Nov 18, 2022·edited Nov 18, 2022Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
And the answer is? No! They do not wish, nor have they ever wished, to negotiate in good faith. In the minds of a hoplophobe, guns are EVIL and must be done away with (except for the police, the military and their armed private security).
Best piece of short fact-based fiction I've read this month. :-)
If they actually had 97% support they wouldn't need a website.
Nothing that has 97% support needs a website. Not that there's anything that enjoys 97% support. Hell, you probably couldn't get 97% concurrence that Santa Claus is a nice guy, let alone anything as contentious as firearms.
48 million Americans are presently classified as “Combat Capable,”
Approximately 30 million Americans own semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s.
14 million Americans are presently classified as “Combat Ready,” which means they consistently take part in tactical training courses, or do similar training, and demonstrate physical fitness and proficiency in handling firearms.
I also suffered through the WHOLE THING despite knowing we were in for an afternoon of bullshit after Moulton started talking about shooting at deer with AR-15s. What a joke. The vast majority of their panel either just voted for an AWB or worked for a politician, like Schumer, who openly pushes for it. Despite not being surprised I'm still really disappointed. What a bunch of bad faith ass holes. Poor Dr. Seigel.
It's fiction, based on a zoom call that the 97% organization threw yesterday. I was originally invited to participate in their org, and I know some of the people on the gun side who are in it.
Great writing. This is exactly what I expect from that group based on the Twitter conversations. One member acting in decent/good faith and everyone else that says "we can have 'common-sense' gun regulation without infringing" is a grifter.
"fat children on a trampoline" - Naw, no writer here! Thanks for a solid reality check that will likely never happen. There once was a time where having a gun wasn't particularly unusual. A shotgun in a wall rack was common. Somehow a gun became some sort of religious symbol akin to the devil.
I suspect the anti-gun lobby is a lot like BLM - it's just a scam to funnel money into their pockets. They continue to spout their nonsense and people send them money. The big question is whether they can deliver votes come election time. Talking with them might be entertaining, but it's a waste of time.
Well, the anti-gun lobby is bidirectional. Brady and similar rake a lot of money from making white women scared of mass shootings and they catch a lot of direct donation money, but most of these orgs are also funded heavily from deep blue philanthropy like Bloomberg or Soros.
Yeah, I keep wondering, if the 1/6 crowd was armed and sure their cause was righteous, why there wasn't any gunfire. Wonder if it would have been different if Trump had managed to get down there.
I read your piece when it came out and have been thinking about it ever since. I enjoyed your Amusingly written fantasy. I'm far from an expert in these matters, but the last section about state permits made a lot of sense to me.
On the other hand ,There were a number of things that I questioned. First, you say that gun violence was flat for a decade. You didn’t mention that it’s gone up Significantly in the last two years. And really, is flat good enough for you?
The idea that 12% of the population would be “immediate felons” seemed unnecessarily alarming. In the unlikely event that assault rifles were banned, there would certainly be options for people to avoid being felons.
I Looked closely at your first chart and couldn't find any substantiation that of your claim that 97% of gun owners oppose universal registration. Looks like A slight edge for those who support it, with the majority feeling that they didn’t have enough information to have an opinion. Am I missing something?
RE: banning assault weapons. 32% of US population is against banning them. 51% are in favor. So yes, you are winning, but not because you are supported by the majority.
To talk about this, I feel we need to put mass shootings in a separate category. They contribute to the national level of fear and grief, because innocent people have been gunned down despite being uninvolved with the perpetrator, unless their being the object of his hatred counts as being involved. I just saw a list of 14 mass shootings, all of them well known, committed with AR-15s. Where is the benefit in allowing them? Seems to me if you were determined to shoot an individual, which is this your stated goal I believe, a pistol should do it. I guess the exception would be if one were attempting to overthrow the government. Is this also where the opposition to a national registry is derived? I could be wrong, if so enlighten me.
Your contention that there's no evidence to support the efficacy of an assault weapon ban can be solved by research. My understanding, however, is that the CDC is not allowed to do that type of research because they're not allowed to look at gun deaths as a public health issue. Perhaps your people could do it.
Your take about young black men and boys his absolutely correct. They fight. But if the number one indicator of future violence is a violent past, then It seems attention is warranted. The age-adjusted rate of homicide as much higher among Blacks than other races. There are other ways of detection than stop and frisk. Violence prevention programs work, as seen in the uptick of violence during the pandemic when those programs were not able to function.
Please excuse random capitalizations. It's necessary for me to use voice recognition, and it's a bit inaccurate at times. Thanks for the opportunity to examine this issue and hear other viewpoints.
The spike in the last two years is because cops stopped policing violent areas, because if they got caught doing the things they need to do to police them they'd get fired. That is real, it's happening, and the ACABs are at fault. The 2020 Floyd riots and political implications of that are 100% responsible for the increase in gun homicide over the past two years.
12% instant felons is mathematically confirmed in the linked article. Liberals simply have no idea how prevalent the things they're trying to ban are, mathematically speaking.
Thanks for your response. I still don't buy that a law would ever be passed that made 12% of people instant felons, and I don't think you do either. For what it's worth, here in the SF Bay Area all the local races focused on public safety and increasing the number of police. Number one issue here, I'd say.
It passed in Oregon by ballot initiative. I imagine Oregon is relatively close to that 12% number, and they've got rural sheriffs already saying publicly they won't enforce it.
So yes, it can definitely pass, but it won't be enforced because of sanctuaries, and then it will only be used to stack charges on black people who live in blue districts. Here's an analysis of what happened in Virginia:
The Virginia proposal also did not pass. I love the name of your substack, but was hoping for more facts behind the freakoutery.
The anti-assault weapon people want to avoid the slaughter of innocent people, kind of like they disapproved of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The pro-assault weapon people, on the other hand, seem to be more focused on overthrowing the government, an endeavor that has been less successful.
They do have a "you get to keep your old mags" provision in it, but there's no way to track who's mags are old or not, so it's not technically criminalization of 12% of their population, but it's close. Rural sheriffs have already come out and said they won't enforce it, which is exactly what was happening in VA in response to their proposal.
There is one and only one thing currently going that could set off a civil war, and it's if the AWB gets passed and enforced.
This is the part that puzzles me. Why are these assault weapon-carriers so scared? The murder rate in Oregon is 3.8 per 100,000. Virginia is 6.44/100,00. Here in Oakland is 23.3 per 100, 000, higher even than the most heavily armed red state (Mississippi, at 20.5.) And yet it never crosses my mind that I should be armed with an AR-15, even in the more dangerous parts.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to engage with me on this topic.
Nice...
But you would have been tackled 30 seconds in and dragged out by security (probably armed with guns.)
And the answer is? No! They do not wish, nor have they ever wished, to negotiate in good faith. In the minds of a hoplophobe, guns are EVIL and must be done away with (except for the police, the military and their armed private security).
Best piece of short fact-based fiction I've read this month. :-)
If they actually had 97% support they wouldn't need a website.
Nothing that has 97% support needs a website. Not that there's anything that enjoys 97% support. Hell, you probably couldn't get 97% concurrence that Santa Claus is a nice guy, let alone anything as contentious as firearms.
*facepalm*
"The time for good faith was a decade ago, and you pissed that away."
It's not about safety. It's about this:
https://degraw.substack.com/p/heads-up-major-report-on-civilian Key takeaways:
48 million Americans are presently classified as “Combat Capable,”
Approximately 30 million Americans own semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s.
14 million Americans are presently classified as “Combat Ready,” which means they consistently take part in tactical training courses, or do similar training, and demonstrate physical fitness and proficiency in handling firearms.
Also: https://www.wnd.com/2022/11/firearm-sales-poised-eclipse-pre-pandemic-records/
I don't know why they bother, the train left the station years ago.
I also suffered through the WHOLE THING despite knowing we were in for an afternoon of bullshit after Moulton started talking about shooting at deer with AR-15s. What a joke. The vast majority of their panel either just voted for an AWB or worked for a politician, like Schumer, who openly pushes for it. Despite not being surprised I'm still really disappointed. What a bunch of bad faith ass holes. Poor Dr. Seigel.
Where is the video?!?!?! This is EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's fiction, based on a zoom call that the 97% organization threw yesterday. I was originally invited to participate in their org, and I know some of the people on the gun side who are in it.
I know that!!! But I still want a video, dammit. It would go viral in a wonderful way!!!
Beautifully done.
Great writing. This is exactly what I expect from that group based on the Twitter conversations. One member acting in decent/good faith and everyone else that says "we can have 'common-sense' gun regulation without infringing" is a grifter.
"fat children on a trampoline" - Naw, no writer here! Thanks for a solid reality check that will likely never happen. There once was a time where having a gun wasn't particularly unusual. A shotgun in a wall rack was common. Somehow a gun became some sort of religious symbol akin to the devil.
Thanks.
It would have been glorious. Fictional you should probably watch out for the torches and pitchforks.
Love it. Where's that "chef's kiss" emoticon...
I suspect the anti-gun lobby is a lot like BLM - it's just a scam to funnel money into their pockets. They continue to spout their nonsense and people send them money. The big question is whether they can deliver votes come election time. Talking with them might be entertaining, but it's a waste of time.
Well, the anti-gun lobby is bidirectional. Brady and similar rake a lot of money from making white women scared of mass shootings and they catch a lot of direct donation money, but most of these orgs are also funded heavily from deep blue philanthropy like Bloomberg or Soros.
Money can buy noise. Lots of money can buy lots of noise.
Don't know how I missed this in November, but enjoyed it very much. Thanks.
Yeah, I keep wondering, if the 1/6 crowd was armed and sure their cause was righteous, why there wasn't any gunfire. Wonder if it would have been different if Trump had managed to get down there.
They were just trying to get in on the 2020 vibe.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-a-coup
Good answer! Not in total accord, but enjoy reading what you're writing.
I read your piece when it came out and have been thinking about it ever since. I enjoyed your Amusingly written fantasy. I'm far from an expert in these matters, but the last section about state permits made a lot of sense to me.
On the other hand ,There were a number of things that I questioned. First, you say that gun violence was flat for a decade. You didn’t mention that it’s gone up Significantly in the last two years. And really, is flat good enough for you?
The idea that 12% of the population would be “immediate felons” seemed unnecessarily alarming. In the unlikely event that assault rifles were banned, there would certainly be options for people to avoid being felons.
I Looked closely at your first chart and couldn't find any substantiation that of your claim that 97% of gun owners oppose universal registration. Looks like A slight edge for those who support it, with the majority feeling that they didn’t have enough information to have an opinion. Am I missing something?
RE: banning assault weapons. 32% of US population is against banning them. 51% are in favor. So yes, you are winning, but not because you are supported by the majority.
To talk about this, I feel we need to put mass shootings in a separate category. They contribute to the national level of fear and grief, because innocent people have been gunned down despite being uninvolved with the perpetrator, unless their being the object of his hatred counts as being involved. I just saw a list of 14 mass shootings, all of them well known, committed with AR-15s. Where is the benefit in allowing them? Seems to me if you were determined to shoot an individual, which is this your stated goal I believe, a pistol should do it. I guess the exception would be if one were attempting to overthrow the government. Is this also where the opposition to a national registry is derived? I could be wrong, if so enlighten me.
Your contention that there's no evidence to support the efficacy of an assault weapon ban can be solved by research. My understanding, however, is that the CDC is not allowed to do that type of research because they're not allowed to look at gun deaths as a public health issue. Perhaps your people could do it.
Your take about young black men and boys his absolutely correct. They fight. But if the number one indicator of future violence is a violent past, then It seems attention is warranted. The age-adjusted rate of homicide as much higher among Blacks than other races. There are other ways of detection than stop and frisk. Violence prevention programs work, as seen in the uptick of violence during the pandemic when those programs were not able to function.
Please excuse random capitalizations. It's necessary for me to use voice recognition, and it's a bit inaccurate at times. Thanks for the opportunity to examine this issue and hear other viewpoints.
The spike in the last two years is because cops stopped policing violent areas, because if they got caught doing the things they need to do to police them they'd get fired. That is real, it's happening, and the ACABs are at fault. The 2020 Floyd riots and political implications of that are 100% responsible for the increase in gun homicide over the past two years.
12% instant felons is mathematically confirmed in the linked article. Liberals simply have no idea how prevalent the things they're trying to ban are, mathematically speaking.
Thanks for your response. I still don't buy that a law would ever be passed that made 12% of people instant felons, and I don't think you do either. For what it's worth, here in the SF Bay Area all the local races focused on public safety and increasing the number of police. Number one issue here, I'd say.
It passed in Oregon by ballot initiative. I imagine Oregon is relatively close to that 12% number, and they've got rural sheriffs already saying publicly they won't enforce it.
So yes, it can definitely pass, but it won't be enforced because of sanctuaries, and then it will only be used to stack charges on black people who live in blue districts. Here's an analysis of what happened in Virginia:
https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/collateral-damage-race-and-the-virginia-gun-control-bill
It looks like that initiative didn't even make it to the ballot, much less get passed. https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Prohibition_on_Semiautomatic_Firearms_Initiative_(2022)
The Virginia proposal also did not pass. I love the name of your substack, but was hoping for more facts behind the freakoutery.
The anti-assault weapon people want to avoid the slaughter of innocent people, kind of like they disapproved of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The pro-assault weapon people, on the other hand, seem to be more focused on overthrowing the government, an endeavor that has been less successful.
Oregon 114 is a 10 round mag ban.
They do have a "you get to keep your old mags" provision in it, but there's no way to track who's mags are old or not, so it's not technically criminalization of 12% of their population, but it's close. Rural sheriffs have already come out and said they won't enforce it, which is exactly what was happening in VA in response to their proposal.
There is one and only one thing currently going that could set off a civil war, and it's if the AWB gets passed and enforced.
This is the part that puzzles me. Why are these assault weapon-carriers so scared? The murder rate in Oregon is 3.8 per 100,000. Virginia is 6.44/100,00. Here in Oakland is 23.3 per 100, 000, higher even than the most heavily armed red state (Mississippi, at 20.5.) And yet it never crosses my mind that I should be armed with an AR-15, even in the more dangerous parts.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to engage with me on this topic.