Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[Mr.TaterSalad]

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

and even now, as I track the uptick in vaccination in MI, I see that the increases are mostly in areas where vax rates were already high and are now getting higher, rather than in the areas where vax compliance is low finally changing their behavior.

Right, which is why you can look at county maps of the state and see where new case loads are exploding and where death, as a percentage of the counties entire population, is highest among red-areas and growing higher.

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173---,00.html

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Which goes back to the difference that was questioned between students in a school in Oxford being shot vs people on the street being shot in Chicago. The public knows all too well that despite the cases that make the news,  *most* of the violence in the inner cities is intergang/inter-youth violence and there isn't much question that that fact reduces the urgency that the larger society feels with respect to it. As long as it's "them" and "over there."

There's something to that. Because people "in the game" generally go after one another, too many people feel the problem is, in a way, taking care of itself. Hey, they're killing each other, they're gang members, so let 'em. The problem with that is that it's not only people actively involved getting hurt. Sometimes it extends to their family, especially their children who, regardless of how young they may be, are sometimes targeted in an effort to hurt people involved. That's why whenever I hear of some small child shot and killed in a seemingly random shooting on the south side, I always wonder, or even assume, that they've been targeted because of someone else, because these gangsters aren't shooting random people on the street. There's a purpose to what they do, so they sometimes shoot little children not because they're in the game, but because they are game-adjacent. It's depressing.

[Motor City Sonics]

"In the game".    

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

19 hours ago, chasfh said:

There's something to that. Because people "in the game" generally go after one another, too many people feel the problem is, in a way, taking care of itself. Hey, they're killing each other, they're gang members, so let 'em. The problem with that is that it's not only people actively involved getting hurt. Sometimes it extends to their family, especially their children who, regardless of how young they may be, are sometimes targeted in an effort to hurt people involved. That's why whenever I hear of some small child shot and killed in a seemingly random shooting on the south side, I always wonder, or even assume, that they've been targeted because of someone else, because these gangsters aren't shooting random people on the street. There's a purpose to what they do, so they sometimes shoot little children not because they're in the game, but because they are game-adjacent. It's depressing.

Many of those same people you are referencing above are staunch opponents of public assistance and social welfare programs like TANF/AFDC, WIC, SNAP, Section 8 housing vouchers, increased funding for public health and mental health, universal pre k, universal childcare, Medicaid, and wrap around services at school. They are also against using government funding for anti-recidivism programs like job and skills training and drug addiction services. So the lack of care and concern in regards to urban violence on the streets is compounded with the fact that they are against most government-sponsored programs that can be used to lift people out of poverty and out of the hopeless situations they face. They also support public school vouchers that take money out of already failing and resourced starved schools and have generally opposed increases in K-12 funding. 

Other than the tired narrative of "give people the chance to get a good job so they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps" they aren't offering solutions on the right side of the fence. How is someone supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don't know there their next meal is going to come from or if they are a child born into a home with a drug-addicted, unemployable parent? How can you pull yourselves up by your bootstraps if you're working 2-3 jobs and over 40 hours a week just to get by and keep a roof over your families heads? How do you pull yourself up by your bootstraps in an area where the free market has all but abandon any commerce and development? What job opportunities will there be for folks in those economically challenged communities?

Throwing around words like opportunity, freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility offer no tangible solutions to the problem. Rather they are just empty talking points. So thevery resources needed to help people prosper or get a leg up, and ultimately help end urban violence, are broadly opposed by the right and some centrist Democrats in this country.

 Also, this narrative from the right that direct cash assistance programs like TANF or food assistance programs like WIC or SNAP somehow lead to increased dependency which ultimately somehow helps fuel urban violence is ridiculous. In fact, socio-economic data and research shows by in large if you take away any level for people to subsist, by drastically reducing public assistance programs, you'll increase extreme poverty rates and with higher rates of extreme poverty, can come increased crime as hope about the future and opportunity fade with despair.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Mr.TaterSalad

[oblong]

Here’s a well regulated member of our militia and member of Congress pointing a gun at another person at the range. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motor City Sonics]

34 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Well, we've got 9 days left in the year...............

[buddha]

4 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

a couple of individuals got into an argument and started shooting at each other.  they missed, of course, and hit a bunch of shoppers.

in other chicago news, five people were shot in the back of the yards neighborhood around the same time.  but that was probably gang related and its in the hood, so no one cares.

[Archie]

19 hours ago, oblong said:

Here’s a well regulated member of our militia and member of Congress pointing a gun at another person at the range. 

His firearm is in a holster on his chest.  This is the style holster many of the US military use.  He isn't pointing his gun at anyone but the target. 

[casimir]

20 minutes ago, Archie said:

His firearm is in a holster on his chest.  This is the style holster many of the US military use.  He isn't pointing his gun at anyone but the target. 

Also in the thread is a video of shooting in a direction while looking away from the target (not Cawthorn, but others in the video).  That's a basic gun safety foul that I remember from basic hunting gun safety from 35 years ago even though I do not hunt.  Or maybe the rules of gun safety have changed, I don't know.

Edited December 24, 2021 by casimir

[Archie]

The gun in the green circle is in a chest holster being drawn. Its not being pointed at anyone.  The guy filming is off to the side.  This reporting is just sensationalism from people that don't know any better.   I don't see the point of firing two guns at the same time but that is up to the person doing it.

[casimir]

20 minutes ago, Archie said:

The gun in the green circle is in a chest holster being drawn. Its not being pointed at anyone.  The guy filming is off to the side.  This reporting is just sensationalism from people that don't know any better.   I don't see the point of firing two guns at the same time but that is up to the person doing it.

Its a live gun aimed in the general direction of others.  Why is the safety not engaged when it isn't being fired?

I suspect firing off multiple weapons at the same time is the way to celebrate the sanctity of a failed 8 month marriage or an exercise of faux bravado, but I'm just speculating.

[Archie]

17 minutes ago, casimir said:

Its a live gun aimed in the general direction of others.  Why is the safety not engaged when it isn't being fired?

I suspect firing off multiple weapons at the same time is the way to celebrate the sanctity of a failed 8 month marriage or an exercise of faux bravado, but I'm just speculating.

I can't see exactly what kind of firearms these are but its very possible they have an internal safety which is very common.  You can also see that his finger is not on the trigger or in the trigger guard.  His actions with the chest holster is safe and wouldn't be an issue in any class I've been part of.  Since he's in a wheelchair a waist holster wouldn't work for him.  The chest or body holster is not real popular outside of military since its mostly an open carry device.  I will retract my comment on the guy filming.  He could be in a better position  but if you watch the video he is making it does make it look like he is on his side rather than front side.  I doubt that going to the range and firing multiple firearms has anything do with bravado or failed marriage.  

[1776]

Cawthorn is a disappointing character. Failed marriage aside, he has turned his entire political being over to the wishes of D.J.T. He is going to run in a different district in 2022 as North Carolina has redrawn its districts. We picked up another house seat going forward. Cawthorn, after visiting Trump in Florida and being re-anointed, has decided he’s the guy to represent the new 13th house district in N.C. Clearly he is getting his marching orders from Trump. I am still celebrating the fact that Trump’s daughter-in-law isn’t going to run for US Senate here. Nationally, I think Trump has endorsed eighty-some candidates to date for 2022. Cawthorn and everybody’s fav, MJT, we’re on hand for a fundraiser here in NC for another Trump wannabe house candidate recently. The newest wannabe, Bo Hines, is another Trump disciple. This will be an interesting year coming up. 

[oblong]

I love how the self appointed gun expert here is telling us that a loaded gun pointed in the direction of two people not ten feet away is “not pointed at anyone”. 
 

Sorry.  You have zero credibility now when it comes to gun issues.  

[CMRivdogs]

Just because it's Christmas and seems appropriate. Just substitute 2021, and guns...

 

[pfife]

"most gun owners are educated in gun safety" tm Archie

 

[Archie]

On 12/24/2021 at 9:49 AM, oblong said:

I love how the self appointed gun expert here is telling us that a loaded gun pointed in the direction of two people not ten feet away is “not pointed at anyone”. 
 

Sorry.  You have zero credibility now when it comes to gun issues.  

I don't want to repeat myself so read my previous posts.  It explains he is not pointing a gun at anyone as its a holstered firearm and being safely withdrawn.  Also I am far from an expert.  I just have a bit of experience that sounds like most people here don't have. I'm speaking from experience and knowledge where a lot of people here are guided by their feelings and or politics.

[pfife]

It isn't just people here saying it

Also is this about your experience or about what Maddi crawford did?

Edited December 26, 2021 by pfife

[pfife]

I wonder if the new guy that's really really really really really good at pointing out out other peoples' ad homs (but not his own) is also really really really really good at picking out other people's appeals to authority. 

[smr-nj]

51 minutes ago, pfife said:

I wonder if the new guy that's really really really really really good at pointing out out other peoples' ad homs (but not his own) is also really really really really good at picking out other people's appeals to authority. 

You know what, pfife?  This kind of post is really really really really really …. We’ll…..stupid. It adds absolutely nothing to discourse. I’m gonna flat out ask you to please resist the urge to constantly respond like this.

[pfife]

1 hour ago, smr-nj said:

You know what, pfife?  This kind of post is really really really really really …. We’ll…..stupid. It adds absolutely nothing to discourse. I’m gonna flat out ask you to please resist the urge to constantly respond like this.

It's not stupid and also it adds to the discourse.  But I will stop even though you seem to not be following your own advice by calling my post stupid when it definitely isn't.   

I see no issue with a) calling out logical fallacies and b) calling out others who only call out logical fallacies at their convenience.  in fact I think it's beneficial. 

Edited December 26, 2021 by pfife

[pfife]

I cannot believe that there are no other wonderful posters here who oft respectfully discuss cancel culture on this board, are not here to respectfully note this instance of cancel culture.  

[smr-nj]

Well. Certainly not helpful.

But as long as you feel better about it. Wallow in it.

============

I’ll see you guys/gals in the new year. Stay happy and healthy.  Mazel Tov.

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, smr-nj said:

Well. Certainly not helpful.

But as long as you feel better about it. Wallow in it.

============

I’ll see you guys/gals in the new year. Stay happy and healthy.  Mazel Tov.

Cheers!