"It is staggering that we are not staggered by this."
I've been thinking about this in terms of school children, elementary through high school going through "Active Shooter" drills as a normal course in our country. When I and several of my friends were growing up in the fifties/sixties, we had "Duck and Cover" drills, which is quite sil…
"It is staggering that we are not staggered by this."
I've been thinking about this in terms of school children, elementary through high school going through "Active Shooter" drills as a normal course in our country. When I and several of my friends were growing up in the fifties/sixties, we had "Duck and Cover" drills, which is quite silly, if you think about it, that seeking shelter under our desks would somehow protect us in the event of a nuclear attack.....
But silly as they were, they were never traumatic for us, and I think that's because we never had any nuclear attacks happening anywhere, to relate it to. It never seemed like a tangible threat to us. But kids today, whatever their age, do see school shootings, at an alarming rate, even if they have never personally been involved in one at their school.
How can we, as adults, think this type of terror is acceptable? How can we, as parents and grandparents?
I keep hearing from polls that a majority of even gun-owners are in favor of some types of common-sense gun control measures - background checks, closing loopholes, red flag laws, even banning military-style weapons. Where are those voices? Why aren't they standing up and speaking out?
Until we force today's GOP (and any reluctant Democrats) to address this issue, it will continue. It's shameful, and the only solution is going to come from us, through our voices, through our protests, and through our VOTES.
That sentence struck me too. But I want to say "Charlie, speak for yourself! Don't use the Royal "We" please." Because my take is that a good majority of Americans ARE staggered. It is just that govt has been stolen from us, the People, by the few, through dishonesty and legal machinations, and we are truly voiceless. It is not that we do not care. It is that we have no pathway to correct this, as long as Republicans keep stealing elections in their various ways.
Minority rule is a b-tch. We have become numb to THAT.
The list of things we want but cannot have because of minority rule is long: affordable healthcare, affordable child care, affordable elder care, gun control, reproductive rights, climate action, judicial reform, - - what else?
I always found the Electoral College to be an interesting quirk in our system of government. It wasn't until the Republican party went off the rails that I started seeing it for what it was. For all of the talk about, "we need it to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority", what the hell is just about the tyranny of the minority over the majority? How is that an improvement?!
The electoral college has been adopted by exactly zero of those countries which have looked to our Constitution for their model. There is a reason for that. We have never been democratic at the presidential level; the EC was created by the founders to ensure that "the wrong person never won the WH."
Just as we'd rather make our kids sit through duck and cover drills rather than ridding the world of nuclear weapons, we'd rather make our kids do active shooter drills than rid the country of assault weapons. As always, our irrational fears cause us to double down on the proliferation of destructive devices that end up fucking the world up even worse than it was before the existence of said weapons that apparently make us feel so much safer at such a cost.
For what it's worth, I'd gladly chuck my LMT rifle into a volcano if I could get the country to pass a new assault weapons ban. But until the whole country disarms together, I don't trust the armed right wing militias, nor do I trust the feds or the local cops (especially not the sheriffs) or the military's willingness to put those guys down in the event of a real armed fascist uprising in this country. In that scenario, I could see half of the police and military (or more) throwing in with the militias rather than putting them down. Too much overlap in those venn diagrams for my own personal comfort.
My husband says the same thing. He told me he would gladly turn in his old deer rifle & the shotgun he used to use to scare the heron away from our trout pond every summer, if it meant helping get rid of gun violence.
I'm a longtime gun owner. I was born and raised in Texas where I lived most of my life. I then lived in Ohio for the duration of the Trump years, then finally moving to Alaska. These are all *very* red/pro-gun states and the pro-gun mentality is one I've had driven into me my whole life. I was on a shooting team in college and fired hundreds of rounds a month. I currently own 5 handguns, two rifles, and a shotgun (most of which I acquired after arriving in Alaska because I live on a mountain in the forest and moose, bears, coyotes, wolves, etc. are a very real concern).
All of that is to say that, though I've spent the majority of my life in support of gun access and still see value in some limited gun ownership, like Charlie (I think this is what he's said), something broke in me with Sandy Hook. And it's only gotten worse since then. I still need some firearms because of where/how I live, but I would *gladly* give up many/most firearms if it just meant putting even a reasonable dent in the gun violence of this country.
I can live (hopefully) with private gun rights if they did not include military weapons and accessories. Much harder to murder dozens of children in minutes with handguns, shotguns and rifles.
The difference being is you do not have the high powered AR15 type rifle nor its ridiculous ammunition that is literally designed to tear through a person causing so much damage that NOTHING can be fixed. A hunting rifle is not the same. A pistol is not the same. These people protecting these types of high powered semiautomatic rifles seem to forget they were not legal in 1994. Good old G.W. Bush let the law lapse and then they were. We weren't always like this. 30 years isn't that long ago. No one needs these rifles. The police don't want them out there. Retired military has spoken up about how they're only designed to kill. Any person who is an actual firearms owner knows, this type of rifle isn't for "protecting" your family. You're not using that in your home. The rounds will totally go through doors, walls, anywhere and anyone knows that's not ok. Firearms safety 101, know where your rounds are going. 😑
Believe me, as someone from the "red state" gun culture, they NEVER forget the assault weapons ban. It's just one more instance of federal tyranny and proof they need more guns to fight said perceived tyranny.
As far as an AR-15 for defense, I actually nearly bought one and would totally use it to defend myself, my family, or my property. The fact that it's as effective as it is just makes it even more the case. Perhaps for those living in different circumstances it's harder to justify; especially in dense urban/suburban areas. I still get to fall back on the whole moose/bear thing and the fact that my nearest neighbor is over 1/4 mile away. We have known black bear and grizzlies all around my property, and we have moose walk through our homesite practically daily. These things are no joke and I want to stop them in their tracks. For those that've never seen a moose in person, an adult bull moose is incomprehensibly large and they can take a lot of damage and still keep going.
Instead of an AR, my home defense weapon of choice is a 12ga shotgun, which itself is quite destructive. What it lacks is the range and precision of a rifle.
My brother, a Marine, told me to make sure if I had to fire the gun that I aimed for the body mass in the middle. (He said law enforcement is taught that too; none of this shot them in the leg stuff.) He wanted to make sure I was capable emotionally of doing that. I assured him I was. Still am.
Yeah, whenever people say something like, "why didn't they shoot him in the shoulder?", I have to assume they've probably not handled a gun much, let alone under fire. I've never been in a gun fight, but having competed, I can tell you that the stress definitely affects your precision. Unless you've trained a ton, keep it simple.
No because they still have a purpose for me. That said, if there was a referendum on handing in certain firearms, I'd readily vote in favor of the restriction from purchasing them and the repossession of many firearms, even ones I own.
What would you think of being required to carry insurance for the guns you own? Some kind of responsibility if they are misused somehow. I've heard that idea floated in the past.
At this point, I'm open to a lot of ideas. If each gun I owned continued to cost me money after I purchased it, it would probably deter me from owning superfluous guns (and what a superfluous gun is would be impacted by the burden of owning it).
I have the same fear you do on the venn diagram overlaps.... I never read anyone assessing that threat - and when it is, it's to downplay it (ie, by the military).... Perhaps they're right, but it just doesn't feel right, does it?
All it takes is for enough people in the field grade officer corps in the Army/Marine Corps to start questioning orders during a national crisis like that. That is all that it takes to have an American Kabul moment.
Not everyone's interpretation of what the constitution specifies is the same. Especially not for the uber-religious, and the military's officer corps is rife with that type of uber-religious people in positions of power.
I've been warming to the idea of compulsory military or civil service at 18. We need everyone to get a first-hand understanding of our government and those that work to support it. This and civics classes in grade school where students learn, not just our history, but the philosophy behind our country's declared values as espoused by the Constitution.
Until it's Rick Scott's or Ted Cruz's or Boebart's or Greene's or the others advocating zero control over gun owners children being murdered in broad daylight by a RW 2nd amendment twisted absolutist, it doesn't matter. Same with 1/6. Since they weren't the ones getting beaten, etc., it doesn't matter.
Right?! I honestly can't say I'm confident that Ted Cruz et al. aren't politically and morally sleazy enough that, despite any personal grief, they'd still take the politically expedient path. After all, their child is already dead now, and not being President won't change that. So, why shouldn't they still be President?
The fundamental problem is the stranglehold that the fearful rightist radicals in the GOP base have upon the GOP primaries. Whether race-based fears, illusions of "jack-booted government thugs" coming to take their guns, or paranoia about leftist radicals, these people consider unlimited personal weaponry to be an existential matter. Probably the most workable counter to this is open primaries with ranked-choice voting and "top-x" (x=3,4, whatever) candidates going on to the general election.
And yet, when you point out to these fearful and paranoid base voters that the right to unlimited personal weaponry applies to Antifa and other city folks (translation: brown people) they are a lot more interested in gun safety laws.
It's not just the base. The election results have been narrow margins the last few cycles. Trump and abortion will help that, but once Trump is gone and abortion laws have been dealt with, MAGA may still be there if inroads haven't been made. The left can have access to guns too, but all the gun talk isn't about actually going out and shooting anyone.
The right is fear based. The left has to give better answers to those fears than owning guns. To change MAGA, the fears that fuel it have to be addressed.
It's not all fear. Some of it is that guns can just be fun. With the added benefit that owning an assault rifle is sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the libtards. I know someone like that.
Their fear is that the liberals will use government to put them under their heal by autocratic force, and if they don't have AR-15s to fight against an unjust government with they feel like they'll be fucked. That's their whole reason for owning AR-15s is to make sure their federal government never gets *too* liberal, lest it need be put down by violent overthrow. They want AR-15s as a failsafe against government getting too liberal for their liking.
Unfortunately this is the only fear I see being assuaged by owning an AR-15. I just don't see how it's practical for hunting or personal home security.
Fear of attack obviously. Fear that someone wants something they don't want to give them, and not knowing any other ways to deal with the fear (and watching too many movies), they think guns give them the power that their thinking brains are lacking.
What I always read is that they have fear of government and they want to be able to mount a revolution, which is so very ignorant, as if they could actually mount a revolution against the weapontry of the US Military?
Ignorance is a key element of the pro facist men they idealize. Keep them ignorant of history and they won't realize that the minute these people take power they will collect all the guns and they won't care a bit about how many people die in the process.
Not all MAGA voters have the same motivations. Wouldn't you say that talking about an unrealistic revolution is a way to relieve anxiety? Ignorance in dealing with their fears in a productive way is what is common in all MAGA voters.
If someone attacks me, I'll unlock my gun safe, load my AR-15, and then the attacker will be sorry? Or should I carry the AR-15 everywhere loaded? It just seems like the fear of attack or home invasion would be mitigated by a handgun; the AR-15 seems like it would be a burden in that scenario.
I don't think the MAGA voters who brag about violence are really going to commit any. They are relieving their anxiety by talking tough. The violence speech is a symptom of their underlying fears. You have to feel pretty powerless to threaten violence, and MAGA itself is always talking about how they feel the left controls them. Feeling controlled means they don't feel capable of handling their lives well. They need to be taught skills to give them confidence so they don't need their false bravado or be so susceptible to those who play on their fears.
This may be true for some people, but it's not my experience with the MAGAs in my family. They have income-earning skills and people skills that give them lots of confidence. They also have a lot of misplaced anger they don't know what to do with. As the men get over the age of 70, their impulse control seems to lessen and the threats slip out.
Do you have to feel powerless to threaten violence? Sometimes, that is the underlying reason. But not always. Rage doesn't always come from powerlessness. And it doesn't help that this rage is constantly being stoked beyond proportion by an honor culture.
Some MAGAs just want to be mean to others. Some MAGAs likely veer into mental illness. Where does your relatives anger come from? Fear causes a lot of anger. Maybe they feel they won't be respected. I find that in a lot of MAGAs. We have to be able to reach and persuade them or we're stuck with them, and I'm tired of them so I'd like to get rid of MAGA as soon as possible. To do that, I'll keep looking for ways to crack through their amour.
An AR-15 hit to a torso at under 50 yards is usually going to drop someone immediately. You often have to shoot someone several times with a handgun in the torso to drop them. There is an insane amount of difference in lethality between a .223/5.56 bullet fired from an AR-15 versus a jacketed hollow point fired by a handgun. It's not even close. What the AR-15 lacks in smaller size it makes up for in terminal ballistics.
The ugly reality of self-defense is that you're not concerned about your would-be attacker in the slightest. The very reason we don't want these guns used on children is precisely why someone would want it for self-defense. You want to stop them immediately. And contrary to popular opinion, the caliber doesn't necessarily mean "stopping power", often thought to mean the impact itself is forceful enough to stop someone. In reality, what stops them is most likely a sudden drop in blood pressure caused by serious internal damage leading to unconsciousness.
That being said, there are many weapons that can stop someone in their tracks and it doesn't mean that I should own one. Most people would probably be best served by a 12ga shotgun to product their home and family. Out on the street, that's not going to work, but I'm not against concealed carry at all. My problem is that even when Texas required me to take a course in order to get my license, people that had scary bad aim (like missing a human-shaped target at 3 yards!!) still got their licenses!!!!!! At that point it just feels like it's about revenue collection for the state and not about ensuring safe carriers.
"It is staggering that we are not staggered by this."
I've been thinking about this in terms of school children, elementary through high school going through "Active Shooter" drills as a normal course in our country. When I and several of my friends were growing up in the fifties/sixties, we had "Duck and Cover" drills, which is quite silly, if you think about it, that seeking shelter under our desks would somehow protect us in the event of a nuclear attack.....
But silly as they were, they were never traumatic for us, and I think that's because we never had any nuclear attacks happening anywhere, to relate it to. It never seemed like a tangible threat to us. But kids today, whatever their age, do see school shootings, at an alarming rate, even if they have never personally been involved in one at their school.
How can we, as adults, think this type of terror is acceptable? How can we, as parents and grandparents?
I keep hearing from polls that a majority of even gun-owners are in favor of some types of common-sense gun control measures - background checks, closing loopholes, red flag laws, even banning military-style weapons. Where are those voices? Why aren't they standing up and speaking out?
Until we force today's GOP (and any reluctant Democrats) to address this issue, it will continue. It's shameful, and the only solution is going to come from us, through our voices, through our protests, and through our VOTES.
That sentence struck me too. But I want to say "Charlie, speak for yourself! Don't use the Royal "We" please." Because my take is that a good majority of Americans ARE staggered. It is just that govt has been stolen from us, the People, by the few, through dishonesty and legal machinations, and we are truly voiceless. It is not that we do not care. It is that we have no pathway to correct this, as long as Republicans keep stealing elections in their various ways.
Minority rule is a b-tch. We have become numb to THAT.
The list of things we want but cannot have because of minority rule is long: affordable healthcare, affordable child care, affordable elder care, gun control, reproductive rights, climate action, judicial reform, - - what else?
I always found the Electoral College to be an interesting quirk in our system of government. It wasn't until the Republican party went off the rails that I started seeing it for what it was. For all of the talk about, "we need it to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority", what the hell is just about the tyranny of the minority over the majority? How is that an improvement?!
The electoral college has been adopted by exactly zero of those countries which have looked to our Constitution for their model. There is a reason for that. We have never been democratic at the presidential level; the EC was created by the founders to ensure that "the wrong person never won the WH."
Exactly! I’m baffled too. I keep trying to find excuses for that mindset to elevate the minority, and I come up empty.
The history of this country demonstrates that we are fine with the "tyranny of the minority" so long as it's not an *actual* "minority".
Well played :)
Just as we'd rather make our kids sit through duck and cover drills rather than ridding the world of nuclear weapons, we'd rather make our kids do active shooter drills than rid the country of assault weapons. As always, our irrational fears cause us to double down on the proliferation of destructive devices that end up fucking the world up even worse than it was before the existence of said weapons that apparently make us feel so much safer at such a cost.
For what it's worth, I'd gladly chuck my LMT rifle into a volcano if I could get the country to pass a new assault weapons ban. But until the whole country disarms together, I don't trust the armed right wing militias, nor do I trust the feds or the local cops (especially not the sheriffs) or the military's willingness to put those guys down in the event of a real armed fascist uprising in this country. In that scenario, I could see half of the police and military (or more) throwing in with the militias rather than putting them down. Too much overlap in those venn diagrams for my own personal comfort.
Great post!
My husband says the same thing. He told me he would gladly turn in his old deer rifle & the shotgun he used to use to scare the heron away from our trout pond every summer, if it meant helping get rid of gun violence.
I'm a longtime gun owner. I was born and raised in Texas where I lived most of my life. I then lived in Ohio for the duration of the Trump years, then finally moving to Alaska. These are all *very* red/pro-gun states and the pro-gun mentality is one I've had driven into me my whole life. I was on a shooting team in college and fired hundreds of rounds a month. I currently own 5 handguns, two rifles, and a shotgun (most of which I acquired after arriving in Alaska because I live on a mountain in the forest and moose, bears, coyotes, wolves, etc. are a very real concern).
All of that is to say that, though I've spent the majority of my life in support of gun access and still see value in some limited gun ownership, like Charlie (I think this is what he's said), something broke in me with Sandy Hook. And it's only gotten worse since then. I still need some firearms because of where/how I live, but I would *gladly* give up many/most firearms if it just meant putting even a reasonable dent in the gun violence of this country.
I can live (hopefully) with private gun rights if they did not include military weapons and accessories. Much harder to murder dozens of children in minutes with handguns, shotguns and rifles.
The difference being is you do not have the high powered AR15 type rifle nor its ridiculous ammunition that is literally designed to tear through a person causing so much damage that NOTHING can be fixed. A hunting rifle is not the same. A pistol is not the same. These people protecting these types of high powered semiautomatic rifles seem to forget they were not legal in 1994. Good old G.W. Bush let the law lapse and then they were. We weren't always like this. 30 years isn't that long ago. No one needs these rifles. The police don't want them out there. Retired military has spoken up about how they're only designed to kill. Any person who is an actual firearms owner knows, this type of rifle isn't for "protecting" your family. You're not using that in your home. The rounds will totally go through doors, walls, anywhere and anyone knows that's not ok. Firearms safety 101, know where your rounds are going. 😑
Believe me, as someone from the "red state" gun culture, they NEVER forget the assault weapons ban. It's just one more instance of federal tyranny and proof they need more guns to fight said perceived tyranny.
As far as an AR-15 for defense, I actually nearly bought one and would totally use it to defend myself, my family, or my property. The fact that it's as effective as it is just makes it even more the case. Perhaps for those living in different circumstances it's harder to justify; especially in dense urban/suburban areas. I still get to fall back on the whole moose/bear thing and the fact that my nearest neighbor is over 1/4 mile away. We have known black bear and grizzlies all around my property, and we have moose walk through our homesite practically daily. These things are no joke and I want to stop them in their tracks. For those that've never seen a moose in person, an adult bull moose is incomprehensibly large and they can take a lot of damage and still keep going.
Instead of an AR, my home defense weapon of choice is a 12ga shotgun, which itself is quite destructive. What it lacks is the range and precision of a rifle.
My brother, a Marine, told me to make sure if I had to fire the gun that I aimed for the body mass in the middle. (He said law enforcement is taught that too; none of this shot them in the leg stuff.) He wanted to make sure I was capable emotionally of doing that. I assured him I was. Still am.
Yeah, whenever people say something like, "why didn't they shoot him in the shoulder?", I have to assume they've probably not handled a gun much, let alone under fire. I've never been in a gun fight, but having competed, I can tell you that the stress definitely affects your precision. Unless you've trained a ton, keep it simple.
I'm from Northern Maine. I've seen moose. You still don't need an AR15 for home defense.
No because they still have a purpose for me. That said, if there was a referendum on handing in certain firearms, I'd readily vote in favor of the restriction from purchasing them and the repossession of many firearms, even ones I own.
What would you think of being required to carry insurance for the guns you own? Some kind of responsibility if they are misused somehow. I've heard that idea floated in the past.
At this point, I'm open to a lot of ideas. If each gun I owned continued to cost me money after I purchased it, it would probably deter me from owning superfluous guns (and what a superfluous gun is would be impacted by the burden of owning it).
I have the same fear you do on the venn diagram overlaps.... I never read anyone assessing that threat - and when it is, it's to downplay it (ie, by the military).... Perhaps they're right, but it just doesn't feel right, does it?
All it takes is for enough people in the field grade officer corps in the Army/Marine Corps to start questioning orders during a national crisis like that. That is all that it takes to have an American Kabul moment.
Not everyone's interpretation of what the constitution specifies is the same. Especially not for the uber-religious, and the military's officer corps is rife with that type of uber-religious people in positions of power.
I hate to say it, but that's another argument for universal military service.
I've been warming to the idea of compulsory military or civil service at 18. We need everyone to get a first-hand understanding of our government and those that work to support it. This and civics classes in grade school where students learn, not just our history, but the philosophy behind our country's declared values as espoused by the Constitution.
Until it's Rick Scott's or Ted Cruz's or Boebart's or Greene's or the others advocating zero control over gun owners children being murdered in broad daylight by a RW 2nd amendment twisted absolutist, it doesn't matter. Same with 1/6. Since they weren't the ones getting beaten, etc., it doesn't matter.
Right?! I honestly can't say I'm confident that Ted Cruz et al. aren't politically and morally sleazy enough that, despite any personal grief, they'd still take the politically expedient path. After all, their child is already dead now, and not being President won't change that. So, why shouldn't they still be President?
EXample: Steve Scalise got shot and learned absolutely NOTHING by it.
Yeah, it's just nuts.
The fundamental problem is the stranglehold that the fearful rightist radicals in the GOP base have upon the GOP primaries. Whether race-based fears, illusions of "jack-booted government thugs" coming to take their guns, or paranoia about leftist radicals, these people consider unlimited personal weaponry to be an existential matter. Probably the most workable counter to this is open primaries with ranked-choice voting and "top-x" (x=3,4, whatever) candidates going on to the general election.
The non-Republican primary voters can vote for people (Democrats) who support gun control measures.
And yet, when you point out to these fearful and paranoid base voters that the right to unlimited personal weaponry applies to Antifa and other city folks (translation: brown people) they are a lot more interested in gun safety laws.
It's not just the base. The election results have been narrow margins the last few cycles. Trump and abortion will help that, but once Trump is gone and abortion laws have been dealt with, MAGA may still be there if inroads haven't been made. The left can have access to guns too, but all the gun talk isn't about actually going out and shooting anyone.
Famously, when armed black panthers showed up at the California legislature in the late '60s, a new interest in gun regulation emerged!
The right is fear based. The left has to give better answers to those fears than owning guns. To change MAGA, the fears that fuel it have to be addressed.
They're afraid because of their Fox addiction. The left can't help them with that.
Yes, people can help them see a better way to look at the world.
I can't quite figure out which fear is assuaged by owning an AR-15.
It's not all fear. Some of it is that guns can just be fun. With the added benefit that owning an assault rifle is sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the libtards. I know someone like that.
Their fear is that the liberals will use government to put them under their heal by autocratic force, and if they don't have AR-15s to fight against an unjust government with they feel like they'll be fucked. That's their whole reason for owning AR-15s is to make sure their federal government never gets *too* liberal, lest it need be put down by violent overthrow. They want AR-15s as a failsafe against government getting too liberal for their liking.
Unfortunately this is the only fear I see being assuaged by owning an AR-15. I just don't see how it's practical for hunting or personal home security.
Fear of attack obviously. Fear that someone wants something they don't want to give them, and not knowing any other ways to deal with the fear (and watching too many movies), they think guns give them the power that their thinking brains are lacking.
What I always read is that they have fear of government and they want to be able to mount a revolution, which is so very ignorant, as if they could actually mount a revolution against the weapontry of the US Military?
Ignorance is a key element of the pro facist men they idealize. Keep them ignorant of history and they won't realize that the minute these people take power they will collect all the guns and they won't care a bit about how many people die in the process.
Not all MAGA voters have the same motivations. Wouldn't you say that talking about an unrealistic revolution is a way to relieve anxiety? Ignorance in dealing with their fears in a productive way is what is common in all MAGA voters.
If someone attacks me, I'll unlock my gun safe, load my AR-15, and then the attacker will be sorry? Or should I carry the AR-15 everywhere loaded? It just seems like the fear of attack or home invasion would be mitigated by a handgun; the AR-15 seems like it would be a burden in that scenario.
I don't think the MAGA voters who brag about violence are really going to commit any. They are relieving their anxiety by talking tough. The violence speech is a symptom of their underlying fears. You have to feel pretty powerless to threaten violence, and MAGA itself is always talking about how they feel the left controls them. Feeling controlled means they don't feel capable of handling their lives well. They need to be taught skills to give them confidence so they don't need their false bravado or be so susceptible to those who play on their fears.
This may be true for some people, but it's not my experience with the MAGAs in my family. They have income-earning skills and people skills that give them lots of confidence. They also have a lot of misplaced anger they don't know what to do with. As the men get over the age of 70, their impulse control seems to lessen and the threats slip out.
Do you have to feel powerless to threaten violence? Sometimes, that is the underlying reason. But not always. Rage doesn't always come from powerlessness. And it doesn't help that this rage is constantly being stoked beyond proportion by an honor culture.
Some MAGAs just want to be mean to others. Some MAGAs likely veer into mental illness. Where does your relatives anger come from? Fear causes a lot of anger. Maybe they feel they won't be respected. I find that in a lot of MAGAs. We have to be able to reach and persuade them or we're stuck with them, and I'm tired of them so I'd like to get rid of MAGA as soon as possible. To do that, I'll keep looking for ways to crack through their amour.
An AR-15 hit to a torso at under 50 yards is usually going to drop someone immediately. You often have to shoot someone several times with a handgun in the torso to drop them. There is an insane amount of difference in lethality between a .223/5.56 bullet fired from an AR-15 versus a jacketed hollow point fired by a handgun. It's not even close. What the AR-15 lacks in smaller size it makes up for in terminal ballistics.
The ugly reality of self-defense is that you're not concerned about your would-be attacker in the slightest. The very reason we don't want these guns used on children is precisely why someone would want it for self-defense. You want to stop them immediately. And contrary to popular opinion, the caliber doesn't necessarily mean "stopping power", often thought to mean the impact itself is forceful enough to stop someone. In reality, what stops them is most likely a sudden drop in blood pressure caused by serious internal damage leading to unconsciousness.
That being said, there are many weapons that can stop someone in their tracks and it doesn't mean that I should own one. Most people would probably be best served by a 12ga shotgun to product their home and family. Out on the street, that's not going to work, but I'm not against concealed carry at all. My problem is that even when Texas required me to take a course in order to get my license, people that had scary bad aim (like missing a human-shaped target at 3 yards!!) still got their licenses!!!!!! At that point it just feels like it's about revenue collection for the state and not about ensuring safe carriers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f004