This is not a pro-gun rant or smug anything: the problem with banning "assault rifles" is that there is no clear definition of what an assault rifle is. "Military style" gets countered with "The military still uses bolt-action rifles, are you gonna ban those? Huh???" and such. That's why the Assault Weapons Ban had to get very specific about technical specifications. It is stupid lawyering gamesmanship, and people getting smug about it are dumb.
Me, I can't think of a reason for any civilian to own an automatic weapon, period. I've seen people at the shooting range playing with their new automatic rifles and pistols, and I want to hide before they fire. The shooter is typically giggling and swaggering, and when he pulls the trigger he has trouble controlling the thing. When the magazine is empty, he puts it down and looks a little shakey, but then he starts giggling and swaggering more. I wish I could say I've seen said shooter have an epiphany of "That's a stupid thing to be shooting off, I should get rid of it," but no.
There should be limits on magazine size, too. If the guy who says he needs an automatic rifle for hunting can't turn Bambi into hamburger with ten rounds, he shouldn't be allowed to have a hunting license.
I probably should have added middle class, since I was talking about particular people.
I just wonder if there is a way to make 'Diversity' feel more like 'everybody including you'. Maybe there isn't a way to do that.
I think that is the at the heart of things-- I think diversity DOES mean "everyone including you", but it FEELS like you are losing something when you are used to seeing . I think the problem is calling it privilege, which makes poor white people turn off.
low-income white guys don't feel like they do and that nobody cares. A lot of privilege comes from money/social class.
For a long time, the "privileged class" was the family in the big house on the hill, who owned all the businesses and who sneered at the poor folks. When poor people are told they're privileged, they just don't see it. Privileges are things you earn or which are given to you--and which can be taken away. "In punishment for these infractions, you will lose privileges."
I think we should use the term "advantage." A low-income white man may understand better that his hand of cards is stronger than the one held by the low-income black woman. Unfortunately, we have to be aware that even with a better understanding of the theory, said angry white man may not care.
I think we should use the term "advantage."
That is a good term. I think the privilege term came from the original "unpacking the invisible knapsack" article writer, and she was actually using it with fairly privileged kids. In fact (probably because my college was so white), I was one of the least privileged when we did that.
I'm floored. From the Lt. Governor of Utah. Read it; it's worth it. [link]
I was just reading that too!
ETA and crying.
Oy -- someone in a related department told me she had some free time and asked if she could do anything for me. I gave her a very defined piece of work that is part of a larger thing. So she took it on herself to do the whole larger thing, including reaching out to several other people, without talking to me. Now some feathers are ruffled for no reason and I'm annoyed.
Me too. Now he has to put those words into actions.
