Police found pickup truck full of bombs and guns near Capitol
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation...
I think we're now seeing the logical conclusion of that.
You may well be right; senior dems have been too friendly with republicans as individuals for too long. Nothing ends that friendship like discovering them cheering on the people calling for your execution.
And they tried. Last Wednesday. What happens when they succeed?
Now, to be fair: I don't think guns (as machines) are the core problem here. Removing the guns doesn't remove the domestic terrorists. But nonetheless gun culture is part and parcel of the right wing terror we just saw, and that needs to be fixed.
It is worth noting that by constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people and spewing poorly researched nonsense, certain gun control advocates such as some in this very thread do a wonderful job of alienating all firearms owners and generating sympathy among the moderates who would otherwise support thoughtful regulation for members interested in these tacticool endeavors.
> constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people
And see... this sort of defensiveness is why we can't solve this. I know it doesn't seem like that to you, but by refusing to call these people out and instead hitting back with statements like that, you are circling the wagons with the terrorists.
I don't know how to fix this if you won't meet the rest of us half way.
No, they don't.
Maybe all the ones you know do, but any individuals circle of familiarity probably isn't representative.
If it's a problematic subculture it should be a problem, and not dismissed. I don't see that happening from anywhere on the right.
[1] To pick the term above, which seems like a horrifying euphemism to my ears. But let's go with it.
> I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism.
QED, you make unfounded and sweeping generalizations and then are surprised when people get defensive. When you employ rhetoric such as this, opponents will fight you just to do it.
I don't. Can you meet me half way?
1. As I stated above, I believe there is a militant faction of gun owners who are doing the community and the nation a disservice. I do not agree with their views, do not support them, and believe they should be monitored.
2. As an owner, I believe we need to make the following changes to gun regulation:
* We need a universal regulatory floor consisting of background checks, licensing, and training for ownership of any class of firearm.
* We should probably have some sort of red flag rule set to allow seizure of firearms if there is strong evidence that you are conspiring to commit a crime or are unstable.
* We need to standardize on what constitutes reasonable concealed carry as right now the state reciprocity rules are ridiculous. I shouldn't need 4-5 licenses to be able to possess firearms across the US, let alone concealed carry.
* We need to shift to computerized record keeping at the ATF, and all transactions need to be reported to the ATF. This would allow ATF to perform data mining to go after people making large straw purchases for resale here or transport to Mexico. This is where most guns being used illegally are coming from. If guns supposedly owned by you start showing up at crime scenes, someone should be able to flag that trivially and start asking questions about it. If you are buying 10 new firearms every few weeks, that should be investigated. There are ways we could implement this which protect individual privacy.
* It should be illegal to bring guns to a protest, and open carry in most situations should be banned as it makes people less safe, including the owners.
Those are the changes that I believe would have a meaningful impact on gun related violence. I do not believe assault weapons bans, magazine size limits, removal of "assault features", or other such regulations are necessary or particularly helpful as they largely only inhibit individuals who are trying to use their gun in legal self defense. These types of weapons are also relatively rarely used in gun violence, with pistols and shotguns contributing overwhelming to gun related homicides in the US.
As for how you deal with the cultural issues among some owners, I have no idea how to tackle that other than to open reasonable dialog and expose them to additional moderate owners.
It wouldn't make a difference in this case. He's not some kid in HS. He's a 70 year old man. He could easily obtain a hunting rifle (say in case you ban all other guns) and it would be just as effective for this purpose.
Maybe that is the problem. Can he really buy hunting rifle without license?
If you want to do a crime with a gun, you definitely don't want a legal one. That's just stupid.
And people intent on doing crimes most of the time don't really need guns for it, it is just suspicious to carry a gun around and if you are doing something shady you want to bring as little suspicion as possible. And adds charges for illegal gun possession in case you are caught with one.
Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own, to stop people who for various reasons shouldn't own a gun from owning one legally and also to cool down the police so that it doesn't feel it has to shoot suspects on sight. (Notice stress on the word "feel")
I am all for gun regulation, I just feel it is a bad example for regulation.
If you make guns easier to get, you end up with more of these cases. You also end up making it easier for people to unlawfully get access to a gun. In Australia you have to be a reasonably "hard" criminal to get access to a gun illegally. There just aren't that many guns around since the Port Arthur massacre, and gun deaths have decreased as you'd naturally expect.
Do you know how many guns I saw in my life that did not belong to a uniformed or undercover Police officer, soldier guarding an embassy or security guard guarding taking money to or from ATM?
Exactly zero. And I am 38.
Here in Poland it is quite difficult to get a gun. Basically, you need exceptional circumstances to be allowed to own one and even then you are not allowed to just carry it around.
There are people who own a gun but most of them, from what I understand, will not take it anywhere.
Do people get beaten or stabbed here like in US? Sure. There's just no guns involved even for the ones that do own gun legally, because they would prefer to get beaten than bring out a gun.
Because of gun regulation, people learned to not consider guns to be a solution to their problems. Maybe if they fear their house might get robbed rather than buy a gun they will put bars on their windows and better security system.
And I strongly feel that this also affects you if you own a gun, in that it causes you to think more critically rather than just whip out a gun when you think a little bit threatened.
Less guns and less gun culture means less gun deaths. It's not rocket science.
I sometimes wish people should be required to post when downvoting to explain their point.
The data also shows that for every person that has saved themselves or some other person there are many, many people that died due to an accident or a conflict escalating due to a gun present.
It’s not legal in the US to “whip out a gun” if you feel a little threatened. You must literally fear for your life for you to use deadly force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk
Here you have a guy who felt a little threatened and shot another person for it claiming self defence, with a legal gun.
In this case the ability to own a gun and parade with it changed how the guy was thinking about possible conflict and risks.
That's largely because guns are so commonplace in US and not really treated with enough respect and thought for consequences.
Again you can not brandish (“parade”) a gun without a lawful reason.
I have a concealed carry permit in a state that allows open carry. I have no interest in drawing attention to myself. Nor would I draw my weapon without real fear for my life. Beyond the fact that I would hurt someone, which I am not interested in doing if there’s a viable alternative, the costs of defending yourself (lawyers, probably losing my job, etc) after a shooting would bankrupt most people.
For me, the idea of using a gun is as the last line of defense.
Does it make you sad or disappointed you feel the need to carry a gun in your regular life just to feel safe and secure in your society?
I've lived ~20 years in Canad and ~20 in Australia. My sister has lived ~20 in Australia and ~20 in the UK. The idea we would ever, ever feel the need to carry a gun is preposterous.
The number of handguns either of us has seen in those countries in our life is exactly zero.
I've spent time in 55 countries around the world, including almost all of Latin America and Africa, and I have never once felt the need for a firearm.
The idea of living in a place where I feel the need to carry a lethal weapon is extremely hard to grasp. It's hard for me to read your comment and not think something is very wrong with a society when regular, peaceful and intelligent citizens feel the need to carry a firearm.
FWIW, I own a hunting rifle here in Canada (.30/06, Remmington 700) and I enjoy hunting very much.
People say they need guns for defense. I can empathize with this, but I also understand that is just because there are other stupid people around carrying guns. There would not be a problem if nobody around had a gun.
In countries like that there are outlets for people to be able to shoot guns. In Poland you can go to a shooting range and you can also get a permit for hunting or sport rifle. In either case the use of the gun is restricted so that general population doesn't have to worry about being around people with guns.
I never felt a need to have a gun, ever. You don't have to worry about stupid entitled people either, they are harmless.
Your understanding is incorrect. I don't carry a gun because I fear others have guns at all. You all seem to think that a gun is the only way that someone can hurt you. When I was a younger man I was the victim of an attempted car-jacking. Fortunately quick thinking got me out of that situation. Regardless of whether this individual attempting to steal my car with me in it had a gun or not, he was physically larger than me and would have caused me harm (I did not grow up learning to fight.)
The idea of other people having guns is not the primary reason I carry. I'm happy for you that you never felt the need to carry a gun. I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one. I respect your opinion, but the fact is we all have different, valid life experiences that affect our behavior and actions. I feel safe not carrying (I don't live in a warzone,) but I feel much safer carrying when and where I can lawfully do so.
It's funny, I think hunting is pretty inhumane (though I understand the need to manage the population, etc.) I'm not an advocate for making it illegal, it's just not for me. That's how I feel how guns should be looked at. If you don't want to own/carry a gun, that's your business - but don't try to stop me from doing so based on your preferences/opinions. Do guns wind up getting used to hurt people illegally - certainly. So do a lot of other things (alcohol, knives, vehicles, etc.) We don't ban them, we simply regulate them. We already have plenty of gun laws, and most people (99.999%) are law-abiding citizens.
Are you disappointed or sad that you should need/want to carry a gun in your daily life?
Are you happy your kids will live like that?
I just... I just, feel like that's a really sad state of affairs, and it would be something I'd much rather work to get away from. I see it like having to build shelters for the homeless, or having safe injecting rooms - they're good stop-gap measures and help society, but the goal is to fix the problem so they aren't needed long-long term.
People who own a gun in such countries know exactly why they own a gun. In any of those countries you would very unlikely be allowed a permit.
For example, here in Poland there are only two reasons for getting firearms permit: constant, hightened danger to your own life or when your actual job is to protect other people. In both cases the reason must be proven and documented.
I think we underrate the influence that small frictions in a process can have.
Japan has extremely small homicide rate, regardless of whether involving a gun. So it makes sense to disallow owning a gun because there isn't really need to own one. And the low homicide rate is not a result of gun regulation.
1. Unregistered destructive devices per federal law
2. Unregistered assault rifle per federal law
3. Unregistered rifle per DC law
4. Carrying a handgun without a license per DC law
If anything this seems like another case of criminals not following the law.
I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.
Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State"
Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
Tell that to the Afghans.
There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on.
A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down.
Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy.
I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease.
I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values.
It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally.
Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.
Not trying to mock you, just seems like we have the same argument for our opposing views :)
My father is as left-leaning as they come (and an Italian immigrant) but he knew even then that the police can’t always protect you.
I was raised by the standards of "Talk or Run away", and I want to adhere to them. But I don't live in the US and in my country I don't have to be afraid to be home-invaded, especially not with guns.
I see that some people "need" guns, I just don't want that as a pacifist. To each their own I guess ;)
What you write makes sense, but it seems weird to me to justify having guns with a hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario. Sounds a bit like fear-mongering to me.
It's probably a cultural thing.
Most things seem hypothetical until they happen. Hundreds of millions of dead souls in the last century died from what was (at the time) a "hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario." And not only the death camps - think of how many people started their day normally, never knowing they would be murdered by a government by nightfall. History repeats itself so long as the basic flaws of human nature persist - and they will.
1. Civilians should be able to keep or carry a firearm without a license.
2. No civilian should be able to keep or carry a firearm.
In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns, rifles, or shotguns except in the more restrictive states. And each year more and more states are trending towards being able to carry without a permit as well.
Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.
Frankly, I consider governments that have nuclear weapons and a disarmed citizenry much more dangerous that if the citizens are ultimately in control.
Different people have differing view on what "sensible" is:
* https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
In the US, Massachusetts seems to have things that work pretty well without being (at least to some) too draconian:
* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
IMHO, the main problem is that (a) some people have poor impulse control, and (b) many others aren't aware enough of the basic safety rules:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
In Canada, the acronyms ACTS and PROVE are repeated over and over in the mandatory course(s), and if one follows them you reduce risk a lot:
* http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm
But sometimes people get too lazy/complacent even with them.
Republican AGs group sent robocalls urging march to the Capitol
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-ags-group-se...
I guess that either both the police did very well their jobs (after the fact) and/or the 'insurgents' (almost) only had their guns as symbols and/or there was a lot of luck involved.
Also, there's still no explanation as to why there wasn't a large, anti-riot police force defending the Capitol that day…
As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-t...
Not to mention those that will result from COVID branching out from this event. Which - while less related - when considering the actions of the instigator are certainly notable.
DC has a ton of security, and it's basically only legal for them to possess the guns. Carrying guns openly in this area would lead to a quick arrest.
So - I think you're right that there was a lot of luck, but also there was a lot of preparation.
... only one of which involved a firearm, and that one was in the hands of a Capitol Police officer.
-Otto von Bismark
I keep returning to that quote in these days at it's so apt even hundreds of years later. The Capitol insurrection could have been sooo much worse. Only a handful of deaths resulted. That's incredulous for such an event. That a fire-bug didn't get in there and light the whole place up is incredible. That all of Congress was evacuated safely and stayed safe despite seditionists actively trying to lynch them, is amazing in the true sense of the word. The damage to the building itself was minimal, the art and statues are mostly intact, just unbelievable stuff. That despite saying he was going with them, Donny stayed at the WH and just watched the TV. Literally every other autocrat in history would have gone down to the floor of the House and declared themselves King. I cannot think of any other example where the tyrant did not do this (Sulla, but not really even then).
The US got so incredibly lucky in this that Bismark's quote is the only thing that makes sense to me.
The media is just shameless with their lying. They were bottles full of fuel. Commonly called Molotov Cocktails by anyone who's watched an action movie.
BLM also used Molotov Cocktails, can't remember them being called bombs, because that would be a lie I guess.
Alabama Man Charged With Possession of Eleven Molotov Cocktails Found Near Protest at U.S. Capitol https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/alabama-man-charged-posse...
> Police also found cloth rags and lighters. The court documents said that those items and the explosive-filled mason jars "in close proximity to one another constitute a combination of parts" that could be used as a "destructive device."
I don't think the article is disagreeing with you.
Also, a Molotov cocktail is commonly referred to as a type of bomb:
> A Molotov cocktail, also known as a petrol bomb, gasoline bomb, bottle bomb, poor man's grenade, fire bomb (not to be confused with an actual fire bomb), fire bottle or just Molotov, sometimes shortened as Molly, is a generic name used for a variety of bottle-based improvised incendiary weapons.
That’s the recipe for napalm in the old Anarchist’s Handbook. I don’t recall it working very well.
I messed around with it as a stupid teenager.
In my experience, it works very well.
Lets see some proof of this.
- https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/2-lawyers-upstate-woma...
- https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-molotov-cocktail-suspect-sama...
Interestingly these do use the term bomb and explosive which contradict the comment you originally replied to. But it is true they are mere footnote stories.