And another mass shooting - Chattanooga, TN

[Vintage81]

17 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re ease of obtaining weapons even for those who are supposed to be flagged in background checks

Current Federal and Florida-specific background check legislation

(As is true in many states) looks like licensed dealers are supposed to conduct background checks that would flag felony convictions, but that there is no such requirement for either private sales or and show sales.

Most of us in comparatively restrictive background check states recognize that between this gaping loophole, and the supreme ease of crossing state lines and/ or buying from a straw man third party intermediary... pretty much anyone anywhere can get whatever they want with sufficient lead time.  There's no way to get a handle even on how all the NEWLY MANUFACTURED weapons get into individual hands without some sort of universal background check process. 

And ensuring background checks within the swash of weapons sloshing around the private secondary market is even harder.  Still, to have *laws on the books requiring* that private sales go through a background check process at least gives LE and investigators tools to work with.

I’m not sure of the law in FL, but in TX where I live, the private seller is still responsible for ensuring the person they are selling to is eligible to purchase the firearm. In this case, they would be responsible for knowing if the person they were selling to was a felon. Here’s an article explaining…

https://faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/44008

That being said, I’d be okay changing the law and requiring a background check for all sales, including private sales. 

[TravelingChris]

20 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re ease of obtaining weapons even for those who are supposed to be flagged in background checks

Current Federal and Florida-specific background check legislation

(As is true in many states) looks like licensed dealers are supposed to conduct background checks that would flag felony convictions, but that there is no such requirement for either private sales or and show sales.

Most of us in comparatively restrictive background check states recognize that between this gaping loophole, and the supreme ease of crossing state lines and/ or buying from a straw man third party intermediary... pretty much anyone anywhere can get whatever they want with sufficient lead time.  There's no way to get a handle even on how all the NEWLY MANUFACTURED weapons get into individual hands without some sort of universal background check process. 

And ensuring background checks within the swash of weapons sloshing around the private secondary market is even harder.  Still, to have *laws on the books requiring* that private sales go through a background check process at least gives LE and investigators tools to work with.

Actually, most criminals are nott hanging around gun shows---they get straw buyers pr buy from people who have stolen gens or illegally imported.

[Idalou]

12 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

I’m not sure of the law in FL, but in TX where I live, the private seller is still responsible for ensuring the person they are selling to is eligible to purchase the firearm. In this case, they would be responsible for knowing if the person they were selling to was a felon. Here’s an article explaining…

https://faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/44008

That being said, I’d be okay changing the law and requiring a background check for all sales, including private sales. 

Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but your link says they shouldn't sell to one if they know, or have reason to believe that the buyer isn't able. Then it says they do not need to run a background check. So what's to stop a private seller from just saying that they had no reason to believe the buyer wasn't eligible, that they did not know he was a felon( no background check needed, right?)

Edited June 7, 2022 by Idalou

[Vintage81]

15 minutes ago, Idalou said:

Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but your link says they shouldn't sell to one if they know, or have reason to believe that the buyer isn't able. Then it says they do not need to run a background check. So what's to stop a private seller from just saying that they had no reason to believe the buyer wasn't eligible, that they did not know he was a felon( no background check needed, right?)

My understanding is that the seller is required to do their due diligence, but the buyer can lie, just like people can lie on a background check. 

[Pam in CT]

re closing background check loopholes

41 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

I’m not sure of the law in FL, but in TX where I live, the private seller is still responsible for ensuring the person they are selling to is eligible to purchase the firearm. In this case, they would be responsible for knowing if the person they were selling to was a felon. Here’s an article explaining…

https://faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/44008

That being said, I’d be okay changing the law and requiring a background check for all sales, including private sales. 

 

19 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

My understanding is that the seller is required to do their due diligence, but the buyer can lie, just like people can lie on a background check. 

There are gradations, of course. Asking a seller to ask potential buyers to check a box "have you ever been convicted for a felony" is not as stringent as requiring the seller to run through a law enforcement database in which felonies show up.  A liar with fake ID could still fraudulently pose as another person, which is why some states require fingerprinting as part of the background check. We provide birth certificates and/or passports to register to vote (also a Constitutional right) or get a drivers' license; it's reasonable to expect an ID that holds up to comparable scrutiny for a background check to purchase a weapon.

 

52 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Actually, most criminals are nott hanging around gun shows---they get straw buyers pr buy from people who have stolen gens or illegally imported.

Yeah, one of the issues that CT is trying to figure how to address is intermediaries who go to gun show and buy 10+++ weapons on the spot with the intention at the get-go of turning around and reselling them.  In addition to pulling gun shows into the background check process (which, we haven't mentioned this in this immediate exchange, you want to check for felonies in any/all states, not just the state in which the sale is taking place), perhaps limits on how MANY weapons can be purchased in one day?  or limit on back-to-back purchase and sale transfers?

[Lillyfee]

Ok, so a honest question.

Why should the laws that help to protect other countries from gun violence not work in the US?

I mean the US is not a failed state. It should be able to pass laws and make sure that people follow them.

I

[TexasProud]

5 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

Ok, so a honest question.

Why should the laws that help to protect other countries from gun violence not work in the US?

I mean the US is not a failed state. It should be able to pass laws and make sure that people follow them.

I

Explain what law you are referring to.

[Lillyfee]

 Like

the ban of these AR guns (I admit right now that I don't know anything about these guns other than that they can kill many people in seconds and that they are banned in most countries)

Thorough background checks

At least 2 week wait time to get a gun

Prove that you are mentally stable

Etc

I think Australia also had lots of guns around and they got it good under control or Finland is a gun country but does not have these shootings or if we look at Canada.

Why do so many people believe that the same laws won't work in the US?

[Vintage81]

12 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

There are gradations, of course. Asking a seller to ask potential buyers to check a box "have you ever been convicted for a felony" is not as stringent as requiring the seller to run through a law enforcement database in which felonies show up.  A liar with fake ID could still fraudulently pose as another person, which is why some states require fingerprinting as part of the background check. We provide birth certificates and/or passports to register to vote (also a Constitutional right) or get a drivers' license; it's reasonable to expect an ID that holds up to comparable scrutiny for a background check to purchase a weapon.

Agree with the bolded, which is why I think all sales should go through background checks. 

That’s interesting about the fingerprinting. DH said he had to do that for his conceal carry license (back when we had them). I’m actually not sure about TX…all of the guns we have DH has purchased since getting his conceal carry license.  

[TexasProud]

1 minute ago, Lillyfee said:

 Like

the ban of these AR guns (I admit right now that I don't know anything about these guns other than that they can kill many people in seconds and that they are banned in most countries)

Thorough background checks

At least 2 week wait time to get a gun

Prove that you are mentally stable

Etc

I think Australia also had lots of guns around and they got it good under control or Finland is a gun country but does not have these shootings or if we look at Canada.

Why do so many people believe that the same laws won't work in the US?

Oh they would work.

We just don't have ( though I am praying it is changing) the political will. Part of it is because we are VERY VERY individualist and very adamant about not having our rights taken away.  Isn't working out very well.

[Vintage81]

29 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Yeah, one of the issues that CT is trying to figure how to address is intermediaries who go to gun show and buy 10+++ weapons on the spot with the intention at the get-go of turning around and reselling them.  In addition to pulling gun shows into the background check process (which, we haven't mentioned this in this immediate exchange, you want to check for felonies in any/all states, not just the state in which the sale is taking place), perhaps limits on how MANY weapons can be purchased in one day?  or limit on back-to-back purchase and sale transfers?

What if the sellers at the gun shows are FFL dealers? The FFL dealers are required to run background checks. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Vintage81

[Lillyfee]

I don't get it because with other stuff the US is supercareful. 

Like I needed a big background test to be a soccer coach for the little ones. And don't even get me started on my Greencard . Blood test, x ray of my lung, background checks, interviews.

[Corraleno]

Interesting approach to limiting assault weapons by imposing an astronomical tax on sales — and since it's a revenue measure it could be passed by 50 votes, and can't be filibustered.

"One House Democrat has a novel idea for curbing sales of semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s, the type of firearm used by both shooters in the massacres in Uvalde and Buffalo last month. The proposed bill places a 1,000% excise tax on any type of semi-automatic firearm, pushing up the price of the military-style weapon beyond the means of many potential buyers. 

Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia is working on a bill now and hopes to introduce it in the next few days, spokesman Aaron Fritschner said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. The proposed legislation does not ban these weapons but simply introduces a tax on them, which is "a power clearly delegated to Congress under Article I of the Constitution," he added.

Additionally, because the bill would be a revenue measure, it could be introduced through the reconciliation process, which would only require approval from 50 senators, instead of the 60 votes needed to pass most legislation. Only "a simple majority" would be required to get the bill passed, Fritschner added."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-don-beyer-1000-percent-tax-ar-15-assault-weapons/

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, Lillyfee said:

 

I mean the US is not a failed state. It should be able to pass laws and make sure that people follow them.

I

We really are kind of a failed state, though.  

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Vintage81 said:

Agree with the bolded, which is why I think all sales should go through background checks. 

That’s interesting about the fingerprinting. DH said he had to do that for his conceal carry license (back when we had them). I’m actually not sure about TX…all of the guns we have DH has purchased since getting his conceal carry license.  

One reason we won't have anything with a fingerprint for our security is because fingerprints disappear as you age.

[Lillyfee]

21 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

One reason we won't have anything with a fingerprint for our security is because fingerprints disappear as you age.

But I always need to give my fingerprints when I enter the US with the Greencard. So they stop working then at some point and I will be in trouble or do they consider that?

[AnotherNewName]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Interesting approach to limiting assault weapons by imposing an astronomical tax on sales — and since it's a revenue measure it could be passed by 50 votes, and can't be filibustered.

"One House Democrat has a novel idea for curbing sales of semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s, the type of firearm used by both shooters in the massacres in Uvalde and Buffalo last month. The proposed bill places a 1,000% excise tax on any type of semi-automatic firearm, pushing up the price of the military-style weapon beyond the means of many potential buyers. 

Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia is working on a bill now and hopes to introduce it in the next few days, spokesman Aaron Fritschner said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. The proposed legislation does not ban these weapons but simply introduces a tax on them, which is "a power clearly delegated to Congress under Article I of the Constitution," he added.

Additionally, because the bill would be a revenue measure, it could be introduced through the reconciliation process, which would only require approval from 50 senators, instead of the 60 votes needed to pass most legislation. Only "a simple majority" would be required to get the bill passed, Fritschner added."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-don-beyer-1000-percent-tax-ar-15-assault-weapons/

That silliness doesn't have the 50 votes needed to pass.

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

That silliness doesn't have the 50 votes needed to pass.

If politicians refuse to pass common sense legislation to keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, then I’ll take whatever silliness is required to do so. 

[Pam in CT]

re fingerprints disappearing with (very) advanced age

5 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

One reason we won't have anything with a fingerprint for our security is because fingerprints disappear as you age.

Doesn't that effect kick in with, like, folks in their 70s and beyond?  I mean, fingerprints already ARE used for all sorts of purposes in both public sector and private sector purposes (anyone working in a school, law enforcement databases, Global Entry, employee access systems in various high-security settings, opening iPhones...) ?

 

[mommyoffive]

My gosh these numbers took my breath away.

 

 

 

• More than 18,800 people have died due to gun violence overall in 2022, according to the Archive.

In 2021, the Gun Violence Archive recorded 692 mass shootings, and found that gun violence overall killed 45,010 people.

 

The US has had 246 mass shootings so far in 2022. Here's the full list. (msn.com)

[teachermom2834]

I’m local to Chattanooga and the shootings there (26 people shot over the last 2 weekends!) are gang related. One incident sent six people to the hospital and all involved were ages 15 or younger. It’s a real problem and the people there shooting are not worried about following laws, that is for sure.

However, I live in a neighborhood with lots of gun owners who have purchased their guns legally. That doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t make me feel unsafe- BUT- every few months we have groups of people, reported as gang activity, come through our neighborhood going through unlocked cars and everytime it is reported that people are having guns stolen. Out of unlocked cars parked in their driveways overnight. Home burglaries generally report stolen guns among the losses.  

All the red flag laws, raising the purchase age, waiting period, etc. wouldn’t address this part of it at all. I’m not saying those things aren’t worthwhile, I’m just discouraged. 
 

 

 

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

I’m local to Chattanooga and the shootings there (26 people shot over the last 2 weekends!) are gang related. One incident sent six people to the hospital and all involved were ages 15 or younger. It’s a real problem and the people there shooting are not worried about following laws, that is for sure.

However, I live in a neighborhood with lots of gun owners who have purchased their guns legally. That doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t make me feel unsafe- BUT- every few months we have groups of people, reported as gang activity, come through our neighborhood going through unlocked cars and everytime it is reported that people are having guns stolen. Out of unlocked cars parked in their driveways overnight. Home burglaries generally report stolen guns among the losses.  

All the red flag laws, raising the purchase age, waiting period, etc. wouldn’t address this part of it at all. I’m not saying those things aren’t worthwhile, I’m just discouraged. 
 

 

 

Safe storage laws are among the things being promoted. Safe storage laws WOULD help those issues. Firearms should be required to be stored in a safe, and  safes should be bolted to the wall/floor (or supremely heavy/big) so they can't be carried off to open later. 

And of course, this highlights why having fewer guns out there, even legally purchased ones, means fewer gun crimes - if there are fewer guns to steal, there will be fewer criminals that have guns. 

[Lillyfee]

2 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

I’m local to Chattanooga and the shootings there (26 people shot over the last 2 weekends!) are gang related. One incident sent six people to the hospital and all involved were ages 15 or younger. It’s a real problem and the people there shooting are not worried about following laws, that is for sure.

However, I live in a neighborhood with lots of gun owners who have purchased their guns legally. That doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t make me feel unsafe- BUT- every few months we have groups of people, reported as gang activity, come through our neighborhood going through unlocked cars and everytime it is reported that people are having guns stolen. Out of unlocked cars parked in their driveways overnight. Home burglaries generally report stolen guns among the losses.  

All the red flag laws, raising the purchase age, waiting period, etc. wouldn’t address this part of it at all. I’m not saying those things aren’t worthwhile, I’m just discouraged. 
 

 

 

The last problem could be fixed by storage laws that get controlled. A gun has to be in a safe and not in a car or free around on the house.

Which makes me shudder again. Why would they have a gun in a car? Are these people always prepared to kill somebody?  Not really sane or civilized thinking for me....

Edited June 8, 2022 by Lillyfee

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

The last problem could be fixed by storage laws that get controlled. A gun has to be in a safe and not in a car or free around on the house.

Which makes me shudder again. Why would they have a gun in a car? Are these people always prepared to kill somebody?  Not really sane or civilized thinking for me....

There were a few times I considered having a gun in the car - it was when I was doing a drive where I new I'd be out of cell phone range in places, with a long stretch where there were no exits, not towns, etc and I was driving at night. I'd broken down once before (thankfully right by the last exit before that long stretch) and was a bit concerned about it happening again and being approached when alone on the side of the road. 

But, I had a locked  conpartment to keep it in. It would have been left in that compartment in the locked car while I was at my destination, then put back in the safe when I got home. But I decided it wasn't worth worrying about it being in the car, even locked away like that. 

[Lillyfee]

It's so weird for me to think of having a gun in the car but when I think about it my dad said to me before I left to the US "If you get stopped by an US policeman leave your hands on the steering wheel and ask permission to look for your driver's licence." and I am like "Why would I need to do that?" and he said "You will be in gun country then and the policeman expects everyone to have a gun and he will shoot a lot faster than any policeman will do here, even if you just reach for your wallet if he loses his nerves. So don't move and always show him that your hands are empty."

My dad scared me so bad with that. Thank God they never stopped me so far.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Lillyfee

[TechWife]

Another tragedy. 

“A 10-year-old girl was arrested Tuesday after authorities say she fatally shot a woman who was arguing with her mother, according to the Orlando Police Department.

The child was placed in the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families, according to police.

In a statement following the shooting, State Attorney for Orange and Osceola Counties Monique H. Worrell said her office has began reviewing the case and will ‘consider all of the facts, including the age of the child, and all of the surrounding circumstances, when making a charging decision.’

‘We want to be clear in stating that no charging decision has been made by our office,’ the state attorney's statement said, adding the incident was "one of the most tragic cases I have seen in my 22-year career.’ “
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/us/orlando-10-year-old-girl-arrested-fatal-shooting/index.html

[Lillyfee]

I don't know if people understand what they do to their kids by raising them with guns in every corner. 

I mean, people in some other countries don't have any choice because it's war or something but in the US it's a choice. 

I need to stop. I just can't grasp it and it makes me just so angry and sad.

[Wheres Toto]

On 6/6/2022 at 1:04 PM, denarii said:

I feel like this narrative forgets that Canada exists. The people who emigrated here were risk takers too but we do not have an equivalent level of gun violence. 

I never really understood this narrative either.   I mean, I fully agree that most (?) Americans are selfish and individualistic and mainly concerned about themselves and their own families and to heck with everyone else.  

But blaming it on the people who emigrated here over 200 years ago?  I mean, isn't that plenty of time for that wild, risk-taking spirit to have died down a little bit?  

[Lillyfee]

18 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

I never really understood this narrative either.   I mean, I fully agree that most (?) Americans are selfish and individualistic and mainly concerned about themselves and their own families and to heck with everyone else.  

But blaming it on the people who emigrated here over 200 years ago?  I mean, isn't that plenty of time for that wild, risk-taking spirit to have died down a little bit?  

But in my experience they aren't. That is the weird thing.

I live right now in rural Kansas and I met the nicest, most helpful, wonderful people here that would help out wherever they can but they vote Republicans. All of them. I don't get it. 

They can't afford to go to the doctor or dentist and are against universal health care. They cry when they read the news but they don't want to change the gun laws. 

I feel like talking to some of my Russian friends. They believe everything Putin says and here they believe everything Fox News says. Brainwashed

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Lillyfee

[Pam in CT]

re relationship between gun access and gun storage

3 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

I’m local to Chattanooga and the shootings there (26 people shot over the last 2 weekends!) are gang related. One incident sent six people to the hospital and all involved were ages 15 or younger. It’s a real problem and the people there shooting are not worried about following laws, that is for sure.

However, I live in a neighborhood with lots of gun owners who have purchased their guns legally. That doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t make me feel unsafe- BUT- every few months we have groups of people, reported as gang activity, come through our neighborhood going through unlocked cars and everytime it is reported that people are having guns stolen. Out of unlocked cars parked in their driveways overnight. Home burglaries generally report stolen guns among the losses.  

All the red flag laws, raising the purchase age, waiting period, etc. wouldn’t address this part of it at all. I’m not saying those things aren’t worthwhile, I’m just discouraged.

It's discouraging.  It's a complex issue, with many moving parts; and you're right; there is no one single, simple solution. 

Background checks, minimum purchase age, cooling-off periods: all these measures mostly speak to aspects of NEW weapons coming INTO, and ADDING TO, the current stock of 400M+ weapons that are already in circulation / sloshing around inside our country.

What you're speaking to here is more around the TRANSFER (whether in the legal/ gray/ secondary market between private sellers and buyers; or illegal, by theft) of weapons between people.  Addressing which calls for different policy measures -- such as (for example) extending background checks to those legal sales, registries by serial number... and above all (for the gun theft issue you raise) safe storage.

[Safe storage is also, as a separate issue to the gun theft issue but very much related to gun deaths, the single most important measure to reduce gun deaths caused by young kids getting hold of guns resulting in accidental deaths.  In my state, a tragedy of that nature, where one kid went over to another kid's house for a playdate, and they got into a version of Hide and Seek, and one of them ended up dead, was what provoked momentum that built into a consensus for legislation here to require safe storage anywhere -- house or car -- where minors might get ahold of guns.  Not *universal* safe storage; your responsible gun owner neighbors could still leave guns lying around loose in cars if no kids were ever in the cars, but those who had kids would need either to lock, or carry, rather than leave them lying around vulnerable either to theft or tragic accident. Better is better.)

 

 

 

re our national mythos of risk-taking individuals

28 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

I never really understood this narrative either.   I mean, I fully agree that most (?) Americans are selfish and individualistic and mainly concerned about themselves and their own families and to heck with everyone else.  

But blaming it on the people who emigrated here over 200 years ago?  I mean, isn't that plenty of time for that wild, risk-taking spirit to have died down a little bit?  

Well, (like any and all identity mythos) the Risk Taker motif is selective.  Brave enough to shoot caribou from a helicopter, or stand up to a bear; but skittish about venturing into cities.  Brave enough to rally into crowds of like-minded folks in bars during a plague in the name of The Economy! but unwilling to risk taking a new vaccine.  Above all, nervous about adapting to new technologies, new forms of market economies and political organization, and changing demographics that are upon us whether we like it or not.  (Which was true in 1776 and was true at the time of the Roman Empire and will be true for as long as humans manage to hold onto existence on this more-fragile-than-we'd-wish planet.)

I teach English and civics, and do a bit of immigrant advocacy work; and I sometimes muse that much of the resentment against immigrants to the US -- aside from/ in addition to their brownness, I mean -- is that in today's nation, THEY are the ones taking real risk, uprooting themselves from their known worlds, sacrificing up and down generational lines and lending out helping hands to cousins and fellow travelers from their home villages, struggling to adapt to a new language and build new support networks and accept work no one here wants to do, all because THEY believe in a better world for their children.  THEY are the risk takers, and also the ones who believe in the promise of this nation.

And that's hard to hold.

[TechWife]

On 6/6/2022 at 11:51 AM, TravelingChris said:

Yes--- we are not the same type of people.  The people who emigrated here were risk-takers/  We are a super individualistic country---different countries have different cultures.  Big countries normally have more than one culture-- but almost all of ours are individualistic anyway.

I don’t know that I’d classify my grandmother as a risk taker. She just wanted to live. You see, she had already lost two siblings to starvation. Moving to a country where she would have enough to eat wasn’t risky. Staying in Hungary would have been risky. There are millions like her. Even today, many people come here out of a desire to preserve their lives. 

In addition, many people I know who have emigrated to the US haven’t adopted the individualist mindset. They maintain their culture within their family and openly share it with those that they know. They are generous, kind and community minded. I’m guessing you may not know any descendants of emigrants who knew the family member who emigrated, and I wonder if you have somehow managed to not become acquainted with any recent emigrants. 

Other countries are full of risk takers. Right now some are returning to their homes in Ukraine, some rebuilding after another storm, some speaking out against dictators, some walking for days to reach the nearest physician, some demanding that girls be allowed to go to school, and yes, some of them trying to get to the US. Risking their lives to do simple things that we take for granted.

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by TechWife

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re our national mythos of risk-taking individuals

Well, (like any and all identity mythos) the Risk Taker motif is selective.  Brave enough to shoot caribou from a helicopter, or stand up to a bear; but skittish about venturing into cities.  Brave enough to rally into crowds of like-minded folks in bars during a plague in the name of The Economy! but unwilling to risk taking a new vaccine.  Above all, nervous about adapting to new technologies, new forms of market economies and political organization, and changing demographics that are upon us whether we like it or not.  (Which was true in 1776 and was true at the time of the Roman Empire and will be true for as long as humans manage to hold onto existence on this more-fragile-than-we'd-wish planet.)

I teach English and civics, and do a bit of immigrant advocacy work; and I sometimes muse that much of the resentment against immigrants to the US -- aside from/ in addition to their brownness, I mean -- is that in today's nation, THEY are the ones taking real risk, uprooting themselves from their known worlds, sacrificing up and down generational lines and lending out helping hands to cousins and fellow travelers from their home villages, struggling to adapt to a new language and build new support networks and accept work no one here wants to do, all because THEY believe in a better world for their children.  THEY are the risk takers, and also the ones who believe in the promise of this nation.

And that's hard to hold.

We need a special reaction emoji beyond a "thanks" for posts like this. Nailed it 🔥.

[rebcoola]

2 hours ago, Lillyfee said:

But in my experience they aren't. That is the weird thing.

I live right now in rural Kansas and I met the nicest, most helpful, wonderful people here that would help out wherever they can but they vote Republicans. All of them. I don't get it. 

They can't afford to go to the doctor or dentist and are against universal health care. They cry when they read the news but they don't want to change the gun laws. 

I feel like talking to some of my Russian friends. They believe everything Putin says and here they believe everything Fox News says. Brainwashed

 

They are afraid of the government.  I don't know what it is about  certain Americans but so many are obsessed with the idea that the government is some tyrannical other out to get ordinary citizens. Totally the opposite of the by the people for the people that it's supposed to be.   They also weirdly hero worship the revolution.   It's like they almost want the government to be bad so they will have the chance to rebel.

I know so many people who will give you anything if you are in need like truly anything but won't vote to raise taxes to fund services to help people because government assistance is bad.  

[Wheres Toto]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

I don’t know that I’d classify my grandmother as a risk taker. She just wanted to live. You see, she had already lost two siblings to starvation. Moving to a country where she would have enough to eat wasn’t risky. Staying in Hungary would have been risky. There are millions like her. Even today, many people come here out of a desire to preserve their lives. 

In addition, many people I know who have emigrated to the US haven’t adopted the individualist mindset. They maintain their culture within their family and openly share it with those that they know. They are generous, kind and community minded. I’m guessing you may not know any descendants of emigrants who knew the family member who emigrated, and I wonder if you have somehow managed to not become acquainted with any recent emigrants. 

Other countries are full of risk takers. Right now some are returning to their homes in Ukraine, some rebuilding after another storm, some speaking out against dictators, some walking for days to reach the nearest physician, some demanding that girls be allowed to go to school, and yes, some of them trying to get to the US. Risking their lives to do simple things that we take for granted.

 

I feel like the idea of the risk-taking, individual risking everything for a new life doesn't seem to ever include recent immigrants in that.  It seems to be more about the Wild West/Pioneer/Rebellion idea, rather than ordinary people wanting to live a safe, quiet life.  

[Lillyfee]

I feel the religious influence in the "Bible belt" is also a big problem. Most churches here are extremely conservative and political.

We are a Christian family but most of these churches here are horrifying backwards and seriously remind me a lot of extreme mosques that are under government observation in Germany. 

Our Catholic and Protestand church in Germany is in general very liberal, supports abortion, is pro immigration and stuff like that but people also don't get influenced that much by churches even though we even have religion as a subject in school. 

[TechWife]

20 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

I feel the religious influence in the "Bible belt" is also a big problem. Most churches here are extremely conservative and political.

We are a Christian family but most of these churches here are horrifying backwards and seriously remind me a lot of extreme mosques that are under government observation in Germany. 

Our Catholic and Protestand church in Germany is in general very liberal, supports abortion, is pro immigration and stuff like that but people also don't get influenced that much by churches even though we even have religion as a subject in school. 

It's the confusion between the Christian faith and what the US considers "conservative" politics. There are a large number of people in the Bible belt who confuse their faith with political involvement. They equate Christianity with a particular political party.  I don't want to get into more details on the main board. A group of Christians has been discussing this on the politics board for a while now - if you'd like to hash this out, join us there!

[Lillyfee]

14 minutes ago, TechWife said:

It's the confusion between the Christian faith and what the US considers "conservative" politics. There are a large number of people in the Bible belt who confuse their faith with political involvement. They equate Christianity with a particular political party.  I don't want to get into more details on the main board. A group of Christians has been discussing this on the politics board for a while now - if you'd like to hash this out, join us there!

How do I join you guys there? I would love to discuss that further as it is really shocking what I saw here.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, rebcoola said:

They are afraid of the government.  I don't know what it is about  certain Americans but so many are obsessed with the idea that the government is some tyrannical other out to get ordinary citizens. Totally the opposite of the by the people for the people that it's supposed to be.   They also weirdly hero worship the revolution.   It's like they almost want the government to be bad so they will have the chance to rebel.

I’m not sure if I posted this in this thread or the Tulsa one (there are so many 😢), but a podcast I listened to last week made the point that this fear of needing to arm themselves against the government came out of the South with the Civil War. They felt the need to arm themselves to defend against the government taking their slaves, and then after slavery was ended, for fear of the people they had held in captivity coming back to retaliate. I typically hadthought of it in terms of the Revolution, but this struck me as very true as well. And I think the Civil War explanation has closer ties to the sentiment among many gun owners now.

[mommyoffive]

22 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

How do I join you guys there? I would love to discuss that further as it is really shocking what I saw here.

I would like to know too.

[KSera]

24 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

How do I join you guys there? I would love to discuss that further as it is really shocking what I saw here.

 

1 minute ago, mommyoffive said:

I would like to know too.

You can find it in the clubs section. I will try sharing a link here to see if it will take you directly there and then you can request membership, but I’m not sure if it works for me to link to it:

(is there any reason for me not to share link? I can delete if so. )

[TechWife]

27 minutes ago, Lillyfee said:

How do I join you guys there? I would love to discuss that further as it is really shocking what I saw here.

From the top of this page:

browse --> clubs --> WTM Politics --> join

Once you are "approved," send a pm to me and I'll direct you to the thread.

Edited June 8, 2022 by TechWife

[Idalou]

34 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m not sure if I posted this in this thread or the Tulsa one (there are so many 😢), but a podcast I listened to last week made the point that this fear of needing to arm themselves against the government came out of the South with the Civil War. They felt the need to arm themselves to defend against the government taking their slaves, and then after slavery was ended, for fear of the people they had held in captivity coming back to retaliate. I typically hadthought of it in terms of the Revolution, but this struck me as very true as well. And I think the Civil War explanation has closer ties to the sentiment among many gun owners now.

A lot of the thought to arm themselves came from their fear of slave rebellion. Most of it was just rumor and very small and sporadic, except for Haiti's in the late 1790's and Louisiana a decade or so later, but after the Nat Turner revolt the people were terrified. They began to imagine dangerous, murderous slaves everywhere. People in tidewater VA seriously thought their slaves were not treated as bad as those down south. They truly did not understand how or why they would go to such lengths for freedom.  The Fires of Jubilee book about Turner goes into this. Rules were re-written to keep blacks from learning to read and write among other things, and the slave patrols were begun to become this country's fledgling police force.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Idalou

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Idalou said:

A lot of the thought to arm themselves came from their fear of slave rebellion. Most of it was just rumor and very small and sporadic, but after the Nat Turner revolt the people were terrified. The Fires of Jubilee book about Turner goes into this. The slave patrols were this country's fledgling police force.

I honestly think a lot of current gun owner fear isn’t all that different. 

[Idalou]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

I honestly think a lot of current gun owner fear isn’t all that different. 

Yes. Along with the others fears that lead to banning books and xenophbia. There is even one governor who has suggested children of immigrants should not be allowed to attend public schools. 

One thing that I found fascinating anout Turner was that in his time, white people preached to their slaves from parts of the Bible that they claimed to support slavery. But once he learned to read, he began preaching directly from the Bible to his neighbors anout how his people should be free. He was extremely religious and waited for a divine sign to start the rampage, and got it when there was a solar eclipse and large sunspot within a few days. Sounds so much like how people think and believe and influence today.

Sorry. I get so involved with this book and my husband is really tired of listening to me yammer on about it!

Edited June 8, 2022 by Idalou

[TechWife]

56 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m not sure if I posted this in this thread or the Tulsa one (there are so many 😢), but a podcast I listened to last week made the point that this fear of needing to arm themselves against the government came out of the South with the Civil War. They felt the need to arm themselves to defend against the government taking their slaves, and then after slavery was ended, for fear of the people they had held in captivity coming back to retaliate. I typically hadthought of it in terms of the Revolution, but this struck me as very true as well. And I think the Civil War explanation has closer ties to the sentiment among many gun owners now.

It goes back to the Revolutionary War. The founders wanted to ensure that citizens would be able to defend themselves from a government that oversteps it's boundaries through military force. They believe, and it is still true, that the citizens should be in charge of the army, not the government. Today, the Secretary of Defense is always a civilian, appointed by a duly elected civilian President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, made up of civilians, who were elected by citizens, both civilian & military. Senators & Representatives can be in the reserves (and at least one is currently), but they aren't active duty.

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by TechWife

[KSera]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

It goes back to the Revolutionary War. The founders wanted to ensure that citizens would be able to defend themselves from a government that oversteps it's boundaries through military force. They believe, and it is still true, that the citizens should be in charge of the army, not the government. Today, the Secretary of Defense is always a civilian, appointed by a duly elected civilian President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, made up of civilians, who were elected by civilians. Senators & Representatives can be in the reserves (and at least one is currently), but they aren't active duty.

 

I 100% agree that that’s how it started with the founders, but I still think that the current mindset among many has more to do with the kind of fears that people in the south had regarding their “way of life“ being ended and fears about their former slaves. I think it has morphed. Because let’s face it, there is absolutely no chance of even civilians armed with AR-15s being able to defend themselves against the United States Military.

[TechWife]

 

I decided to take this down in case it's too political. I didn't want to risk getting the thread shut down.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by TechWife

[TechWife]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

I 100% agree that that’s how it started with the founders, but I still think that the current mindset among many has more to do with the kind of fears that people in the south had regarding their “way of life“ being ended and fears about their former slaves. I think it has morphed. Because let’s face it, there is absolutely no chance of even civilians armed with AR-15s being able to defend themselves against the United States Military.

I agree that there is no chance of civilians being able to defend themselves from the US Military. Having always lived in the south, it is my experience that the prevailing reasons for owning a weapon are self defense, defense of property, hunting and defending from government overreach.  I don't hear anyone using race based reasons to own a gun, and I grew up in an area with an active KKK. So, while the Civil War most likely accelerated this belief, the reason was not tied to fear of retribution, it was the fact that the US Army was, from their viewpoint, operating outside the boundaries of the law by not acquiescing to the succession of the southern states. They were able to fight a war against the US government because they had weapons they could use in addition to the ones they seized from existing armories they were able to capture. I hear a lot of talk about how civil war could happen again and people need to be ready. Defending oneself from ones own government was, and remains, a primary concern of gun rights activists. Any increase in gun ownership & use due to issues surrounding fear of retaliation from former slaves or a loss of their way of life is incidental to that overriding principal of defending oneself/family/community from government overreach through the military, which originated with the founders, had the need "confirmed" by the Civil War, and persists today.

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by TechWife

[ktgrok]

44 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 Having always lived in the south, it is my experience that the prevailing reasons for owning a weapon are self defense, defense of property, hunting and defending from government overreach.  I don't hear anyone using race based reasons to own a gun, and I grew up in an area with an active KKK. 

 

Yeah, but I'd bet dollars to donuts when white southerners are talking and thinking about self defense and defense of property the image in their head of the person they would be shooting is usually someone of color. They associate "gangs" and "criminals" with a particular color or colors. 

[Idalou]

Incedental means not major or main....and while its really difficult to accurately count guns in the 1800's, there is proof that gun laws were written specifically to ban free and enslaved blacks. During the run up 20 or 30 years to the CW, gun sales seemed to increase in both the north and south. Their fear of overreach by the gov't was directly related to their potential loss of the ability to own humans. Gun sales increased a lot after the Fugitive Slave Act, especially from free Northern blacks and abolitionist whites. It seems like it's not incedental, but two sides of the same coin. 

You may not have heard of owning a gun in the south for race based reasons, but have you ever heard of people that blame blacks or Hispanics for most of the violent crimes? These types need guns to defend themselves from the you know who'