News Mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand - At least 49 dead

[Jhhnn]

The scientific fact that any gun you own is far more likely to be used on you or your family than on an intruder is completely lost on gun nuts. Or maybe they don't care, which is super crazy.

There are legit reasons to own guns, hunting chief among them. Those are a whole different kind of gun, however. Hunting is part of rural/ small town America & a necessary wildlife management tool. It's an important food source for some people. Hunters have done a lot to preserve the environment with fees & donations to organizations like ducks unlimited. I don't support a ban on sporting arms.

I grew up with guns. They were never loaded in the house. It wasn't about self defense against semi-mythical "others".

 

[dainthomas]

There are legit reasons to own guns, hunting chief among them. Those are a whole different kind of gun, however. Hunting is part of rural/ small town America & a necessary wildlife management tool. It's an important food source for some people. Hunters have done a lot to preserve the environment with fees & donations to organizations like ducks unlimited. I don't support a ban on sporting arms.

I grew up with guns. They were never loaded in the house. It wasn't about self defense against semi-mythical "others".

It's my understanding that typical hunting rifles are different than those used in these mass shootings.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's my understanding that typical hunting rifles are different than those used in these mass shootings.

Absolutely. Firearms are highly developed & specialized, particularly modern military carbines. They're state of the art for killing as many people as fast as possible. It's extremely desirable in combat situations & killing sprees.

They're also fun to shoot at the range or other suitable environs. In civilian hands, they're toys, fetishes or the means to go nuts, take your pick.

 

[Ichinisan]

The scientific fact that any gun you own is far more likely to be used on you or your family than on an intruder is completely lost on gun nuts. Or maybe they don't care, which is super crazy.

It's lost on you that you can't quantify the number of potential intruders deterred because they considered the possibility that a home owner has a gun.

Besides, we're talking about so-called "assault rifles," which supposedly aren't made for protecting a home from a few intruders.

 

[jackstar7]

There are legit reasons to own guns, hunting chief among them. Those are a whole different kind of gun, however. Hunting is part of rural/ small town America & a necessary wildlife management tool. It's an important food source for some people. Hunters have done a lot to preserve the environment with fees & donations to organizations like ducks unlimited. I don't support a ban on sporting arms.

I grew up with guns. They were never loaded in the house. It wasn't about self defense against semi-mythical "others".

I think hunting is no longer a legit reason, but I do believe that livestock protection is.

And if hunting is your reason, the weapons for hunting should be regulated very specifically and carefully.

And because it comes up so often at some point, I do also think police should not be armed either.

 

[Ichinisan]

It's my understanding that typical hunting rifles are different than those used in these mass shootings.

It's unclear how you determine which rifles are the "assault" variety. Which feature or cosmetic style crosses the line?

 

[jackstar7]

It's lost on you that you can't quantify the number of potential intruders deterred because they considered the possibility that a home owner has a gun.

Besides, we're talking about so-called "assault rifles," which isn't really about protecting a home from a few intruders.

Yeah, potential intruders really spend a lot of time weighing the cost-benefits of their actions.

Seems legit.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yeah, potential intruders really spend a lot of time weighing the cost-benefits of their actions.

Seems legit.

Yes.

If an intruder basically has a 0% chance of encountering a gun-wielding home owner, he's a lot more likely to take the risk and break in.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes.

If an intruder basically has a 0% chance of encountering a gun-wielding home owner, he's a lot more likely to take the risk and break in.

How is that determination made, do you think? Just look for Dem lawn signs, or...?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes.

If an intruder basically has a 0% chance of encountering a gun-wielding home owner, he's a lot more likely to take the risk and break in.

Almost no one breaks into a house if they think there is any chance of someone being there anyway.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's unclear how you determine which rifles are the "assault" variety. Which feature or cosmetic style crosses the line?

Does it matter? You define it based on whatever criteria you like and then adjust as needed. I'm sure the gun manufactures product advertisement will help you sort it out.

 

[Luna1968]

And if hunting is your reason, the weapons for hunting should be regulated very specifically and carefully.

they already are. ever been fowl hunting? or bow hunting season for bear? or how about black-powder season deer hunting? now thats exciting. OR using a AR with a 30 round mag and unleashing hell on a pack of wild hogs in a field at night. now that is VERY exciting.

 

[Paratus]

they already are. ever been fowl hunting? or bow hunting season for bear? or how about black-power season deer hunting? now thats exciting. OR using a AR with a 30 round mag and unleashing hell on a pack of wild hogs in a field at night. now that is VERY exciting.

Black-power season? Quite the Freudian slip there.

 

[Luna1968]

Black-power season? Quite the Freudian slip there.

 

[woolfe9998]

Except the design of the object comes out of unconscious bias so your logic there just sucks.

Which makes the designer racist, not the object. The notion that we project "racism" onto an inanimate object is silly.

Like how image recognition algorithms sucked with non-white people. Because there weren't enough non-white people involved in training those algorithms so they didn't even notice it was an issue until it was live and then "oh oops yeah our algorithm is fucking racist". There's lots of examples of stuff like that, where the people involved ended up with an oh shit moment because they literally didn't have other types of people around them (has happened with sex/gender related stuff as well, where they don't notice something that a woman immediately was like "uh, WTF?" and the people involved were embarrassed because it was something they genuinely didn't think about at all, but was very apparent to others because of how different things will naturally affect different people). They fully understand how it comes off as racist/sexist, but didn't intend it to be that way.

I never said there aren't things which have an unintentionally discriminatory effect. The problem is the word "racist" carries a powerful stigma in our society, and hence it isn't a word we should just throw around. After "child molester," "racist" is about the worst thing you can all someone. Problems like what you describe above can be addressed without calling someone a racist who had no such intent.

The problem is these days, there's some very intentionally racist stuff done (like in marketing or other places) where the people try to act like "what, I'm not racist at all" and then of course Tweets from a couple years back where they say crazy racist shit get revealed. Or they get dumbshits like the one dumbass on here to go around "nah guys, its not racist, its 4Chan!"

If it's intentional, then its racist, even if they try to conceal their intent. But we can't counter the fact that so many actual racists conceal it by broadening the definition of the word to the point where it ends up ensnaring people who aren't actually racist. It's problematic to suddenly expand the definition of any word, let alone one which carries such a powerful stigma.

 

[realibrad]

Almost no one breaks into a house if they think there is any chance of someone being there anyway.

Typically, a person will avoid anything that makes getting away less easy. Your house does not need to be perfect for them to avoid you. You just need to make your house harder to break into than the people around you. Unless you are specifically targeted, then anything you do to make it harder than the next guy helps.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

. . . .
If it's intentional, then its racist, even if they try to conceal their intent. But we can't counter the fact that so many actual racists conceal it by broadening the definition of the word to the point where it ends up ensnaring people who aren't actually racist. It's problematic to suddenly expand the definition of any word, let alone one which carries such a powerful stigma.

Racism is seldom an exercise in honesty, and honesty is not always a trait that involves a second participant. That's why it can be very subtle.

An honest KKK'er would wear his hood to work and on shopping errands. But we all know the other examples. I'd given one where two "white" people assumed to be conversing alone feel comfortable using the N word because those "others" aren't listening. It doesn't matter whether they have a right to do it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's "Politically correct". It is . . . what it is.

The problem persists because people cling to an identity of color. They cling to an identity of color out of an inner deficit in self-esteem. In other words, "I feel like s***, but at least -- I'm white".

 

[realibrad]

Racism is seldom an exercise in honesty, and honesty is not always a trait that involves a second participant. That's why it can be very subtle.

An honest KKK'er would wear his hood to work and on shopping errands. But we all know the other examples. I'd given one where two "white" people assumed to be conversing alone feel comfortable using the N word because those "others" aren't listening. It doesn't matter whether they have a right to do it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's "Politically correct". It is . . . what it is.

The problem persists because people cling to an identity of color. They cling to an identity of color out of an inner deficit in self-esteem. In other words, "I feel like s***, but at least -- I'm white".

So his point is that people are trying to cut through into the areas where racism is not overt and obvious by expanding the definitions to things that do not need something explicit. Your response seems to be a response to that.

Is that what you are responding to, or something else?

 

[dainthomas]

Almost no one breaks into a house if they think there is any chance of someone being there anyway.

And if you have any dog, even that percentage is reduced greatly.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Edit: posted in the wrong thread

 

[Jhhnn]

..

 

[ivwshane]

they already are. ever been fowl hunting? or bow hunting season for bear? or how about black-powder season deer hunting? now thats exciting. OR using a AR with a 30 round mag and unleashing hell on a pack of wild hogs in a field at night. now that is VERY exciting.

How very psychopathic of you.

 

[Ichinisan]

How is that determination made, do you think? Just look for Dem lawn signs, or...?

Live in a country where people aren't allowed to own firearms?

 

[Ichinisan]

Does it matter? You define it based on whatever criteria you like and then adjust as needed. I'm sure the gun manufactures product advertisement will help you sort it out.

I guess it's supposed to matter...right? What's the point of banning "assault" weapons if the distinction is just a cosmetic one?

 

[JSt0rm]

That's not reasonable at all. A very small % of white people are violent & believe in white nationalism. As a white person, I denounce it. I don't see Quibbles as a white nationalist, either.

What’s the %? I’m thinking 20%