Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Pattern Ghost]

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Okay, how about this?

 

 

It looks like they're marketing to adults to me. If a family has a child they want to teach to shoot at a younger age, then a scaled-down firearm is a reasonable purchase. FWIW, the manufacture's website has an age verification on it. It's easy enough to lie on those, but shows intent.

 

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Or this?

 

 

That's the YouTube channel of a little girl who has better firearms handling and safety than a lot of adults. 

 

It'd be interesting to see a study done on the influence of marketing on criminal activity. I'm going to guess the causality to be rather low, tbh. People kill for a lot of reasons, but I seriously doubt even the most over the top mall ninja marketing is a major factor. 

 

I think the question of whether it's safe to allow a child to shoot comes down to the family. Some families are idiots, and allow young children access to "their" firearms (illegally, btw), resulting in incidents like that kid who shot a family member with their Crickett .22. Some families are too stupid to teach basic firearms safety, like my first cousin once removed's idiot husband allowing her little brother to shoot across a roadway. If you have good adults setting good examples, kids can safely enjoy recreational shooting. 

 

Those good families aren't cranking out school shooters. The bad ones should be held accountable. Most jurisdictions in the US, as far as I know, don't allow minor unsupervised access to firearms. The problem may be more that the laws have no real enforcement teeth. I've not got the energy to research that one, but it seems to be often the case that there are laws on the books without proper mechanisms and penalties in place to enforce them.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

All right, I'll just say this, and then I'll leave off this topic: IMO you guys are really reaching and splitting hairs. When that first ad says that the product "looks, feels and operates just like Mom and Dad's gun" and "We are so excited to start capturing the imagination of the next generation to enter the shooting sports," and has images of skulls with pacifiers in their mouths, it's clear what demographic they're targeting. Of course the ad will be where parents can see it -- do you expect them to advertise guns on a cartoon channel? But do you think kids can't find it? Or that parents into guns wouldn't show it to their children?

 

As for the video, sure it was a private channel, but the girl at the very end of the video says, "Thanks so much to Brownells for sending this over, because this video wouldn't be possible without them." Clearly the company is deliberately using the channel to market their product. And it shows a little girl shooting a gun that looks too large for her (not saying that it is in practical terms) in a bright toy-like color, and acting like she's having the time of her life. Do you truly believe that's not intended to be seen by children to make them excited like it's an action figure or junk food?

 

I want to write more, but that would be getting into differences between societies, and I know from experience that that won't end productively. So I'll just drop it to allow room for other politics.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm not splitting any hairs, LL, and I see where you're coming from. That doesn't change my opinion that marketing doesn't drive gun violence. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to looking at it. It's not a contentious point for me, and I'm open to having my opinion changed. 

 

I think there's a divergence of viewpoint here, and that's OK. We're all adults, and we've known each other for a long while, albeit virtually. I think that the idea of a kid being taught how to use firearms is somewhat shocking to you, where it's not to me, provided that it's handled responsibly. Teaching kids to respect firearms from an early age, in my opinion, heads off more trouble than it causes. Unless the adult responsible for that child is an idiot. And we have plenty of them.

 

Now, I'm going to say something that I think you may -- at least partially -- agree with. I've been ruminating about this age thing a bit these past couple of days. I think it's pretty well-established that young males are not fully mentally developed, particularly when it comes to impulse control, until around 27 years old. I strongly suspect that the age of 25 to rent a car was set by actuaries who looked at traffic accident data to arrive at that number. So, why are we letting 18 year olds (for long guns) and 21 year olds (for handguns), own firearms? We can argue that an 18 year old can be drafted and can join the service and carry a firearm. Heck, I was in charge of the arms room for my unit when I was 21 years old, along with our ammo depot.  But there's the rub: The military strictly controls when and where its troops can carry their issued firearms. (War zones being an obvious exception.) And the military hammers discipline into the troops constantly. Even then, we had negligent discharges by impulsive young men who would be considered experts at handling firearms, due to poor decision making.

 

So, I'm not alarmed by children who are well-supervised enjoying shooting. I am unconvinced that marketing drives mass shootings any more than video games do. Those aren't the root causes of the issue, just more political flag waving and glad handing to get votes, perhaps with some misguided good intentions mixed in. But . . . I am wondering if we need to consider upping the age to own any firearms? And a few other things. I may put together a more comprehensive post on what I think productive crime reduction and gun legislation might look like later.

 

What I don't think it looks like is slapping a bunch of children's bandages on a gushing wound that should be handled with a tourniquet*. Which is what Biden's latest list of do nothing looks like to me.

 

As for the YT sponsorship: No surprise, there. I didn't watch all the way to the end myself, just scanned some of her videos because I was curious about her gun safety. Knowing this doesn't change my earlier opinion about the impact of marketing (and to be clear: I do despise a lot of the marketing).

 

 

 

 

*That would be a metaphor for school shootings. I'm really, really getting tired of those.

[Tom]

30 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

All right, I'll just say this, and then I'll leave off this topic: IMO you guys are really reaching and splitting hairs. When that first ad says that the product "looks, feels and operates just like Mom and Dad's gun" and "We are so excited to start capturing the imagination of the next generation to enter the shooting sports," and has images of skulls with pacifiers in their mouths, it's clear what demographic they're targeting. Of course the ad will be where parents can see it -- do you expect them to advertise guns on a cartoon channel? But do you think kids can't find it? Or that parents into guns wouldn't show it to their children?

 

As for the video, sure it was a private channel, but the girl at the very end of the video says, "Thanks so much to Brownells for sending this over, because this video wouldn't be possible without them." Clearly the company is deliberately using the channel to market their product. And it shows a little girl shooting a gun that looks too large for her (not saying that it is in practical terms) in a bright toy-like color, and acting like she's having the time of her life. Do you truly believe that's not intended to be seen by children to make them excited like it's an action figure or junk food?

 

I want to write more, but that would be getting into differences between societies, and I know from experience that that won't end productively. So I'll just drop it to allow room for other politics.

 

While I respect your having your own opinions, I would like to make a couple of observations.

 

First, no one here has argued that the JR15 isn't marketed for kids.  And I fully expect parents who enjoy shooting to show, and buy, it for their kids.

 

Second, while there are certainly societal differences at play, it would be incorrect to say that's the whole story.  The gun range where I work is roughly an hour drive from a Canadian border crossing and I've met quite a few Canadians who enjoy shooting as much as I do - both while at my job and over the years.

[TrickstaPriest]

6 hours ago, Tom said:

More to the point, I work at a shooting range.  I routinely see parents introducing their kids to firearms or out for a fun time together.

 

I didn't hear about the employment change.  Congrats I hope?

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Tom said:

First, no one here has argued that the JR15 isn't marketed for kids.  And I fully expect parents who enjoy shooting to show, and buy, it for their kids.

 

 

I think the gap here is that your focus/interest is tied to responsible gun owners...those whose FIRST mission is to teach gun safety.  Others here are more worried about the less responsible, and/or the point that these guns *are* toys.  Their concern is the desensitization and trivialization of guns that e.g. the JR15 represents.  

[unclevlad]

A long, long time ago, I remember an analogy that described the difference between conservatives and liberals.  

 

It is better that 10 guilty men be set free, rather than 1 innocent man be falsely imprisoned.

VERSUS

It is better that 10 innocent men be imprisoned, rather than 1 guilty man be set free.

Both are an exaggeration but the principle is there...individual rights versus social protection.  It has a strong corollary with gun laws.  Which side do you choose...easy access for those who will handle them properly, or hard access to try to reduce access to abusers?

It doesn't help that this debate has been highly polarizing for a very long time.  It's probably too much to say it was the origin for the political/cultural schism we have now, but I think it's one of the root factors.  I think it is fair to say it's become the blueprint and exemplar that's driving most of politics...don't give an inch, or at most, an inch more than absolutely necessary, versus Fix Everything Right Now, making rational debate basically impossible.

[Tom]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

I think the gap here is that your focus/interest is tied to responsible gun owners...those whose FIRST mission is to teach gun safety.  Others here are more worried about the less responsible, and/or the point that these guns *are* toys.  Their concern is the desensitization and trivialization of guns that e.g. the JR15 represents.  

 

That is a distinct possibility.  I can be pedantic.

 

When I see the "marketed to", I mentally link to the marketing of sugary breakfast cereals to children on Saturday morning cartoons (back when Saturday morning cartoons were still a thing).  The product was placed so that children would see it and then pester mommy to buy it next trip to the grocery store.

 

That's my generous response.  My more cynical response is politicians/activists are clutching at their pearls and worrying about children actually be exposed to guns in a positive manner - which is my cynical response towards politicians/activists clutching at their pearls and warning of the dangers of drag story time at the library because they're worried about children being exposed to the LGBTQ+ community in a positive manner.

 

If you're worried about desensitization and trivialization of guns, the JR15 is the wrong target, even if it does look like a military rifle.

 

It ships with a 1-shot magazine and has a safety mechanism designed to only be operated by an adult.  Yeah, nothing's fool proof, but that doesn't look like "Marketing to Irresponsible Idiots 101" to me.

 

(oh, and that looks like Autumn on the top of the company's home page - somebody looking for a market must have read the article where she complained about a lack of AR-style rifles in a pint-sized frame)

 

Instead, I suggest asking yourself who routinely trivializes and glamorizes the use of firearms as the best/only solution to every problem...

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

It doesn't help that this debate has been highly polarizing for a very long time.  It's probably too much to say it was the origin for the political/cultural schism we have now, but I think it's one of the root factors.  I think it is fair to say it's become the blueprint and exemplar that's driving most of politics...don't give an inch, or at most, an inch more than absolutely necessary, versus Fix Everything Right Now, making rational debate basically impossible.

 

One half, at least.  The other half was likely abortion.  At least those were the two that always seemed to be the focus as far back as I can recall.

 

And the biggest reason, IMO, is that the hard core "against" side of both arguments have made it clear that they will accept nothing less than absolute victory.  That's not to say the "for" sides don't have their absolutists as well, but it's really hard to for more reasonable people to accept compromises when the "against" people treat each concession like a first down in American football - the ball is still in play and they're that much closer to their ultimate goal.

[TrickstaPriest]

I mean... when the laundry list of bills I see every week aren't targeting you or anyone you know, it's probably easy to feel 'dubious about everyone'. 😕  The level of dubiousness here is much higher when the stakes are 'abortion is murder' and 'trans and gay people are an abomination' versus 'we are scared of guns'

 

But I don't want to pile on, either.  I have nothing to say on this particular issue right now.

[TrickstaPriest]

 

(Yeah, I've had some really bleak conversations in AZ in the past few years 😕 the 'both sides' of my friends and fellow have very, very, very stark sides for the most part... but it's "we're afraid" versus "you know what we need?  A purge (of these useless people)".)

[Iuz the Evil]

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-poland-russia-war-jets-migs-6d843ccbd50fef5f96091a5bff8f3e01
 

Poland provides military aircraft to Ukraine. That’s interesting, as it breaks from the rest of NATO.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

And then there's Florida trying to fine a hotel for holding a drag show. Truly the pressing issue of our times. Sigh....it just keeps getting worse.

[Old Man]

53 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-poland-russia-war-jets-migs-6d843ccbd50fef5f96091a5bff8f3e01
 

Poland provides military aircraft to Ukraine. That’s interesting, as it breaks from the rest of NATO.

 

That's because the Poles, along with the other NATO states that directly border Russia, harbor no illusions about who they're up against.

[Lord Liaden]

50 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-poland-russia-war-jets-migs-6d843ccbd50fef5f96091a5bff8f3e01
 

Poland provides military aircraft to Ukraine. That’s interesting, as it breaks from the rest of NATO.

 

Ukrainian fighter pilots know how to fly the MiG-29, so could put them into service as soon as they arrive. But the MiGs are outdated compared to what the Russians are flying now. Any additional aircraft will help Ukraine, but will not mark a turning point in the war. Ukraine will need more modern fighters like the American F-16, superior to the likes of the Russian Sukhoi Su series, for a decisive advantage in the air.

[Lord Liaden]

3 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

That's because the Poles, along with the other NATO states that directly border Russia, harbor no illusions about who they're up against.

 

Poland has been champing at the bit to get into the fight in Ukraine more than any other NATO country. As you say, they're intimately familiar with Russia's long history of aggression. I also get the impression they'd relish some payback against Russian soldiers. That's probably why NATO was so quick to downplay finger-pointing when that Russian-made rocket landed in Poland a few months back. The other member states knew the Poles were eager for an excuse to draw all of NATO into the Ukraine war.

[Tom]

38 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

And then there's Florida trying to fine a hotel for holding a drag show. Truly the pressing issue of our times. Sigh....it just keeps getting worse.

It gives DeSantis a headline “owning the libs”.  It might even distract a little from his Ukraine comments. 
 

If he’s planning to run for the Republican nomination, looking good to the base is probably the most pressing issue he has. 

[Iuz the Evil]

42 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Ukrainian fighter pilots know how to fly the MiG-29, so could put them into service as soon as they arrive. But the MiGs are outdated compared to what the Russians are flying now. Any additional aircraft will help Ukraine, but will not mark a turning point in the war. Ukraine will need more modern fighters like the American F-16, superior to the likes of the Russian Sukhoi Su series, for a decisive advantage in the air.

Indeed, it’s mainly noteworthy as it breaks from the NATO stance and applies pressure on other allies to do the same. It’s a first though and crosses the official Washington line of “No planes”, so that’s interesting. There are a couple other NATO members who might evaluate that as cover to do the same, be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Tom]

Cue “breaking news” from CNN:  Slovakia to send 13 MiG-29s to Ukraine…

[Tom]

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727

 

BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727

 

BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

 

The arrest warrant for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova (the head kidnapper/child trafficker for the Russians) is almost better.

[unclevlad]

The indictments may also allow further sanctions, and/or encourage more materiel support to Ukraine.

[DShomshak]

The ICC representative who said he hoped the indictment would deter further kidnapping is, I think, overly optimistic. If Putin ordered a stop, he'd be admitting the program was illegal and that Russia had any reason to defer to Western opinion. After all, his whole invasion is based on the premise that Ukraine does not exist. There are no Ukrainians. The children aren't being kidnapped, they are being rescued from Nazis. If anything, I expect the program to accelerate.

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

The US Army's latest ad was just on.  A point they made..."almost 250 years" of service.

 

That triggered a thought.  The 250th anniversary of the Declaration is now just 3 years off.  For those of us who remember the bicentennial...that's a tad mind-boggling.

 

And I'll apologize for the follow-on thought...the celebrations will be pretty big...ok...but...imagine what they might be like if Trump is president again.

 

 

As I say, I apologize for any nightmares this causes.

[unclevlad]

Wyoming passes a bill to ban the sale of abortion medication.

 

This, on its own, runs afoul of federal law which has been through the courts.  The FDA allows it;  that permission supercedes the states' authority.  It may also become somewhat moot, as Wyoming is expected to pass a bill banning abortion.  If that's the case, well, that blocks the sale of abortion meds.

 

A disturbing part of this is there's also a case in Texas, where the goal is to force the FDA to withdraw their approval of the first (of two) drugs used for medication-based abortions.  If the judge signs the order...I can't see the grounds why, but hey, there's likely a reason why they filed in Texas...well, this'll be fast tracked to the Supreme Court.  I actually expect even this Court to overturn the order;  it opens the floodgates to second-guessing the entire medical approval process, and that's a nightmare.  It also smacks of judicial overstepping into executive-branch functions.  

[Tom]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-arrested-indicted-hush-money-manhattan-prosecutor-a48428984cf99d23f46b4157b34160ae?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_01