Good guy with a gun
29/11/21 20:46![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kiaa posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe NRA/GOP push for open carry without license or registration or training coupled with red state legislatures lowering the bar for self-defense = greater threat to the public at large:
The Kenosha shooting was the inevitable result after decades of the NRA’s twisted self-defense rhetoric
If you're going to have open carry in order for the citizenry to protect themselves and others from the bad guys with guns, then why not license them. First, there needs to be a minimum age. You don't need teen aged boys with high powered rifles loose in public and unsupervised. Second, it's common sense to require some tests to make sure that they are competent and know how to use their weapons safely.
You know, like we do with cars. You need a driver's license to operate one legally, and for good reason.
Yes, yes, I've heard of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already allowed the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. You already can't walk into a mall with a sword and a hand grenade. That infringes your right to keep and bear arms, but no one seems to care.
Sure, opinions may vary. I guess you could be just fine with "concealed carry" licenses if someone can show a need and passes some level of qualifications.
But really what's the point of open carry in any format? Ever stood behind "the guy at 7/11" wearing blue jeans/cowboy shirt/.45automatic strapped to his belt? It is uncomfortable and immediately creates a tension in the environment. Just not seeing a big upside.
The laws around gun carry are going to be challenging to reverse, let's face it (not unlike federal entitlement programs). The outcry may come from the minority but it would likely be loud and "election influencing".
No easy answers to this one, that's for sure.
The Kenosha shooting was the inevitable result after decades of the NRA’s twisted self-defense rhetoric
If you're going to have open carry in order for the citizenry to protect themselves and others from the bad guys with guns, then why not license them. First, there needs to be a minimum age. You don't need teen aged boys with high powered rifles loose in public and unsupervised. Second, it's common sense to require some tests to make sure that they are competent and know how to use their weapons safely.
You know, like we do with cars. You need a driver's license to operate one legally, and for good reason.
Yes, yes, I've heard of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already allowed the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. You already can't walk into a mall with a sword and a hand grenade. That infringes your right to keep and bear arms, but no one seems to care.
Sure, opinions may vary. I guess you could be just fine with "concealed carry" licenses if someone can show a need and passes some level of qualifications.
But really what's the point of open carry in any format? Ever stood behind "the guy at 7/11" wearing blue jeans/cowboy shirt/.45automatic strapped to his belt? It is uncomfortable and immediately creates a tension in the environment. Just not seeing a big upside.
The laws around gun carry are going to be challenging to reverse, let's face it (not unlike federal entitlement programs). The outcry may come from the minority but it would likely be loud and "election influencing".
No easy answers to this one, that's for sure.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/21 00:50 (UTC)I can see why you might think that having semi-random people drive in from surrounding areas with firearms is the proper response to the threat of a protest turning violent. I don't see it that way.
Standing on your property and waving a gun around will probably prevent your property from being damaged in a protest that turns into a riot. Probably. Go ahead and do that if you think it's the right thing to do. But bear in mind that the police should not be doing that for you. What vigilantes do is not what the police would, or should do, and in fact it usually works at cross-purposes. As such, vigilantes justifying what they do by claiming that the police are not doing it (as you are) is deeply ironic.
I've been in the thick of multiple protests in and around Oakland that were varying degrees of violent and varying degrees of contained, and by far the most successful response I've seen has been from trained riot response teams using non-lethal crowd control equipment and tactics that are definitely not part of the standard police playbook. Over the decades it's become abundantly clear that killing protestors - even violent agitators using the protests as cover - backfires dramatically and results in far more violence and property damage than it prevents. As was the case with Rittenhouse. He wasn't an idiot for showing up in Kenosha. But he was absolutely an idiot for bringing a rifle there, and then inserting himself deliberately into a situation where he would feel the need to use it to defend himself. That makes him more than an idiot in my book -- that makes him a piece of shit. Two people are dead because he wanted to play hero defending some fucking parked cars. The cops weren't standing around with rifles, you say? Gee, I wonder why they weren't doing that. I guess they just don't value parked cars the way they should.
Vigilantes use "lack of policing" as an excuse for stupidity. Same way violent criminals use protests as cover. Two stupidities do not cancel. That's not how stupidity works.