Let's talk gun safety

[waverly]

May 29, 2022 14:56:49 GMT -5 @villainv said:

May 29, 2022 14:03:16 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

Anyone who wants to argue the semantics of what a gun is called doesn't care about gun control or saving lives.

I completely disagree. I think if we don’t understand the difference and use the wrong terms, we lose all credibility when asking for different types of gun control. The least we can do is educate ourselves on what types of guns are called and what they can be used for, and different types of ammo.

I mean, I just wish the men making laws about women’s bodies would make an effort to learn about them so they can understand the ramifications of their stupid laws.

Overall I’m going with Bad Dingo here. Usually it’s just another “talking point roadblock”. “You don’t know about guns blah blah blah- we are the true gun knowers”. I assume these are put out by think tanks or pundits.

I’m all for learning, and I learned! And guess what, nothing happened. Nothing changed.

Do lawmakers need to know? Sure, so they can write the correct laws. But do normal people debating gun control have to learn the “correct lingo” so they don’t upset someone who is determined to let everyone buy high capacity guns and bullets to gun down our children. Eh - I don’t think so.

[dancelnow]

May 29, 2022 14:03:16 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

Anyone who wants to argue the semantics of what a gun is called doesn't care about gun control or saving lives.

I’m not about arguing them. Im about making sure we use the right language so the laws we want are effective and can get passed. If you want change, you have to be specific about what that change is. Words have specific meanings and we need to use the right ones to have the right effect.

[waverly]

May 29, 2022 18:19:26 GMT -5 dancelnow said:

May 29, 2022 14:03:16 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

Anyone who wants to argue the semantics of what a gun is called doesn't care about gun control or saving lives.

I’m not about arguing them. Im about making sure we use the right language so the laws we want are effective and can get passed. If you want change, you have to be specific about what that change is. Words have specific meanings and we need to use the right ones to have the right effect.

I’ll agree with this in the legal sense. But don’t dems making the gun control laws know the correct language? It’s more the media or people on FB that don’t. There should be specific things spelled out like bump stocks, ghost guns, high capacity ammo, high capacity capability etc etc. But should we all get on the same page and say these 5 things, whatever they are, absolutely. Uniform messaging, yes to that!

[Deleted]

May 29, 2022 18:21:45 GMT -5 waverly said:

May 29, 2022 18:19:26 GMT -5 dancelnow said:

I’m not about arguing them. Im about making sure we use the right language so the laws we want are effective and can get passed. If you want change, you have to be specific about what that change is. Words have specific meanings and we need to use the right ones to have the right effect.

I’ll agree with this in the legal sense. But don’t dems making the gun control laws know the correct language? It’s more the media or people on FB that don’t. There should be specific things spelled out like bump stocks, ghost guns, high capacity ammo, high capacity capability etc etc. But should we all get on the same page and say these 5 things, whatever they are, absolutely. Uniform messaging, yes to that!

I see what you’re saying. In the grand scheme of things, I think we all agree that major changes need to be made regarding gun laws in this country.

Personally, I feel like if I’m going to advocate for specific changes, I want to educate myself on the correct terms to use. My opinion is that being more educated on facts (names and terms in this case) is always a better place to be when arguing a position in relation to those facts. I don’t think asking other people who argue for gun control to be clear with the messaging makes me “not care about gun control or saving lives.” In fact, I think it means I care enough to use the correct vocabulary.

ETA: In the grand scheme of things, this is a stupid thing to argue about, so this is the last I’ll say on this subject.

[waverly]

May 29, 2022 18:30:31 GMT -5 @villainv said:

May 29, 2022 18:21:45 GMT -5 waverly said:

I’ll agree with this in the legal sense. But don’t dems making the gun control laws know the correct language? It’s more the media or people on FB that don’t. There should be specific things spelled out like bump stocks, ghost guns, high capacity ammo, high capacity capability etc etc. But should we all get on the same page and say these 5 things, whatever they are, absolutely. Uniform messaging, yes to that!

I see what you’re saying. In the grand scheme of things, I think we all agree that major changes need to be made regarding gun laws in this country.

Personally, I feel like if I’m going to advocate for specific changes, I want to educate myself on the correct terms to use. My opinion is that being more educated on facts (names and terms in this case) is always a better place to be when arguing a position in relation to those facts. I don’t think asking other people who argue for gun control to be clear with the messaging makes me “not care about gun control or saving lives.” In fact, I think it means I care enough to use the correct vocabulary.

ETA: I’m the grand scheme of things, this is a stupid thing to argue about, so this is the last I’ll say on this subject.

I’m speaking for Dingo here but I took it to mean the people on the other side of the issue. Like the Republicans or 2nd amenders who say, “you know nothing about guns therefore you are not allowed to speak on this issue.” It’s one if their many excuses to not do gun control. It’s right up there with thoughts and prayers, and guns don’t kill people evil kills people.

I think I’d like to see some really clear explanations from the top and I think they’ve tried but it’s not trickling down like all the R messaging does. It’s a problem that we’ve complained about a lot with the Democrats.

I wasn’t trying to argue. Just point out to everyone that it was something to watch out for from 2nd amenders. Not sure what to call them.

[minzy]

Has anyone ever heard of a meltdown or permanent dismantling program? Let’s say a person will hypothetically inherit some guns they don’t want to have anything to do with. Offloading could involve a sale or a give back program, but are there other options to ensure no one ever shoots them again? Some kind of metal recycling or something?

[sent]

May 29, 2022 19:08:37 GMT -5 minzy said:

Has anyone ever heard of a meltdown or permanent dismantling program? Let’s say a person will hypothetically inherit some guns they don’t want to have anything to do with. Offloading could involve a sale or a give back program, but are there other options to ensure no one ever shoots them again? Some kind of metal recycling or something?

I just googled “gun turn in program” and both NY and NJ will pay you through their gun buy back programs.

ETA - I see you wrote give back program but I’m going to leave this here because it was news to me that both states will pay money for it.

[lilac05]

The terminology we use is important. To flip things around and change the topic of discussion…I think it’s similar to when people start spewing stuff about “Critical Race Theory.” When someone says those three words, they automatically lose me. I make snap judgments about their knowledge and intelligence about the topic at hand, and have absolutely no interest in continuing the conversation.

Back gun safety…the same thing happens with “AR” and “automatic” and others. Using proper terminology is extremely important. While the media and pundits like us to think that people fall pretty firmly in one of two camps: “People don’t need/shouldn’t have guns” or “you can’t take my guns. It’s MY RIGHT.” In reality, there are a LOT of people in the middle. Many of those people may own guns and tend to lean to the right on politics (or are even pretty far right). They might get a lot of their news from far right sources. Those sources say that if people use the wrong terminology, they’re not worth listening to. I have seen firsthand how much of a difference having an actual conversation with people can make. I just experienced it this weekend. Someone I was talking with had a pretty significant change of opinion on the topic because of our conversation. They will continue to be a gun owner (one gun properly locked and stored in a rural home that makes them feel more safe in their home) , but now understand more about the nuance of the situation. They live in a state with a lot of gun laws and had no idea how lax the laws are in other states. They now understand why federal changes need to be made.

The laws will be changed by contacting lawmakers, but I’m personally not going to stop having hard conversations with people. (I realize that is not for everyone, and that’s totally understandable.) If I’m going to continue to have those conversations, then I need to use language that suggests that I know what I’m talking about.

[sonrisa]

Here's the thing - unlike other debates, gun safety issues very much affect people who don't own guns, don't ever want to be near guns, nor care about the terminology. Nobody goes around aborting fetuses for unwilling women. People who don't understand what critical race theory is, aren't in critical race theory classes. But getting shot isn't something you opt into. It's something another person who cares about guns does. The idea that gun people rather than their targets should be the only ones in the discussion is offensive to every person who has ever been shot.

And the lack of terminology happens on both sides of this. A doctor who treats gun violence has a whole set of terminology relevant to the discussion that isn't shared by those operating firearms. We don't insist the NRA know the medical terminology for the damage caused by guns before they talk about guns. We shouldn't insist people who don't want to get shot must know all the opposition's terms either.

Yes - whoever is making the laws needs to drill down and know the specifics. That doesn't mean anyone who doesn't isn't entitled to an opinion. If we are drawing the line anywhere, I'd prioritize those who have been on the other side of the gun, not the shooters. 

[lilac05]

sonrisa, I don’t disagree with your post. I think people can use whatever terminology they want when talking about the issue…but if they want to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with them (and not everyone does), then I think having shared terminology/language is important. (And yes, it goes both ways…on all topics and in basically all conversations.)

I don’t think that having conversations with people who disagree with you on ANY topic is (or should be) for everyone. I know from previous conversations that it’s not for you. I think it’s good that you know it’s not for you and you choose other ways to make a difference, but it is the way that others can do their part to bring about change. It’s no different than how some people have money that they can donate to organizations that make a difference and others don’t. We all need to fight for change in the way that we can be most effective given our skills and resources. If everyone does what they can with what they have and we all vote for people who will actually make changes, we can hit in a more comprehensive way and that is how I think change occurs.

[waverly]

May 29, 2022 22:34:46 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Here's the thing - unlike other debates, gun safety issues very much affect people who don't own guns, don't ever want to be near guns, nor care about the terminology. Nobody goes around aborting fetuses for unwilling women. People who don't understand what critical race theory is, aren't in critical race theory classes. But getting shot isn't something you opt into. It's something another person who cares about guns does. The idea that gun people rather than their targets should be the only ones in the discussion is offensive to every person who has ever been shot.

And the lack of terminology happens on both sides of this. A doctor who treats gun violence has a whole set of terminology relevant to the discussion that isn't shared by those operating firearms. We don't insist the NRA know the medical terminology for the damage caused by guns before they talk about guns. We shouldn't insist people who don't want to get shot must know all the opposition's terms either.

Yes - whoever is making the laws needs to drill down and know the specifics. That doesn't mean anyone who doesn't isn't entitled to an opinion. If we are drawing the line anywhere, I'd prioritize those who have been on the other side of the gun, not the shooters. 

Yes I think this is what I am getting at. Their right to own a high capacity gun/ ammo is more important than my right to live/ than children’s right to attend school without being shot and killed. But yet I have to research guns that are essentially killing machines (as opposed to a single capacity hand gun locked up for protection in one’s home) in order to have a conversation about it. F- that. Y’all (those on the other side) are literally OK with children dying. Literally ok with me dying. But I’m not allowed to have an opinion about that because they’ve decided I used the wrong term. No.

And agreed no one who is pro life has ever bothered to learn about Medical conditions which could cause the loss of the woman’s life.

[eddy]

I use the phrase gun responsibility when I talking on this topic. I think the word responsibility gives off a much different vibe then the word control.

I got this from a tiktok. This is not my original thought. But I am now using different language.

[macmars45]

May 30, 2022 8:33:53 GMT -5 eddy said:

I use the phrase gun responsibility when I talking on this topic. I think the word responsibility gives off a much different vibe then the word control.

I got this from a tiktok. This is not my original thought. But I am now using different language.

On Twitter people are saying gun safety in place of gun control. It's in the same vein.

[foundmylazybum]

May 29, 2022 18:21:45 GMT -5 waverly said:

May 29, 2022 18:19:26 GMT -5 dancelnow said:

I’m not about arguing them. Im about making sure we use the right language so the laws we want are effective and can get passed. If you want change, you have to be specific about what that change is. Words have specific meanings and we need to use the right ones to have the right effect.

I’ll agree with this in the legal sense. But don’t dems making the gun control laws know the correct language? It’s more the media or people on FB that don’t. There should be specific things spelled out like bump stocks, ghost guns, high capacity ammo, high capacity capability etc etc. But should we all get on the same page and say these 5 things, whatever they are, absolutely. Uniform messaging, yes to that!

I'm not going to go that deep into this, but I have seen laws from Dems and no: they did not understand the correct language and that is what held up the process. 

[aliciabella]

May 29, 2022 18:19:26 GMT -5 dancelnow said:

May 29, 2022 14:03:16 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

Anyone who wants to argue the semantics of what a gun is called doesn't care about gun control or saving lives.

I’m not about arguing them. Im about making sure we use the right language so the laws we want are effective and can get passed. If you want change, you have to be specific about what that change is. Words have specific meanings and we need to use the right ones to have the right effect.

Yes. Again, it is about messaging.

Why do you think so many trumpers think the libs are going to take all guns aways? Has that ever been proposed? No. The messaging should have been; you can hunt, you can own a personal hand gun with limited magazines, and you can shoot assault rifles are a regulated range. That, to me, is a compromise.

Again,the Republicans have messaged so well that we want to take their guns but it isn't true. We suck at messaging. And, if anyone has lost a family member to Fox News, you can understand how important messaging is.

[sonrisa]

May 30, 2022 13:17:25 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

May 29, 2022 18:19:26 GMT -5 dancelnow said:

I’m not about arguing them. Im about making sure we use the right language so the laws we want are effective and can get passed. If you want change, you have to be specific about what that change is. Words have specific meanings and we need to use the right ones to have the right effect.

Yes. Again, it is about messaging.

Why do you think so many trumpers think the libs are going to take all guns aways?

.

why do so many trumpers think the election was stolen, vaccines implant microchips, Jan 6th was a false flag, democrats are lizard people, pizza gate is real, acknowledging slavery was awful traumatizes white kids, trans kids are a threat, etc.? Let’s not pretend using logic and clear language fixes any of their bullshit.

[shopgirl07]

May 30, 2022 16:15:39 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 30, 2022 13:17:25 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Yes. Again, it is about messaging.

Why do you think so many trumpers think the libs are going to take all guns aways?

.

why do so many trumpets think the election was stolen, vaccines implant microchips, Jan 6th was a false flag, democrats are lizard people, pizza gate is real, acknowledging slavery was awful traumatized white kids, trans kids are a threat, etc.? Let’s not pretend using logic and clear language fixes any of their the bullshit.

I mean, this is spot on. We are in a post truth, post critical thinking skills world.

[Bad Dingo]

www.cnn.com/2022/05/30/americas/canada-handgun-sales-cap/index.html

Well look at that. Apparently it's not impossible to make anti-gun laws (as long as you aren't the US).

[lea]

May 30, 2022 19:26:58 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

www.cnn.com/2022/05/30/americas/canada-handgun-sales-cap/index.html

Well look at that. Apparently it's not impossible to make anti-gun laws (as long as you aren't the US).

Was just coming here to post this. Good for Trudeau.

From AP:

“Countries that do a good job of controlling guns do a good job of controlling gun violence,” Mendicino said in an interview with The Associated Press.


Like, it’s not rocket science!!

[heygrey]

May 30, 2022 19:26:58 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

www.cnn.com/2022/05/30/americas/canada-handgun-sales-cap/index.html

Well look at that. Apparently it's not impossible to make anti-gun laws (as long as you aren't the US).

It's a proposed law. It still has a long way to go before being passed. I'm hopeful, but also realistic. 

[wawa]

There's a difference between "you used slightly wrong words! your opinion is invalid!"
And "you keep using that word, i don't think it means what you think it means."

We need to be open to learning for the second because otherwise you just aren't communicating clearly, and say fuck fox news trumpish assholes on the first.
But a "hey, actually automatic weapons are already pretty well regulated, you might mean x" is 100% the second.

Unrelated to the above:
I struggle with this topic in general in terms of what would actually be effective short of actually taking guns away across the board. I live in a state with fairly tight gun regulations (MD), but Baltimore still has high levels of gun violence. Would having federal level restrictions similar to Maryland's help? I don't know. Our carry laws are really stringent, buying a handgun and some other types involves waiting periods, there's a special handgun permit, non waiting period guns (like a hunting rifle) you can buy same day but have to pass a background check, but in practice even that 7 day period is bullshit because the way the law is written there is supposed to be a background/registration processing that happens in those 7 days but there have been times when the office that processes those is backed up and they DON'T process them, but you still get your firearm when the 7 days are up, and the instant background check is basically (AFAIK) a "are you a felon? no? here's your rifle!" sort of situation. Would Maryland's rules work better if VA and PA weren't right there? I don't know. Would they work better if there were teeth to them, or repercussions for stolen guns? I dont' know.
A change in the liability expectations feels like it would be effective for some things, but definitely not for others. Seems worth a try, and is something the gun owners I know are generally fine with since they see themselves as responsible gun owners so they don't think it will impact them.

I just don't feel like I have a good enough understanding of what has actually been effective in other countries to know what's actually going to do something and what's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. And I really dont think "try everything all at once" is the right answer here. But it's better than nothing, so there's that.

Which usually just brings me back to How About Not Having Guns? And then there's the political reality of that.

Also...I know I sometimes relate way too many things to my job, but my GOD the parallels between gun safety and transportation safety are startling sometimes. Especially when people are like, "well car crashes kill a lot of people, do you want to ban cars too!?" and my actual honest to got answer is "I mean...yeah. In a lot of circumstances i DO want to ban cars. Cars are a lot riskier than people give them credit for, and far fewer people need to be driving daily then currently are, and we'd all be a lot safer with fewer cars around if we could just redesign our systems so people dont feel like they need to drive everywhere." So just sub in guns there. I'm not sure what that "system redesign" looks like though, and for transportation safety there are thousands of professionals crunching numbers and coming up with new ideas and conducting research daily (two federally funded research projects happening in just my little office as I type!) to try and figure out which solutions actually help, but it doesn't feel like there's anything close to that level of effort on gun safety.

[RitzyHeifer]

I know this conversation has pretty well wrapped up, but I did want to add in the vein of using the right terminology, I think there is also a general dearth of knowledge of what kind of laws currently exist (another need for federal legislation instead of a patchwork).

I was talking with a CW about having guns that I’ve inherited from family and in the state where I lived at the time I did have to have a firearm owners ID card to have them, but that unless the police were investigating another issue at my home, etc that no one would be the wiser. He was astounded that I was comfortable having “unregistered” guns in my house. And I had to clarify that yes, technically they were unregistered but that is because there is no mechanism by which TO register them in our state. I now live in a state without even the ID required.

So this was a person completely supportive of gun safety laws but just without the knowledge of how lax that state’s laws were. So I guess my point in knowing terminology is that education and knowledge is needed all around. And we need more control on firearms in this country.

[fumbalina]

I think the only way we resolve this is by requiring insurance on guns. Financial liability is the only thing that matters to many people. Also, the insurance lobby is just as big as the NRA lobby, so they may be able to actually pass some legislation.

I wish lives mattered enough to people, but of course "you can always have more kids" is too easy of an answer for some of them.