“Weapons can never give us total safety, because they will never give us peace.”

  •  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    19
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    By this framing, there can never be safety, because there are always going to be violent bigots.

    Safety is about a state of mind, as they say in the article, but it has to be informed by physical reality on some level, and that will necessarily have to include the ability to not be physically victimized by bigots.

    I also have a lot of issues with their choice to give a first-time shooter a machinegun (in the article they both call it a machinegun and semiautomatic, which is contradictory, but they make it sound like it had a 3-round burst, which if true would make it a machinegun, not semiautomatic), because that’s like putting a first-time driver in a supercar; it’s dangerous and non-representative of 99.9% of cars and driving. Of course you would walk away frightened/intimidated by it.

    As pointed out by another commenter, they were handling a semiauto AR-15, not a machinegun as they stated.

    • I watched the vice video segment a few weeks ago. I found it rather well put together, and I think it is well timed. Guns are divisive among the community, for valid and justified reasons. I grew up around them, but ive kept a lot of distance in the last decade. I’ve been feeling more and more the need to become familiar again. If not for myself, at least to be a resource for others if things go really bad. In some ways, becoming more in tune with my identity has made it more… obvious(?) that safety is not guaranteed, and being more public and true to myself, at least for the time being in the US, does increase chances of encounters with bigots. The perspective of the ranch members that training and aiding fellow community members for the possibility is (unfortunately) increasingly necessary for safety as a state of mind. They made the choice to move there. It was probably ill-advised. But there are also many who have little to no choice in their living situation, so i think the point stands.

      Re: the rifle. If you watch the vice video accompanying the article, its a lot more clear that the trainer asked her to fire three times quickly, not that it had a burst or auto fire control option. In their context of training for an actual, ever-present threat, I do think it makes some sense to reach for the AR-15. It is designed to be ergonomic and, at least in my experience, the assumption that a wood-stocked rifle, something lower caliber, or a pistol is less-dangerous or even easier is not representative of reality, nor is it really a fair comparison to say its a supercar vs a normal car. Part of the danger AR-15 and similar firearms represent in the hands of bigots is due to the ease of use and reliability, not that it is inherently more powerful or demanding of training. All firearms are dangerous, no matter the caliber, size, or public opinion. (If your experience is different, I respect that)

      •  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I do think it makes some sense to reach for the AR-15. It is designed to be ergonomic

        100% agree.

        nor is it really a fair comparison to say its a supercar vs a normal car.

        This was only in reference to handing someone a ATF-defined machinegun, not about AR-15s. I completely missed the video embed (I think my tired brain just registered it as an image), and I was going off the picture where they are holding the open-bolt smg-like gun, which I assumed was a transferrable mg given the rest of what they said.

        • I was going off the picture where they are holding the open-bolt smg-like gun, which I assumed was a transferrable mg given the rest of what they said.

          That tracks. I didn’t really examine that picture and I totally see it now.