Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#81

Post by kcplate »

jmye wrote: post #61
kcplate wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This notion of an all powerful military and the futility of defense against tyranny assumes that every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. What makes the 2nd a deterrent against tyranny is the notion that if things degraded to that level, the military would be compromised by the factions as…

> every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. Perhaps you should look up the literal thousands of occasions of that happening, before snarkily dismissing it as absurd. Doesn’t require “every”, which is an equally ludicrous addition you’ve made solely so you pedantically dismiss any objections.…

Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military.

You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? Newsflash…there was no such order. What you can argue in this case is that the government created an environment where general emotional chaos could create a bad situation, and did.

Even if you had evidence that this was an ordered massacre by the government—-only 29 out of 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. That means nearly 2/3 disregarded orders (which was my exact point if such an order was to be given).

Despite your suggestion of “thousands of occasions” where ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens, I dare you to list another. You might go back to the civil war, but that technically is a special situation where one country for a time became two, and the combatants of those two did not regard the other are fellow citizens. My guess is that you are will be hard pressed to find many other instance where that has happened in the United States.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#82

Post by jmye »

kcplate wrote: post #81
jmye wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. Perhaps you should look up the literal thousands of occasions of that happening, before snarkily dismissing it as absurd. Doesn’t require “every”, which is an equally ludicrous addition you’ve made solely so you pedantically dismiss any objections.…

Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military. You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? New…

> to take up arms against our citizens

Why are you changing your words?

> against their own citizenry

Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.

> You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point.

It flatly doesn't. US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate. The idea that the second amendment will change anything about the US military's response or choice to follow any orders they're given no matter how reprehensible or obviously evil (My Lai, Abu Ghraib) is laughable fantasy, based on a bunch of people who want to dream about being heroes and pretend that their 9mm handgun means something.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#83

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

ekidd wrote: post #20
unionjack22 wrote: post #4

I’m really curious about the amount of screen time and news/social media consumption of these groups. I assume it’s a couple standard deviations above what’s healthy.

I know a bunch of trans gun owners. They're pretty standard gun geeks, and a few of them do shooting competitions. I've asked them how they got into shooting sports, and a lot times, they tell me some pretty scary stories of real-life encounters with bigots. Some have also encountered armed right-wing protestors outside of a bar that held a late evening drag event. So at least among the people I've met out in the rea…

The whole topic reminds me of Deviant Ollam's talk "Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ihrGNGesfI) He spends a fair amount of time talking about getting his queer and trans friends interested in guns. I suspect this has been the trend for a few years, at least.

He includes a quote that is rather salient: "If you do not have the means of violence, you aren't peaceful; you're harmless."

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#84

Post by kcplate »

jmye wrote: post #82
kcplate wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military. You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? New…

> to take up arms against our citizens Why are you changing your words? > against their own citizenry Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s. > You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. It flatly doesn't. US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate. The idea that the second amendment will change anything about the U…

> Why are you changing your words?

I didn’t, do you find these two phrases functionally different? “military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry” and “ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens”

They look pretty much the same to me.

> Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.

So are you attempting to equate genocidal regimes that operated over years where millions were slaughtered to Kent State where 4 people were killed and nine wounded in less than a quarter of a minute?

> US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate.

Nowhere did I make the claim that the 2nd amendment would cause every individual military people to stop or hesitate. Actually it was quite the opposite. I said the military would faction in that situation. Also, I was speaking about the government. Individuals are not the government. The Kent State massacre was over in exactly 13 seconds. It both started organically and ended organically and timing also speaks to this being an emotional chaotic event done by individuals and not one that was specifically ordered.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#85

Post by tharne »

_lvbh wrote: post #39
kcplate wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? I thought the main leftward argument against the necessity of the second amendment was that we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed?

You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits

> You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits

Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietnamese. They took on a massively more powerful military, were significantly outgunned, and came out of it in control of their respective countries. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that war is incredibly chaotic and unpredictable, and that anyone making bold and confident predictions is just about guaranteed to have reality prove them wrong.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#86

Post by 1659447091 »

IAmBroom wrote: post #72
1659447091 wrote: post #65

I don't see much difference with this than when gun buying spikes after publicized mass shootings[0]. Gun sales also spike when new gun control laws are proposed. People are afraid (however unfounded) that their right to protect themselves and their family will be taken away. It use to be one of the biggest issues to scare people into voting republican (at least in Texas), the boogyman threat that "they" are coming f…

You've described the "what". The article is about the "who". "Who" makes it newsworthy.

True. And I agree in a clickbait sort of way; it could have been better if they focused more on the overall fear part that drives gun sale spikes(regardless of who). I find understanding why the "who" are buying guns at greater rates to be an important point to understand gun buying spikes/trends. And if the who gets people new to the subject to read about it then okay, but it should not be overlooked that scared people of all kinds buy guns, and then maybe we can move to looking at why we accept our political apparatus scaring people (of all kinds) in the first place.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#87

Post by tharne »

IAmBroom wrote: post #74
Jensson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defund can mean both, many who chanted that clarified that they meant abolish. If you wanted people to not misunderstand then use a better word that is clear, since many who were on the pro "defund the police" meant abolish the police. It is your own fault for using a bad slogan.

"You guys literally said abolish the police !" "No, we said defund , which is more nuanced..." "Nuance, schmuance, I'm moving the goalposts."

If someone in power said that they intended to defund this or that government department, most listeners would reasonably infer that the speaker's intention is to get rid of that department. You're accusing people of moving the goalposts when all they're doing is taking the most straightforward, plain language interpretation of the phrase, "defund the police". It was the activists who picked the slogan, not everyone else.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#88

Post by tharne »

testing22321 wrote: post #79
IAmBroom wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

testing22321 was positing theirself as an expert on US liberal protests, but then admitted they aren't regularly exposed to the same. Seems relevant.

I did no such thing. I just said I’ve never heard anyone say they want to abolish the police, which sounds absurd to me.

> I just said I’ve never heard anyone say they want to abolish the police, which sounds absurd to me.

Well, now you've heard it. And you're right, it sounds absurd. I wish it were satire, but there are people in positions of power here in the U.S. who think this is good policy.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#89

Post by RickJWagner »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #80
nondrool wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did the kidnappers demand? I find it odd the amount of families kidnapping their own family members lately, as that's typically the only time demands aren't made by kidnappers. Don't think that would make them a Nazi though. Not to say there aren't any, but in modern times they're located in Ukraine. Azov Batallion has videos posted where they have whole stadiums filled with them doing their chant? which is dist…

The Nazis in Azov have largely been killed and replaced with new troops. The Nazis in America are running rampant snatching civilians off the streets. Critical difference.

Explain exactly what you mean by the remark about Nazis in America.

Re: More liberals, people of color and LGBTQ say they're buying guns out of fear

#90

Post by modo_mario »

krapp wrote: post #40
kcplate wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? I thought the main leftward argument against the necessity of the second amendment was that we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed?

All of the anarchists and socialists and marginalized and oppressed communities are on the left. Their arguments against gun ownership and the second amendment were never based on an implicit trust in government.

>and marginalized and oppressed communities are on the left

That's far from true and universal.

Post reply on HN