This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, but other than making you feel less icky seeing people with guns in public, what does banning open carry actually accomplish? I can't think of a single mass shooting that would have been prevented by such a law. Has a mass shooter ever been misidentified as a lawful citizen peacefully open carrying? This is exactly the sort of "I can't identify any way this would actually help solve the stated problem, but it would make me feel better emotionally" policy suggestion that makes gun rights supporters distrustful of "compromise" legislation.
Hell, your first suggestion for a reasonable compromise to alleviate the problem of mass shooters is to... moderately inconvenience a group of shockingly law-abiding people in a way that has no plausible impact on mass shootings but does prohibit a lawful activity that you already dislike for unrelated reasons anyway. This is why gun rights supporters aren't interested in compromise. If every suggested "compromise" for decades takes the form of a pointless restriction that seems almost deliberately designed to do nothing but antagonize you, eventually you stop giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt that they're operating in good faith.
Discharging a firearm in your front yard is not an example of open carry. I would be absolutely shocked if what he did was not already illegal under current law, and on the off chance it wasn't, why not ban the dangerous and concerning activity he was actually engaged in rather than a much broader activity that almost exclusively penalizes law-abiding individuals?
More options
Context Copy link
Discharging a gun in your front lawn without a good reason (self defense), is already a crime in the vast majority of jurisdictions (including that person's according to some reports). Which would make this another example of "just enforce the law you losers" cases.
At least in rural areas it's pretty frequently legal to engage in target shooting on private property: as far as I know in Texas it's legal to discharge firearms on your own property outside of city limits provided you're at least 300 feet from neighboring occupied buildings. Within city limits it's generally a local law issue. Rifle and shotgun shots (presumably mostly for sport or hunting) are not an uncommon sound if you start wandering backroads.
As far as I can tell, the suspect in question wasn't in the US legally, and thus couldn't have legally acquired the firearm in question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How would visit from the police stop him from murdering the family, exactly?
This is, of course, completely ignoring the fact that your top policy suggestion, taken in the most charitable light, would do absolutely nothing if he was shooting a gun in his back, not front yard (because then there is no way to see it as open carry).
Really, your comment is an extremely clear example of how the policy proposals of gun control people only serve to annoy the out group, and have very little effect on actual criminals.
More options
Context Copy link
He wasn't stopped by the many other laws he violated. Assuming enforcement of your specific policy will not suffer the same problems as laws related to immigration or deported foreign nationals not being allowed to purchase firearms is special pleading.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link