U.S. Midterm Elections

[His Divine Shadow]

The NRA is more of a grass roots organisation than any of the anti-gun billionaires anyway, the NRA's punch come from the amount of people they can mobilize through an effective and organized network of members and sympathizing non-members, not the amount of money they can sling around. Not to say the NRA don't throw money around, but it's not their main gun, so to speak.

[Borgholio]

So looks like one of the new West Virginia State representatives is an 18 year old girl who is still in college.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/0 ... -lawmaker/

I don't know how cutthroat state congresses can be compared to Washington, but if they're even remotely similar...she will be skinned alive.

[Raw Shark]

So looks like one of the new West Virginia State representatives is an 18 year old girl who is still in college.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/0 ... -lawmaker/

I don't know how cutthroat state congresses can be compared to Washington, but if they're even remotely similar...she will be skinned alive.

You are sorely underestimating the experience with back-stabbing and raw, determined insanity of the average 18-year-old girl, amigo.

[Borgholio]

You are sorely underestimating the experience with back-stabbing and raw, determined insanity of the average 18-year-old girl, amigo.

Politics can even trump a raging estrogen-induced Tasmanian Devil.

[Guardsman Bass]

She's both super-conservative and has a father who is a state senator, so I think she'll probably be fine for the time being.

[RogueIce]

If nothing else, that's one hell of a bullet point for her resume.

[Simon_Jester]

Using that as an example of Americans finally getting civilized along with the rest of the world and learning to start trusting the cops to protect them is about the same as using a massively funded NRA law to show how boorish and backwards and phallically challenged Americans are...

Again, I would like to point out that guns are divisive because "Americans are boorish, backwards, and phallically challenged." They're divisive because the US is divided. Because there are at least two sharply different subcultures with different attitudes toward guns. Both sets of attitudes are informed by their own logic, and both are justified within their own context... and both groups resent having the other group's viewed imposed on them from outside by arrogant people who proclaim that they know the perfect answer for everyone.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Again, I would like to point out that guns are divisive because "Americans are boorish, backwards, and phallically challenged." They're divisive because the US is divided. Because there are at least two sharply different subcultures with different attitudes toward guns. Both sets of attitudes are informed by their own logic, and both are justified within their own context... and both groups resent having the other group's viewed imposed on them from outside by arrogant people who proclaim that they know the perfect answer for everyone.

Ain't a lot of this also due to the fact that Americans are fairly paranoid towards their own government?

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I would like to point out that guns are divisive because "Americans are boorish, backwards, and phallically challenged." They're divisive because the US is divided. Because there are at least two sharply different subcultures with different attitudes toward guns. Both sets of attitudes are informed by their own logic, and both are justified within their own context... and both groups resent having the other group's viewed imposed on them from outside by arrogant people who proclaim that they know the perfect answer for everyone.

Ain't a lot of this also due to the fact that Americans are fairly paranoid towards their own government?

The level of paranoia involved is little or no higher than that required to, say, oppose the government if it tries to pressure newspapers to retract a critical editorial. Oversight is important, having access to the means of effective dissent is an essential part of citizenship, et cetera.

The only thing that's unique is that Americans are unusually prepared to believe in the possibility of a violent government crackdown, rather than simply assuming such a thing is "inconcevable." While the Americans who think this way are almost invariably VERY unlikely to be targeted by such a crackdown, it's not like there never are violent crackdowns or changes of government within a democracy.

I may disagree with people who think like this, but they are not in and of themselves crazy.

And I can understand why they are often forced into a radicalized pro-gun stance. Because if they do not adopt such a stance, anti-gun political forces will break them up and essentially pry the guns out of their hands, whether it actually makes them safer or not.

[Joun_Lord]

Using that as an example of Americans finally getting civilized along with the rest of the world and learning to start trusting the cops to protect them is about the same as using a massively funded NRA law to show how boorish and backwards and phallically challenged Americans are...

Again, I would like to point out that guns are divisive because "Americans are boorish, backwards, and phallically challenged." They're divisive because the US is divided. Because there are at least two sharply different subcultures with different attitudes toward guns. Both sets of attitudes are informed by their own logic, and both are justified within their own context... and both groups resent having the other group's viewed imposed on them from outside by arrogant people who proclaim that they know the perfect answer for everyone.

Mind you my bit about "Americans are boorish, backwards, and phallically challenged." is mostly poking fun at the attitude snobbish snobs have towards Americans who don't want to disarm for whatever reason.

You are quite right about the fact their is a urban/rural divide about attitudes towards firearms that make sense to a degree. I say to a degree because while country bumpkins don't have much in the way of gun crime and understandably see no reason to disarm or be criminalized, them there city folk do have gun crime but just wanting to ban guns doesn't make as much sense. Gun crime tends to not exist on its own, it tends more to be a symptom or end result of a problem rather then the problem itself. Poverty, unfair drug laws, insufficient social safety net, poor edumacation, and culture can all be reasons for gun violence. Just banning guns might end gun violence but won't end the actual problem. Its like taking some aspirin to cure a headache but the headache being the result of getting stabbed, you solved a symptom of the problem but the problem is still there dripping on your carpet.

Part of its not even the rural/urban divide but also I would think poor and wealthy. Someone living in "da hood" or in some suburban area without private security or a police detachment right next door is probably not going to want to give up their Glocks. A wealthy person living in a gated community with 24 hour security is probably more likely to support disarming. Well not themselves or their security detail, everyone else.

And the attitudes are understandable. Some 9 to 5 regular Joel wants to be protected, cannot rely on police that can take precious minutes and not prevent the loss of their financially irreplaceable shtuff or their highly irreplaceable lives. Some high powered exec or movie star IS protected and don't need no firearms, the fact small people have firearms makes them less protected.

Atleast all that is what it seems like from my limited point of view.

[Simon_Jester]

You are quite right about the fact their is a urban/rural divide about attitudes towards firearms that make sense to a degree. I say to a degree because while country bumpkins don't have much in the way of gun crime and understandably see no reason to disarm or be criminalized, them there city folk do have gun crime but just wanting to ban guns doesn't make as much sense...

Well, the key point here is that a lot of the people for whom gun ownership is truly fundamental and important are, if not rural, at least tied to rural culture. While a lot of the people who just can't begin to comprehend how any fully functional human could even think of wanting a gun are tied to urban (as in middle-class suburban) culture.

Gun crime tends to not exist on its own, it tends more to be a symptom or end result of a problem rather then the problem itself. Poverty, unfair drug laws, insufficient social safety net, poor edumacation, and culture can all be reasons for gun violence. Just banning guns might end gun violence but won't end the actual problem. Its like taking some aspirin to cure a headache but the headache being the result of getting stabbed, you solved a symptom of the problem but the problem is still there dripping on your carpet.

I fully agree. This is yet another reason why no rational American political party should be pushing gun bans. They serve only to galvanize rural voters against (yet another) measure aimed at draining the swamp that is American inner-city poverty. And not a particularly effective method, either.

So instead of spending political capital on, say, four things, two of which the rural people hate and two of which they don't care about... you spend it on five things, three of which they hate.

This leads to dilution of effort, and thus to failure.

Part of its not even the rural/urban divide but also I would think poor and wealthy. Someone living in "da hood" or in some suburban area without private security or a police detachment right next door is probably not going to want to give up their Glocks. A wealthy person living in a gated community with 24 hour security is probably more likely to support disarming. Well not themselves or their security detail, everyone else.

Thing is, people living in "da hood" are mostly very painfully aware of how many crazies, freaks, and random criminal sociopaths around them are armed. A lot of them might be willing to make the trade-off.

Whereas almost no one in a rural area would have the same willingness because they don't feel like they're surrounded by violent criminals and semi-thuggish idiots who will turn violently criminal in the heat of passion.

[PKRudeBoy]

People living in the inner city would probably gladly make the trade off if they thought it would actually make them safer. For some reason though, I don't think too many of the crazies, freaks and random criminal sociopaths have legally owned firearms in the first place.