oh, and I guess I should link Ctrl+Pew as well.
Guy actually designs some bits from time to time, memory serves, and is also probably a better goahead for finding the raw files if you're so inclined.

>>11435
>>11436
Thank you for the videos.

>>11432
>I've only ever heard that 3D printed weapons are pieces of garbage and fail after being fired once, though, so if you disagree with this please let me know why and show links.
Depends.  If you 3D-print a barrel out of PLA, you're going to have a bad time.  But in the US, only the receiver is the regulated part.  You can 3D-print an AR-15 lower receiver and buy the rest of the parts.  You can't 3D-print a whole gun out of plastic -- at least the barrel and firing pin need to be metal.  There are 3D printers that can print metal, but they are very expensive.