There was a time in the '80’s or '90’s when the mayor of NYC wanted to sue the state of Virginia because so many of the illegal guns used in crimes in NYC came from there. It’s not as close as Indiana but it still happens.
Catahoula, there are more murders every year in Chicago than in all of NYC, never mind just Brooklyn. And you’re not going to convince me, or too many other people, that the proximity of Indiana (as opposed to New Jersey and Connecticut) is irrelevant. As I recall, that New York Times article also pointed, among other things, to the fact that residential segregation is far greater in Chicago than in Brooklyn. There are neighborhoods in Chicago that are literally 100% mono-racial. That’s almost never true even in the most segregated parts of Brooklyn.
The mention of Brooklyn was just an acknowledgement that demographics didn’t explain it. A concession, if you will. That it strengthened the idea that culture (one of your “whats?”) might be to blame. Not that we can ignore all the usual suspects, though: mistrust of police & fear of retaliation if you help them, the current efficiency of whatever ‘stop & frisk’ is being tolerated by the ACLU and respective mayors, etc., etc.
FWIW: I never dreamed I’d convince you, or all those other people. Claimed a side of the fence and that’s that, regardless of what I consider fairly reasonable rebuttals to the idea that the problem is access to firearms - rather than acting right with them when you have one.
Don’t make this difficult. Because bubbas trying to prove their masculinity cling to their guns and resist even reasonable gun legislation, they are readily available - and so the bad guys in Chicago have access to them. They’re not the same demographic, but that’s not remotely the point.
PG, you chastised a poster on a different thread for name-calling, yet you denigrate gun enthusiasts by calling them bubbas, when they come from all walks of life and all socio-economic groups. Why not just stick to the argument, and leave the name-calling out of it. In my opinion at least, you undercut your argument by your approach.
Your bubbas are my guys, PG. The ones I know, myself included, don’t do drive-bys, don’t jack cars, don’t deal drugs, don’t carry guns to gay nightclubs, schools, or theaters. If they need an excuse to purchase a lightweight knock-around gun without a beautiful wood stock, they’ll point to the 2nd and the admissions from legal experts who don’t even approve of it.
If they need another, they might point to the unlimited pool of guns available to those who do all those bad things in my second sentence. A pool too deep to dry up, no matter how hysteric the political tantrums.
MidwestDad3, that’s not exactly fair. If you have to chastise anyone, you should chastise Catahoula, who first used that particular “b” word – twice – in posts 131 and 139 in this thread. Pizzagirl was simply picking up on Catahoula’s own use of the term. Now, she may have used it earlier in the thread herself, for all I know. (It’s not a word I’ve ever used myself. I don’t think we have any “b’s” here in New York City.) But in this instance, the proper attribution is to Catahoula.
95, #96
It got my attention in those posts. I don’t care for it either. Although I support gun control, I also support bubbas, who are my guys as well, and I do not think they are the problem.
I sort of thought you called Catahoula out with those posts, PG. Maybe he was already around. I’ve haven’t read all that carefully.
I see. But whoever “started it,” I don’t really get what the word means anyway. I guess I associate it with people like the ones in “Deliverance,” if anything. I didn’t realize that anyone self-identified as one.
It’s a slur against southern men. imho.
Catahoula is reclaiming it. imho.
I’m insulted on his behalf. Because I’m southern, even if a woman, and thus not technically a bubba.
ETA: It’s an insult the way PG uses it. If we call our brothers “bubba” that is something completely different. It is our word. We can use it correctly.
Funny… that one’s been around as long as I’ve been, and DonnaL’s been around at least a little longer. Can’t expect everyone to remember what you do though, I suppose.
It’s a catch-all term, as I’ve always understood it, neither offensive nor not. It’s mostly what you append to it that would push it either way.
Can’t say that it gets up my nose even a whit.
Wasn’t Bill Clinton’s nickname Bubba?
^^It is the “catch-all” aspect that contributes to the term being demeaning. Wikipedia lists several meanings, including use by people outside the south, as a perjorative, indicating a person of limited education and low economic status. You may not find it offensive, but some others do.
Catahoula, you don’t really expect me to remember which pejorative terms which members use, do you? Believe it or not, I have more than enough other useless information filling my head.
Nah, just like I don’t expect you to make make a post professing to do just that (147).
The disclaimer as to accuracy was pretty thoughtful, though.
Fine. I’ll rephrase. If the bubba shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
Because ardent gun enthusiasts trying to prove their masculinity cling to their guns and resist even reasonable gun legislation, they are readily available - and so the bad guys in Chicago have access to them. They’re not the same demographic, but that’s not remotely the point.
And a bubba is someone of limited education / low socioeconomic status, who revels in it, who prides himself in his ignorance, who doesn’t want to learn more or consider other points of view, and who react from a fear-based, conspiracy-based standpoint. They’re found everywhere in the country. In this case, they are in northern Indiana selling guns to the bad guys in Chicago, and they exist everywhere. Just because the term may have originated in the south doesn’t mean it refers only to people who live in the south.
My point is that proponents of gun safety legislation (and I, indeed, am one who supports any effort towards reasonable legislation) make a critical mistake when they lump their opponents into a “catch-all” category, whether one calls them “bubbas” or “ardent gun enthusiasts trying to prove their masculinity [by] cling[ing] to their guns.” By making such gross generalizations, people are misreading the opposition.
I fully understand the impulse of a hobbyist or enthusiast to want to own the most efficient, powerful, well-designed version of whatever it is one is interested in, whether a car, a table saw, a sewing machine, a lawn tractor, a musical instrument, or a firearm. Most who have grown up around guns, or who have been trained in the military or at firing ranges, are knowledgeable about personal safety, and feel confident about safely handling and properly storing high-powered weapons.
A more effective strategy, I think, is to stop focusing on “bubba,” who we really don’t have to worry about. The dangerous people are those such as Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Roof, the Orlando shooter, and the far too many others who have cost so many lives, not one of them a “bubba.” So I think the key is to convince legitimate gun enthusiasts that they should want to keep these people out their “group” at all costs, and that there are common sense ways to do that while respecting the second amendment.
But an argument like that will only be successful once people begin to respect the opposition, rather than demean them.
I was trying to think of any of these mass killings had been done by “gun enthusiasts” and I think that Adam Lanza qualifies. He wasn’t a gun enthusiast but his mother was. Since she trusted him, it was easy for him to kill her and take all her weapons.
I respect the right of people to be enthusiasts about something - but within limits and one of those limits is public safety. You don’t want someone breeding bears in their backyard anymore than you want someone with a large and unsecured cache of weapons in their house. We need laws to enforce this and there’s been so much hysteria concerning the fear of gun control that we really don’t have adequate laws.