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 -
So just to be clear, the gun was never actually used except to make you secure in the knowledge that you could use it?
To my knowledge, the guy never saw the gun. I did not display it, I did not mention it. I don't think the housemate or her date saw it either, though as I said, I was on the liquor a bit and not really dressed for concealment.
More options
Context Copy link
Russia never dropped a nuke, yet other countries thinking it is capable of doing so, enables Russia greater leeway in foreign policy; notably invading Ukraine.
Thus not even possesion is required, merely convincing others of it is.
That's all well and good but I wouldn't go on to describe every foreign policy move this enabled as a 'use' of nukes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In much the same way that having a tire jack, air compressor, and spare tire in your trunk might make you feel secure enough to embark on a long drive through relatively rough conditions where assistance might take a long time to arrive.
That is, if you didn't have these tools available you might not take a particular course of action.
And if they become necessary, you thank your respective Gods for having them.
More options
Context Copy link
If you've been in a situation like this, the difference in that "secure knowledge" of having a gun vs not having one is.... significant.
Having the gun enabled JTarrou to confidently approach the "Pastor" and verbally talk them down. Having a use-of-force upper hand that allows you to de-escalate a situation is using it.
Of course, but if we're going to count 'defensive gun use' as 'any time a gun made its owner feel safe' we're getting dangerously close to making policy based on feelings. Should we count every time the presence of a gun made someone feel unsafe as an offensive gun use? I don't think police departments would support that sort of standard.
The law does support that kind of standard, so long as the fear is reasonable and provoking fear is intentional.
Assault: ["intentionally place an alleged “victim” in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm."](
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/what-is-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/)
Brandish: " For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person." (emphasis mine)
If it's done subtly it can be hard to know how to score it, let alone prove it in a court of law, but that doesn't make it any less real or game changing. There's a very real chance that the "pastor" was able to correctly infer that JTarrou was armed from his behavior, and that otherwise he wouldn't have backed down so peacefully. I've been in a similar situation, where out of place confidence clued me in that the people threatening me were almost certainly armed, and that I couldn't afford to risk trying to de-escalate the way I otherwise would. My inference happened to be proven correct, but the presence of weapons changed things on both sides well before they came out.
More options
Context Copy link
We already do that. What do you think "brandishing" is?
I meant merely glancing and seeing someone open carrying in a non-threatening manner.
Would you count every single traffic stop ever as a 'gun use?'
At some point you have to stop counting the crazies, otherwise Paranoid Pete has 7.9 billion defensive gun uses per hour since "everyone's out to get him". I think we've drawn the line in a decent spot, where it has to substantially affect your behaviour before it gets counted.
Let's ignore all of the ones done by unarmed officers.
No, I wouldn't. I'd only call it a gun use if the officer would have otherwise called for backup (or taken some other protective measure). Furthermore, I'm not sure about counting on-duty police officers in defensive gun use statistics, since they can also initiate force instead of just responding to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As I said at the beginning of the story, I'm a bit on the fence on the classification of that night myself. If you're criticizing the methodology of the survey, that's fair enough so long as you recognize that most of the time when a gun is present in a dangerous situation, it is not fired, and sometimes not even brandished. Maybe there needs to be an intermediate category, but the point is, this is why people want guns, and because the situation resolved peacefully, that can be lost as a data point. We should not take the moral restraint of legal gun owners as an argument to disarm them.
Bottom line for me is, I was going out on that porch with or without a gun. Having the gun gave me a better plan than bringing a knife to a hatchet fight with a guy who outweighed me by a hundred pounds.
Thanks, I was.
Perish the thought.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link