Man with guns, bombs, apparently killed himself instead of attacking Glenwood Caverns

There's a comedian that has a hilarious bit about letting the "stand up agaisnt the government" crowd have one free day a year to do that just to see how it ends.

Jeff:

I don't agree. It's not an ideology, I'm likely just naive in thinking that we're better than this.

You are, and it's why we'll likely never agree. You also believe it's silly to arm citizens against our all powerful standing army, and you're right that any idea of a militia would be wiped out...unless...enough of the population at large decided it might behoove them to arm up against said tyrannical government, coupled with a theoretical uprising within the standing army against the morally bankrupt idea of wiping out its citizenry. That may be a fantasy, but I see a higher chance of that happening before we ever see a world population devoid of violent people. Are we better than that? Nope. Humans be humaning 'til the end of time.

I do believe that it’s unlikely that we’ll see a tyrannical government anytime soon, sure. I think that the whole Trump thing was a little overblown because despite the insanity of January 6th and the direction a few states are heading, it’s unlikely you’ll see it in any sort of widespread capacity.

That said, you can implement all the restrictions you want on guns, but you’ll never solve the actual problem until we as a society decide to start exhibiting some semblance of personal responsibility. Taking away guns will lower the body count, but you’ll still see shootings happen. There will still be all those high-crime areas, and what then?

I’m not trying to use that as a justification for allowing people to own AR-15s or anything like that, but rather I’m just pointing out that taking away guns, or at least high-powered assault weapons, isn’t solving the underlying problem.

sirloindude:

I’m just pointing out that taking away guns, or at least high-powered assault weapons, isn’t solving the underlying problem.

Well, whatever we're doing definitely isn't working at all. So...

LostKause:

I think it's a good thing to educate people about this, but I also think it's very sad we have to.

My daughter's school had an intruder jump the playground fence the other day. He was very quickly escorted off the playground through the gates by the teacher on duty, had no weapons, and as far as we can tell, had no ill intent. (He was later arrested by the police). She went through lockdown and was severely traumatized for a week (she struggles with anxiety already) and is still recovering from. I don't know what the solution is, but there is a tangible cost to active shooter drills and vigilance that I don't think is the same as fire drills and we're subjecting every kid in every school to this cost.

ApolloAndy:

there is a tangible cost to active shooter drills and vigilance that I don't think is the same as fire drills and we're subjecting every kid in every school to this cost.

That intrigued me for some reason. I wonder if it is because having a fire at a school is a very rare occurrence which means there is nothing about school fires ever shown on the news. I wonder if kids pick up on this and as such are not afraid of a fire drill because fires never happen. There is nothing to worry about.

Compared to school shootings, and shootings in general, which are seemingly on the news every day, the kids pick up on this and they realize that they are practicing lock down drills for something that see as a very real possibility to happen.

So many of the arguments over gun rights, or frankly anything in American culture that we fail to correct, are based on American exceptionalism. We're different, so every example globally where solutions work can't work here. Yesterday there was a story about US infant mortality on the rise, on top of declining life expectancy. We spend more on healthcare per capita than anyone else, with far worse outcomes, but we can't consider a European system because of exceptionalism. We don't do anything about gun violence, and once again The Onion uses the headline, "'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens." We cling to fossil fuels, we tout human rights yet restrict them here, we make it harder to vote... because 'Merica is different! It is, but often not in good ways.

I’ll agree with you on some of that. Healthcare in the US needs a serious overhaul, although I’d contend that the US diet, which itself is so much worse than what you see in many other places in the world, needs an overhaul as well in order to help get healthcare back in check. Ditto fossil fuels, and I for one would love to see better public transportation in this country so we could cut back on the need for cars in general.

I do, however, think that there needs to be caution on doing something just to say we did something, which is a problem I see in the European Union in a lot of areas. I’m not saying you throw the baby out with the bath water, but rather just saying that there are times to take steps, even if they aren’t the best or most effective, because they spur on progress, and there are times where no, you don’t take baby steps just to take them because you do more harm than good.

People treat everything like a one-way door. Can you imagine running a business that way, never experimenting on anything? You can try things, evaluate, and if they're not working out, change course. Only in politics is this apparently not a thing.

Also, have you seen British food? 😆

Oh, I’m all for experimentation. I’m just saying to use some degree of sensibility in doing so.

For example, when cutting carbon emissions,

EVs = good idea, even if they aren’t the ideal end result

Cutting flights at Amsterdam airport = bad idea

If we don’t leave room for some experiments resulting in different results than we want, then you’re right, we get nowhere. I’m just pointing out that some caution is warranted in certain cases.

Jeff:

The government has tanks and airplanes, so good luck fending those off with an AR-15. I mean, local police departments have what are essentially tanks now.

I don't expect to be able to single-handedly fend off an Abrams with an AR-15, which I think you probably get, so this is sort of a strawman. But to Vater's point, we'd be decidedly better off with AR-15s than without them in such a scenario.

Jeff:
they were worried about European nations wanting to invade, native Americans and Black slave uprisings.

And now we are, or should be, worried about a violent white nationalist uprising, especially since that uprising is openly and aggressively fomented by a major party's candidate for the Presidency. And it's worth noting that said candidate has expressed a clear desire to utilize force to maintain power and suppress opposition. A candidate that is abetted by a troubling number of folks in both chambers of Congress, and has the support of a clear majority of party line voters. A candidate that, if elected, will not make the same "mistakes" of appointing folks with insufficient loyalty to positions of power.

sirloindude:

I think that the whole Trump thing was a little overblown because despite the insanity of January 6th

See above. Can you point to another time in history that we've faced a threat of this magnitude within US borders? Those who downplay the threat, I would argue, should crack open a few history books. To Jeff's point, thinking that the US cannot or will not morph into a authoritarian Christo-fascist theocracy is a result of American exceptionalism, thinking "that would never happen here".

It is happening here.

Jeff:
Furthermore, the only time US democracy was really at risk was just a few years ago... by people with guns urged by a fascist leader no less.

I fail to see how this an argument in favor of gun control. Do you honestly think those folks are going to turn in their guns if asked? I think the "the best solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" argument is dumb as hell, but I don't see how limiting or eliminating access to guns does anything other than assure only the "bad guys" have guns. And I'm not comfortable with that, especially with our current social and political environment.

Wait.

You don't need firepower to protect yourself from the government. It just takes a stupid buffalo hat to get as close to overthrowing the whole thing as anyone has in a while.

Stop and think about that. This guy (and his bullhorn and ability to run through broken doors and/or windows) is a threat, but the argument here is that these weapons won't help you.

Give me a bullhorn and a silly hat. I'll be back. We've literally seen how easy it really is.

It's not really clear what you're arguing, or if you're just making a funny.

Both? Neither?

Seriously. That guy was deemed a credible threat in that situation.

By many of the same people that say an AR-15 won't protect you from the government.

I dunno. Just finding and sharing my amusement in our little societal foibles.

I think if anyone thought that he was a credible threat, he would have been shot dead in the halls of the Capitol. Those idiots didn't actually achieve anything, because the government (the elected people) were mostly out of the building because of quick thinking by law enforcement. He's currently in jail.

It's still not clear what the argument is that you're making. The previous discussion was about fending off an oppressive government, not clowns interrupting Congress.

From my perspective, it's both. Remember buffalo hat guy was trying to help himself and his "team" become the government.

There's a frighteningly-real scenario where The Former Guy gets reelected in 2024, and in 2028 DJTJ (or insert your authoritarian-minded co-conspirator of choice here) runs & loses, after which The Former Former Guy holds another Stop the Steal rally, again knowingly sending armed terrorists (buffalo hats optional) to the Capitol to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power by imprisoning and/or killing members of Congress to achieve the goal of installing an unelected DJTJ as "President" or "Dear Leader" or whatever.

In that scenario, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for (small D) democracy-minded folks to have the option to step in. And while an AR-15 isn't a tank, it's a hell of a lot more effective than a bullhorn in that nightmare scenario.

Also, that that guy wasn't shot dead isn't because he was deemed not a credible, immediate threat, it's because Capitol Police were grossly outnumbered, and as such they reasonably decided that delay and de-escalation was the right move rather than an all-out bloodbath.

January 6, 2021 changed the vote certification process forever. Like 9/11 changed hijacking planes forever. No one was prepared for what happened in 2021 because it had never happened before (and no one anticipated it). Will be anticipated every election certification going forward.

djDaemon:

And while an AR-15 isn't a tank, it's a hell of a lot more effective than a bullhorn in that nightmare scenario.

I know you're not making it, but the tank argument is hilariously terrible.

Let me know when an oppressive government knocks on a citizens door with the barrel of a tank pointed at it. That's just not how small scale conflict works. And citizens v their government would be about as small scale as it gets.

I mean the first try was pretty disruptive and they mostly did it with, as we've discussed, party favors (hats and noisemakers).

I guess my point, Jeff, is that I would think the argument that someone might feel that an AR-15 protects them doesn't seem unreasonable given the skittishness of those in charge.

I also suggest that when the time comes, we lure them into a haunt attraction and get them to submit via jump scares.

Lord Gonchar:

Let me know when an oppressive government knocks on a citizens door with the barrel of a tank pointed at it.

Waco, 1993?

How about with dogs wearing gas masks?