The Problems Of Rural Christian White Americans

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

Realistically, it makes little difference.

When you look over all the mass shootings there is exactly one case of an intervention while someone was reloading a semi-auto weapon (although in the big picture it didn't matter as the magazine was damaged and wouldn't have fired anyway) and didn't have another weapon at hand. (If the shooter has two or more guns they aren't disarmed while reloading, it doesn't provide an opening to jump them.)

On the other hand, long ago in one of these debates I ran into a guy who actually needed more than 10 rounds. The problem was a dog pack, not humans.

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

 

[bilby]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

Realistically, it makes little difference.

When you look over all the mass shootings there is exactly one case of an intervention while someone was reloading a semi-auto weapon (although in the big picture it didn't matter as the magazine was damaged and wouldn't have fired anyway) and didn't have another weapon at hand. (If the shooter has two or more guns they aren't disarmed while reloading, it doesn't provide an opening to jump them.)

On the other hand, long ago in one of these debates I ran into a guy who actually needed more than 10 rounds. The problem was a dog pack, not humans.

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

Sure you do - for when your shovel runs out of ammunition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

Realistically, it makes little difference.

When you look over all the mass shootings there is exactly one case of an intervention while someone was reloading a semi-auto weapon (although in the big picture it didn't matter as the magazine was damaged and wouldn't have fired anyway) and didn't have another weapon at hand. (If the shooter has two or more guns they aren't disarmed while reloading, it doesn't provide an opening to jump them.)

On the other hand, long ago in one of these debates I ran into a guy who actually needed more than 10 rounds. The problem was a dog pack, not humans.

https://thinkprogress.org/seattle-s...-a-limited-amount-of-ammunition-e647ee2ce0c2/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/changing-clips-sometimes-takes-more

Realistically, the lives of eleven children matter.

Realistically, mental illness is a world wide problem but mass shootings are relatively rare anywhere else in the world.

Key factor: Shotgun. If they have a magazine at all it's a quite limited internal store and they are slow to reload. Thus it's not relevant to whether someone with a semi-auto could be stopped while reloading.

And as for the Rachel Maddow bit--while 1 second is expert territory, 2 seconds is easily attained with practice.

- - - Updated - - -

California had actually outlawed certain AR "type" assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Ths had limited effect though, because 1) Gun manufacturers would change their gun specs slightly and claim they weren't the same "style" as those outlawed, and that three bordering states had no such restrictions.

And the fact that the manufacturers could do that means the original ban was stupid, it didn't focus on what they actually wanted to ban.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the big thing California has done (or is doing) is make it illegal to own high capacity magazines. I think 10 rounds is the limit; and that’s plenty if you’re worried about burglars, home invasions, etc

Realistically, it makes little difference.

When you look over all the mass shootings there is exactly one case of an intervention while someone was reloading a semi-auto weapon (although in the big picture it didn't matter as the magazine was damaged and wouldn't have fired anyway) and didn't have another weapon at hand. (If the shooter has two or more guns they aren't disarmed while reloading, it doesn't provide an opening to jump them.)

On the other hand, long ago in one of these debates I ran into a guy who actually needed more than 10 rounds. The problem was a dog pack, not humans.

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

And sometimes the dogs win vs a shovel. They understand pack tactics, attack from behind.

You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns.

 

[bilby]

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

And sometimes the dogs win vs a shovel. They understand pack tactics, attack from behind.

You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns.

How exactly do you stop a dog from attacking you from behind if you are armed with a gun, in a scenario where you couldn't have stopped the attack if armed with a shovel?

I am interested to see just how convoluted your 'what-if' scenarios need to be in order to justify this vital option of carrying a high capacity self-loading gun as protection against wild dogs.

I should add that in almost fifty years, I have yet to find myself in any situation where I would have felt safer had I been armed - Including the many situations in which I actually have been armed (I don't see deer as much of a threat, and dog packs seem to be remarkable by their absence in most of the places I have visited).

Hint - given the HUGE numbers of dog-pack attacks worldwide, you also need to indicate why even the simplest such scenario is one we care about MORE than we care about dozens of dead children every month. Is there a Facebook profile frame I can add to show my support for the (presumably) almost daily victims of fatal dog-pack attacks? I wouldn't want you to think that I don't care how many such victims I sacrifice on the altar of banning guns.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

And sometimes the dogs win vs a shovel. They understand pack tactics, attack from behind.

You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns.

That's idiotic. Give me an example of it happening.

I'm pretty certain I could defeat any dog pack on the planet with a shovel or a baseball bat.

Maybe you've been watching too many movies.

 

[bilby]

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

And sometimes the dogs win vs a shovel. They understand pack tactics, attack from behind.

You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns.

That's idiotic. Give me an example of it happening.

That's the wrong demand. To use this as a justification for avoiding gun control, he needs to give you over 300 examples of it happening every year.

If it happens once a year, as a result of gun control, then the net saving in lives is well in excess of 300 per annum; For the net number 'sacrificed on the altar of banning guns' to exceed zero, someone must die almost every day in the USA as a result of not having access to a gun - because that's the approximate number currently dying in mass shootings (1,829 people killed and 6,447 wounded as of February 2018, since the December 2012 Sandy Hook shooting - that's 1,829 deaths in 1,884 days, or 0.97 deaths and 3.42 injuries per day).

And that's just victims of mass shootings - there are, of course, many times this number of people who die in the USA from gunshots, in smaller shooting incidents such as robberies or domestic disputes; or accidents; or shootings by police; or suicides. All of these could be expected to be at least a little less common, were guns sensibly controlled. But I want to see the evidence that dog packs would cause 360+ deaths per annum in the USA if guns were sensibly licenced and controlled, as they are in, say, Canada.

I really, really want to see that evidence. It must be compelling, for LP to use such florid language as "You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns".

Perhaps Australia could help out - many of our National Parks wardens are quite experienced with dealing with Dingoes that have become unwary of humans due to being fed by foolish tourists. It sounds like you are in dire need of that kind of expertise, what with your country's severe dog pack attack problems.

 

[Worldtraveller]

What a gigantic pile of horseshit. Rural white america hates niggers, furriners and mooslims, evolution and higher education. So they like Trump. They like the Klan. That's it. Stop sanctifying their bigotry. And they do it all for Jesus too.

What a gigantic pile of bigotry and ignorant horseshit you spout.

gigantic pile? I dunno. I spent 7 years in the midwest, and when I spoke to some of the few black people I met, they said that the racism was pretty bad.

I've met some horrendously racist people in big cities too, but given the population, I would say the rural parts have it worse by half an order of magnitude or so.

 

[humbleman]

What a gigantic pile of horseshit. Rural white america hates niggers, furriners and mooslims, evolution and higher education. So they like Trump. They like the Klan. That's it. Stop sanctifying their bigotry. And they do it all for Jesus too.

What a gigantic pile of bigotry and ignorant horseshit you spout.

gigantic pile? I dunno. I spent 7 years in the midwest, and when I spoke to some of the few black people I met, they said that the racism was pretty bad.

I've met some horrendously racist people in big cities too, but given the population, I would say the rural parts have it worse by half an order of magnitude or so.

A far relative in my family was hired to drive a truck filled with electronic goods and travel from university to university all around the country. His work was to make a show in each university where participants will play to gain the goods.

When he went to this State (no need to mention the name) to this city (also no need to mention its name) when he entered to a town which was on its way, he was asked to present himself to the owner of the town and explain the reasons of his visit.

In order for you to understand this part, watch Rambo first movie. He entered to a town, and a police dude saw him walking thru the road, and asked him his whereabouts. Rambo refused to give much information, the police officer offered himself a ride for the strange and took him to the other limit of the town, so Rambo can continue his way.

In many places, where towns only admit people they want to admit, you have no other choice but to keep going your way.

Well, this relative of my family went to the house of the owner of the town and explained his presence over there. He was granted to stay in the town.

So, after finding a place to pass the night, he went to the bar. Drinking and talking with other people, he finally had enough and took his way to the hostel. But, he took the wrong street and turning the corner he saw the same bar having a back door. The backdoor of the bar was the entrance for black people.

This happened about a decade ago, perhaps up to 15 years ago, no more than that.

So, it's true that in some places here in America there is racism like before the generation of the 60's.

Note that I am not mentioning about "abuses" like burning people alive or persecuting them because a white girl was raped, but a town which belongs to an owner who decides how to run his property.

This is like restaurants with a sign in the wall saying the right of admission reserved to their criteria, and similar.

However, racism in cities is well known when people are hired. In cities where blacks are the predominant the higher positions are mostly taken by blacks. In cities where Latinos are predominant, the same. And it is not about "majority" but about race.

In a private company owned by Latinos, the foremen usually accepted whites and blacks to show the applications to the correspondent government agency hiring the company in a contract. After three months, whites and blacks were fired and more Latinos were hired. Racism.

Racism works everywhere. No way to stop it.

To accuse white rural people alone is ridiculous from your part. Wake up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dog packs have been beaten off victims by people wielding shovels. I didn't know I needed my assault rifle.

And sometimes the dogs win vs a shovel. They understand pack tactics, attack from behind.

You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns.

How exactly do you stop a dog from attacking you from behind if you are armed with a gun, in a scenario where you couldn't have stopped the attack if armed with a shovel?

You don't have to let a hostile dog pack surround you when you have a gun. With a shovel you probably don't have a choice.

I am interested to see just how convoluted your 'what-if' scenarios need to be in order to justify this vital option of carrying a high capacity self-loading gun as protection against wild dogs.

I don't know how common it is. I do know that in one of these debates I ran into someone who needed it.

And your comments about the frequency prove nothing--because people tend to arm themselves suitable to the wildlife threat they are being exposed to. If you don't face a dog-pack threat then you don't need to arm against them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's idiotic. Give me an example of it happening.

That's the wrong demand. To use this as a justification for avoiding gun control, he needs to give you over 300 examples of it happening every year.

If it happens once a year, as a result of gun control, then the net saving in lives is well in excess of 300 per annum; For the net number 'sacrificed on the altar of banning guns' to exceed zero, someone must die almost every day in the USA as a result of not having access to a gun - because that's the approximate number currently dying in mass shootings (1,829 people killed and 6,447 wounded as of February 2018, since the December 2012 Sandy Hook shooting - that's 1,829 deaths in 1,884 days, or 0.97 deaths and 3.42 injuries per day).

I think you've got some very bad data for mass shootings.

Here's the best source I'm aware of: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

I see only one year breaking 100, let alone an average of 300. Note that some places inflate the data by using thresholds that include gang violence.

Contrast that with a few hundred self defense deaths/year and something like 10x that that are non-fatally shot.

And that's just victims of mass shootings - there are, of course, many times this number of people who die in the USA from gunshots, in smaller shooting incidents such as robberies or domestic disputes; or accidents; or shootings by police; or suicides. All of these could be expected to be at least a little less common, were guns sensibly controlled. But I want to see the evidence that dog packs would cause 360+ deaths per annum in the USA if guns were sensibly licenced and controlled, as they are in, say, Canada.

You're moving the goalposts. Now you are blaming all murders on high capacity magazines. Bogus, bogus, bogus!

I really, really want to see that evidence. It must be compelling, for LP to use such florid language as "You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns".

I'm simply pointing out what you're doing.

You want the problem out of sight. You don't understand that your "solution" will increase the total murders, just take them out of the national news.

 

[Worldtraveller]

How exactly do you stop a dog from attacking you from behind if you are armed with a gun, in a scenario where you couldn't have stopped the attack if armed with a shovel?

You don't have to let a hostile dog pack surround you when you have a gun. With a shovel you probably don't have a choice.

I am interested to see just how convoluted your 'what-if' scenarios need to be in order to justify this vital option of carrying a high capacity self-loading gun as protection against wild dogs.

I don't know how common it is. I do know that in one of these debates I ran into someone who needed it.

And your comments about the frequency prove nothing--because people tend to arm themselves suitable to the wildlife threat they are being exposed to. If you don't face a dog-pack threat then you don't need to arm against them.

These kind of arguments are stupid on the face of them, and I guess I gave Loren credit for being a hair smarter than your average MAGA-bot.

You're also better off not wearing seatbelts in an accident....about 1 in 1000 times. So just go ahead and don't wear them, right?
Those are actually higher odds than the 'good guy with a gun' saving the day scenario.

 

[bilby]

How exactly do you stop a dog from attacking you from behind if you are armed with a gun, in a scenario where you couldn't have stopped the attack if armed with a shovel?

You don't have to let a hostile dog pack surround you when you have a gun. With a shovel you probably don't have a choice.

Mate, where the FUCK is this a common enough event to be worth worrying about? I don't carry a shovel or a gun, and I have yet to be set upon by wild dogs.

I am interested to see just how convoluted your 'what-if' scenarios need to be in order to justify this vital option of carrying a high capacity self-loading gun as protection against wild dogs.

I don't know how common it is. I do know that in one of these debates I ran into someone who needed it.

Oh, the compelling 'hearsay' form of evidence. I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.

Now, do you have ANYTHING AT ALL to back your claim (other than pathetic hearsay claims)?

And your comments about the frequency prove nothing--because people tend to arm themselves suitable to the wildlife threat they are being exposed to. If you don't face a dog-pack threat then you don't need to arm against them.

No shit, Sherlock. So you are saying the VAST majority of Americans EITHER don't need to be armed; OR routinely encounter wild packs of dogs against which they would otherwise be defenseless. I wonder which one it is.

 

[bilby]

I think you've got some very bad data for mass shootings.

Here's the best source I'm aware of: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

I see only one year breaking 100, let alone an average of 300. Note that some places inflate the data by using thresholds that include gang violence.

Contrast that with a few hundred self defense deaths/year and something like 10x that that are non-fatally shot.

And that's just victims of mass shootings - there are, of course, many times this number of people who die in the USA from gunshots, in smaller shooting incidents such as robberies or domestic disputes; or accidents; or shootings by police; or suicides. All of these could be expected to be at least a little less common, were guns sensibly controlled. But I want to see the evidence that dog packs would cause 360+ deaths per annum in the USA if guns were sensibly licenced and controlled, as they are in, say, Canada.

You're moving the goalposts. Now you are blaming all murders on high capacity magazines. Bogus, bogus, bogus!

WTF?? I didn't even MENTION high capacity magazines. Are you sure you are reading my posts? You seem to be arguing with someone who only you can hear.

I really, really want to see that evidence. It must be compelling, for LP to use such florid language as "You just don't care how many you sacrifice on the altar of banning guns".

I'm simply pointing out what you're doing.

You want the problem out of sight. You don't understand that your "solution" will increase the total murders, just take them out of the national news.

What a crock.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate, the US Intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000 population per annum. Yet the rate in developed nations where people cannot defend themselves is not higher, as your assertion predicts; Australia's rate is 0.98; that in the UK is 0.92. Where is the massive saving of life in the US due to people defending themselves with guns? Where is the loss of life in the rest of the OECD due to people being prohibited from doing so?

Your claim here has to rank as about the most implausible claim I have ever heard someone seriously make, outside the context of religion. You must have some truly compelling evidence for this claim - please share it with us.

Are you perhaps assuming that if guns are restricted, that all of the guns that do harm will still be out there? Because that is utter crap.

I understand that it is an article of faith amongst NRA loons that only the law abiding will be affected by any restrictions; But that is wrong on a very large number of levels - not least of which is the strange belief that people divide neatly into 'law abiding' and 'not law abiding'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate, the US Intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000 population per annum. Yet the rate in developed nations where people cannot defend themselves is not higher, as your assertion predicts; Australia's rate is 0.98; that in the UK is 0.92. Where is the massive saving of life in the US due to people defending themselves with guns? Where is the loss of life in the rest of the OECD due to people being prohibited from doing so?

Your claim here has to rank as about the most implausible claim I have ever heard someone seriously make, outside the context of religion. You must have some truly compelling evidence for this claim - please share it with us.

Are you perhaps assuming that if guns are restricted, that all of the guns that do harm will still be out there? Because that is utter crap.

I understand that it is an article of faith amongst NRA loons that only the law abiding will be affected by any restrictions; But that is wrong on a very large number of levels - not least of which is the strange belief that people divide neatly into 'law abiding' and 'not law abiding'.

You're mixing up criminals shooting criminals with innocents that are in danger. I care far more about the latter than the former.

 

[bilby]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate, the US Intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000 population per annum. Yet the rate in developed nations where people cannot defend themselves is not higher, as your assertion predicts; Australia's rate is 0.98; that in the UK is 0.92. Where is the massive saving of life in the US due to people defending themselves with guns? Where is the loss of life in the rest of the OECD due to people being prohibited from doing so?

Your claim here has to rank as about the most implausible claim I have ever heard someone seriously make, outside the context of religion. You must have some truly compelling evidence for this claim - please share it with us.

Are you perhaps assuming that if guns are restricted, that all of the guns that do harm will still be out there? Because that is utter crap.

I understand that it is an article of faith amongst NRA loons that only the law abiding will be affected by any restrictions; But that is wrong on a very large number of levels - not least of which is the strange belief that people divide neatly into 'law abiding' and 'not law abiding'.

You're mixing up criminals shooting criminals with innocents that are in danger. I care far more about the latter than the former.

Frankly, I don't give a flying FUCK what you care about.

It is undeniable, no matter how callously you view the lives of criminals, that an intentional homicide rate of less than 1 is preferable to one of 4.8.

The assumption that in the order of 80% of all intentional homicides in the US are 'criminals shooting criminals' is highly dubious - but it is a requirement, for your objection to be relevant. Do you have any evidence at all that that's even close to being true, other than your increasingly desperate desire to rationalize your unreasonable position?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait, was that pack of wild dogs thing meant as a joke or was it serious? I thought it was a joke but then people were going on like it was serious.

 

[braces_for_impact]

One thing I hate is bad arguments. I especially hate them when they're on the "right" side. Statistics pulled out of someone's ass on twitter stating there's been some 28 mass shootings since we hit 2018 or some such nonsense. You check the stats and it includes a firearm discharged on school grounds after hours and so on. It's stupid. So here we are niggling over bump stocks and statistics and other bullshit.

ONE of these events is too many. But we have much more than one. They can be prevented, Not everything can be prevented, but quite a few lives can be saved with the right measures. The problem is a piecemeal one. We will attempt a measure, and Republicans will argue it will do little. and they'll be right, but it's the only thing that has a chance to get through the legislative process. So, it never gets done. But if we could get these things through, one by one, lives would be saved, and these numb nuts would still have their guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're mixing up criminals shooting criminals with innocents that are in danger. I care far more about the latter than the former.

Frankly, I don't give a flying FUCK what you care about.

It is undeniable, no matter how callously you view the lives of criminals, that an intentional homicide rate of less than 1 is preferable to one of 4.8.

The assumption that in the order of 80% of all intentional homicides in the US are 'criminals shooting criminals' is highly dubious - but it is a requirement, for your objection to be relevant. Do you have any evidence at all that that's even close to being true, other than your increasingly desperate desire to rationalize your unreasonable position?

Yes, I would prefer 4.8 dead criminals to one dead innocent.

Criminals choose a life of crime that brings with it a risk of getting shot. I would prefer they don't get shot but it was their choice, I'm not ok with risking innocents to save them.

And your 80% number has nothing to do with the issue. The thing is there is no action the government could take that would disarm the criminals while not being unacceptably intrusive to society. Thus they're still going to have their guns for a long time to come. Don't expect to reduce those crimes. You didn't with your gun ban, why should we do any better?

The only crimes that can reasonably be stopped by gun control are those that do not involve the criminal class. Mostly, that's crazies. Hence my comparison of deaths due to crazies vs self defense cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wait, was that pack of wild dogs thing meant as a joke or was it serious? I thought it was a joke but then people were going on like it was serious.

I have no way of verifying if he was really in the situation and it's been long enough I can't even recall who it was. However, I saw no reason to think it wasn't the truth.

(And note that the threat isn't so much truly wild dogs as feral ones and sometimes even owned ones allowed to wander. There are parts of the US were arming yourself against wildlife is common.)