followed tags: 11
followed domains: 0
badges given: 12 of 12
member for: 1408 days
Hm. You and I, I think we're working with different definitions. Moving goalposts, for instance:
ME: Assault-style weapons seem to be defined primarily by their effective marketing, which is baked into gun design and promotes a militaristic approach to gun ownership and operation.
YOU: I have NEVER SEEN this marketing of which you speak.
ME: here it is on the gun, as explicitly advertised on the manufacturer's website.
YOU: I have NEVER TAKEN such claims from the website or features of those guns seriously. Also, try to define assault-style weapons, but in a way that's different than how you've already defined them.
Motte and Bailey?
ME: Assault rifles are becoming the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
YOU: prove that AR15s are the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
ME: I didn't say that, as such a claim would be unsupportable. You changed what I said to make your position defensible.
YOU: I win!
It's not that I WON'T engage with your arguments, it's that I CAN'T because you haven't yet leveled any. "I disagree" isn't an argument, it's a basic opinion. "people who don't own guns obviously don't know anything about guns, and thus are unqualified to contribute to the national debate" is kind of like saying "only gun owners should be allowed to speak to and shape policy on gun restrictions," which isn't so much of an argument as it is an absurdity. You're acting as though my inability to map out the differences in firing mechanisms between rifles renders me unfit for debate on policy, which is semantic bullshittery and you know it.
Which brings me to our biggest gulf in definitions: debate. You seem to think that it's sufficient just to lean on all the old semantic talking points that I always see trotted out in these discussions: "assault style can mean anything! you don't know the difference between a clip and a mag! those guns don't even work the same way!" Because it's easier to tout your mechanical knowledge of the tool than to defend the nature or necessity of the tool. You also seem content to constantly call me out as "naive," and then when I repeatedly invite you to develop your argument, start pouting about how I characterize gun owners as "brainwashed psychos," which I never did or even came close to doing. Ever. Explicitly or implicitly. At this point, my best guess is that you've had this argument so many times that you're responding to what you think I'm saying rather than actually examining my argument...?
And FWIW, I never addressed your "prove that previous policy has changed public perception" retort because that's a way larger discussion than just guns, and requires nuance, and this exchange has left me with little faith that we can speak to each other in the language of nuance, or even mutual respect. Which is a basic prerequisite for complex discussions.
Sorry you got bent out of shape over this topic. I do appreciate a lot of what you contribute on this site. I don't believe the above exchange represents the best of what you have to offer.
Read my initial post again. Never said AR15 was the weapon of choice. I said "assault style rifles", and I stand by that claim. Revising my printed words and then arguing against your preferred revision gets you nowhere, and wins you no points. If you're going to play semantics, at least stick to your own rules.
You haven't yet provided any counterarguments. You've just insisted that I provide evidence, and then more evidence when you didn't like the evidence I provided because it didn't align with your personal opinion on the matter. Your chief response up to now seems to be "you're naive, so I don't need to live up to my own standard of discourse." Have we ever interacted before this? What evidence, beyond my horrible mischaracterization of the AR line, leads you to believe that I'm naive, or otherwise unworthy of decent discourse?
You're right- my misrepresentation of what "AR" stands for, plus my substituting "clips" for "mags" totally negates my larger point. I can't possibly understand the finer details of gun culture, and thus can't possibly contribute to the debate on how we ought to approach guns.
At no point did I suggest that an MCX functions the same way as an AR-15. My argument addressed the way assault-style rifles are marketed to the public at large, and seem to call out particularly to would-be mass shooters. At this point, I've provided plenty of "citation". You've ignored the provided evidence, and responded with snark and little else; "I don't take that marketing that I asked you to provide proof of seriously" does not count as a salient point. Neither does "you don't understand the people you're criticizing, or the things," which always comes off as the last thin attempt that pro-gun folks make to diffuse a discussion they can't stay on top of.
Again, if you want to come off as the enlightened, moderate gun-owner, meet disagreement with respect and constructive counterarguments. If you just want to kick more dirt, don't bother replying further- you just look dirty. At this point, though, the onus isn't really on me to provide more evidence to be dismissed out of hand.
Las Vegas: FOURTEEN .223 AR15 rifles; EIGHT .308 AR10 rifles
Pulse: SIG MCX
San Bernardino: DPMS Panther; M&P15
Those are the shootings I remember off the top of my head. In the last couple years.
I'm talking about marketing you've never seen? Go to Bushmaster's website and peruse their tac rifles- say, their Patrolman's Carbine. All components mil spec! How very tactical. Or maybe you're in the mood for something more high end? How about the ACR enhanced (ACR, of course, stands for Adaptive Combat Rifle... perfect for hunting, right?) whose blackout flash hider provides exceptional signature reduction. You know, so you don't give your position away to the deer.
Not in the mood for Bushmaster? Yeah, maybe you have an icky taste in your mouth popping off rounds at the range ever since a guy murdered a bunch of six year olds with one of those. Bad for branding. Let's go over to Colt and check out their classic AR (again... Assault Rifle) series, which are "based on the same military standards and specifications as the United States issue Colt M16 and M4 carbine." You know, for sportsmen and hunters alike! Their Combat Unit carbine would be perfect for an idyllic day out duckhunting with your kid. Too flashy? The AR15A4 is no-frills and mimics the line that provides "our armed forces the confidence required to accomplish any mission." All models function with 30 round clips; the pricier models can adapt to all of your ammunition needs.
I'd call it dog-whistling, but the frequencies are low enough to pick up even from my inferior station as a non-gun owner. This is marketing. It speaks to the most militaristic aspects of gun ownership, with an obligatory nod and wink towards "hunters and sportsmen." You're smart- do you really not see a particular flavor to these descriptions?
What I liked about your posted article is that it fairly illustrated the anti-gun crowd's general stance without ever denigrating or belittling it, and offered an option presumably acceptable to both sides. There's something for everybody to learn there. I'm happy to talk out viewpoints with you, but I have little patience for condescension. My POV isn't "naive" just because you don't like it.
I'm for this. I'm also for raising taxes on ammunition. I'm also for limiting clip capacities. I'm also for an assault weapons ban.
I've heard all the arguments about how it would be ineffective, and how assault-style weapons only make up X amount of yearly gun deaths, and what is an assault-style weapon anyway, and slippery slope yadda yadda. But those arguments miss the point. It's not about an immediate decrease in numbers, it's about a slow cultural shift away from the glorification of guns. Up to now, assault-style weapons have been effectively marketed as, like, totally cool, and effective, and what, some sort of time-honored tradition? In turn, they contribute to this very American notion that guns in general aren't something to be feared, or even a necessary evil, but a tool worth celebrating.
Banning such weapons won't immediately turn back the tide of gun violence. But it would be a step toward re-framing the way we talk about guns. Policy shapes culture shapes policy shapes culture. Right now, our society still has what I and many outsiders would consider a sick obsession with weapons of war. We need to attack it from all avenues, not just the statistically significant or politically expedient ones.
One more note on assault-style weapons in particular. I believe it's not even a second amendment matter, it's a matter of the first amendment. Down to the broad taxonomy- "assault-style"- these guns have been advertised as A-1 killing machines. The marketing is inbuilt into their design- grip type, ergonomics, modifiables, color, shape- everything to remind us that they look and for the most part are built to act like the most efficient military models. And whether the pro-gun crowd likes it or not, they've become the de facto weapon of choice for mass shooters. They've taken on their own dark kind of brand recognition.
Speech is free until it's not. You can't yell "fire" inside a crowded theater. You can't direct marketing of cigarettes to minors, or even put an ad for such on TV. At what point does Bushmaster's effective marketing of their product become a public health hazard? At what point should manufacturers be regulated in how they build their product in order to sell it as a certain function to a certain crowd? I'd say we've long since passed that point.
wouldn't it be great to be able to write haunting songs about anything on command? this guy could (and probably will) write a good tune about turkey hot dogs.
Went to post this, and you beat me to it a year ago.
Needed a mental enema after yesterday's "Pocahontas" uh, gaffe. Are gaffes still a thing anymore?
Regardless of what you thought of the guy, everybody listen to this interview. He speaks with authority, humility, pathos, empathy. If you're a masochist, compare any ten minutes of this interview with any ten minutes from our current Commander in Chief, or any ten tweets for that matter.
Marc Maron is insufferable, though
New John Maus album is pretty great:
Friend tuned me into the new Four Tet:
Digging through my hard drive and backing everything up because my computer is about to shit the bed. Found some stuff from about five years ago. May have already shared it five years ago, don't remember.
Maybe it's just because I'm feeling maudlin, but the first one sounds better than I gave it credit for at the time.
Was a time I didn't feel like it was important to share this stuff anymore. Lately I've been feeling old and useless and stagnant and like if I don't leave a mark somewhere and somehow, then my life is pointless and I'm just toiling and consuming and waiting to die.
I heard a piece about this on the radio two days ago, and it was maybe the first time I've ever found myself screaming obscenities at my car speakers. How Republicans can push this as pro-consumer with a straight face is confounding- they seem to have chosen an especially clumsy defense:
- You have to ask the question: Whose benefit is that for? Is it really for the consumer or is it for the lawyers? And I think the answer is pretty clear — it's not for the consumer.
John Cornyn. Thanks, buddy. That was the quote that got me cussing in traffic, but from an internet search of "Republicans class action lawyers", it looks like that's not just one shitty soundbyte from one especially tone-deaf legislator trying to justify his poor behavior, but THE MAIN TALKING POINT that Repubs have chosen to tout this action. Shameful.
After everything I've seen from congress in the past 8 or so years, and especially in the past 10 months, I'm not sure why this episode is the one that finally dismantled my faith in the legislative process. But here we are.
It is so good to hear from you, and with solid advice and a good perspective to boot. Guess it makes sense, given your current track. I don't know half the shit I need to as a nurse yet; they say it takes a good five years before you can really even consider yourself a novice in the field. I'll get there, though. In the meantime, jams are forthcoming at some point. Hope your education is going well- breaks are not a bad thing. In retrospect, wish I'd taken one. How long you have left?