HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Most, if not all, of the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:36 PM

Most, if not all, of the NRA supporter arguments I have read

seem to be self-contradictory and/or contradict each other.

For instance, I keep reading/hearing that the previous AWB targeted weapons' features that were cosmetic and didn't really serve any purpose. If that were true, then why argue against them? Further, when someone listed some of the features that were bannde (claiming it was all of them, but actually left off many features) I listed one purpose for each of them. However, I only listed a secondary purpose for flash suppressors. This prompted another NRA supporter to "correct" me and listed the primary purpose of a flash suppressor. Which completely demolished the "cosmetic" argument since he admitted it actually had a purpose.

However, I really don't care what KIND of gun you use, what matters to me is magazine capacity. I posted a thread saying that I saw no need for a capacity more than 3, although I would be willing to compromise.

One of the most common arguments I read for high capacity mags argued that even trained professionals actually had very low hit rates. Well, if these guns are so ineffective in the hands of trained professionals, that pretty much destroys any argument that they would be useful in the hands of civilians.

So, to sum up my personal opinion:
If you need more than a single shot when hunting, then you suck as a hunter.
If you like target shooting, then go to a shooting range.
For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense and only increase the probability of innocents being shot. Limiting mag capacity makes much more sense because most shooters are stopped while reloading.

143 replies, 8157 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 143 replies Author Time Post
Reply Most, if not all, of the NRA supporter arguments I have read (Original post)
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 OP
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #1
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #5
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #6
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #2
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #4
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #24
sylvi Jan 2013 #99
intaglio Jan 2013 #106
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #110
doc03 Jan 2013 #3
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #7
doc03 Jan 2013 #9
Berserker Jan 2013 #10
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #139
rl6214 Jan 2013 #8
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #13
safeinOhio Jan 2013 #23
Hoyt Jan 2013 #71
rl6214 Jan 2013 #79
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #140
rl6214 Jan 2013 #142
cbrer Jan 2013 #11
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #14
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #21
krispos42 Jan 2013 #12
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #17
krispos42 Jan 2013 #18
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #20
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #22
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #27
krispos42 Jan 2013 #25
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #28
krispos42 Jan 2013 #30
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #37
krispos42 Jan 2013 #39
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #48
krispos42 Jan 2013 #50
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #54
krispos42 Jan 2013 #62
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #63
krispos42 Jan 2013 #64
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #65
krispos42 Jan 2013 #66
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #70
krispos42 Jan 2013 #73
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #85
krispos42 Jan 2013 #93
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #112
krispos42 Jan 2013 #113
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #124
krispos42 Jan 2013 #125
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #126
krispos42 Jan 2013 #127
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #128
krispos42 Jan 2013 #130
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #131
SQUEE Jan 2013 #123
jmg257 Jan 2013 #29
krispos42 Jan 2013 #35
jmg257 Jan 2013 #43
krispos42 Jan 2013 #45
jmg257 Jan 2013 #51
hack89 Jan 2013 #60
Recursion Jan 2013 #78
booley Apr 2013 #143
99Forever Jan 2013 #19
krispos42 Jan 2013 #26
99Forever Jan 2013 #33
krispos42 Jan 2013 #40
99Forever Jan 2013 #47
krispos42 Jan 2013 #53
99Forever Jan 2013 #55
krispos42 Jan 2013 #59
99Forever Jan 2013 #67
pipoman Jan 2013 #15
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #32
pipoman Jan 2013 #49
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #83
pipoman Jan 2013 #96
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #102
pipoman Jan 2013 #108
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #133
pipoman Jan 2013 #137
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #16
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #36
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #134
PavePusher Jan 2013 #141
billh58 Jan 2013 #31
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #42
billh58 Jan 2013 #44
pipoman Jan 2013 #68
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #81
pipoman Jan 2013 #97
sylvi Jan 2013 #100
billh58 Jan 2013 #119
sylvi Jan 2013 #135
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #34
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #38
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #75
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #82
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #92
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #111
rl6214 Jan 2013 #94
Sunlei Jan 2013 #132
rl6214 Jan 2013 #138
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #41
X_Digger Jan 2013 #46
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #57
X_Digger Jan 2013 #58
Recursion Jan 2013 #80
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #84
Recursion Jan 2013 #89
rl6214 Jan 2013 #95
Jenoch Jan 2013 #52
graham4anything Jan 2013 #56
sylvi Jan 2013 #98
graham4anything Jan 2013 #101
sylvi Jan 2013 #103
graham4anything Jan 2013 #104
sylvi Jan 2013 #105
graham4anything Jan 2013 #107
pipoman Jan 2013 #109
graham4anything Jan 2013 #115
pipoman Jan 2013 #136
hack89 Jan 2013 #61
Recursion Jan 2013 #69
Hoyt Jan 2013 #72
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
Hoyt Jan 2013 #116
Recursion Jan 2013 #118
Hoyt Jan 2013 #121
Recursion Jan 2013 #122
jmg257 Jan 2013 #76
Recursion Jan 2013 #77
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #87
Recursion Jan 2013 #90
sir pball Jan 2013 #114
Recursion Jan 2013 #117
logicnreason Jan 2013 #86
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #88
patrice Jan 2013 #91
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #120
Sunlei Jan 2013 #129

Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:45 PM

1. You say, "For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense ..." Then, don't check out this:

 

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/

The web site is full of documented examples in which firearms were used for defensive purposes.

Only those who are willing to let the facts slow them down should look at the examples.

Also as noted by the owner of that web site:

"One of the recurring anti gun arguments that I hear centers on the mistaken belief that gun owners will end up shooting an innocent person (such as a child, bystander, etc.) when trying to defend themselves against a criminal. The fact is that armed citizens are about 5.5 times less likely than the police to accidentally shoot the wrong person.
lthough only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.

There could be several reasons why this is the case. First, it could be that the police are more willing to use force, as police officers who use force tend to run less of a risk of facing criminal charges than ordinary citizens who use force. Secondly, it could be that police are called into a situation where they don’t know the people in the home and therefore are not as able to identify who is a “good guy” and who is a “bad guy.” Thirdly, it could be that police have less of a personal stake in the outcome of the shooting, while a person whose children could be in the home would seem to have a stronger interest in making sure they don’t unintentionally shoot their own child . Regardless of the underlying reason, the fact remains that when an ordinary citizen draws his or her gun, he or she is much less likely to shoot an innocent person than when a cop draws his or her gun.

Stories in the news abound with cases of cops shooting the wrong person, be it a woman who is cooperating, an innocent bystander who is not involved at all, a suspect who is face down, or just someone whose skin is the wrong color. The fact is that while police serve an important role in society, interactions with them can be dangerous, even for law abiding citizens. That is why while I hope to never have to fire a gun in self defense, I would much rather shoot in self defense than have armed police officers open fire in my vicinity, even if they are trying their best to stop a criminal.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:59 PM

5. If someone was in the mood, he or she could probably use that information

to argue that police officers should not be allowed to carry guns, but others should be allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:03 PM

6. From a site whose logo says:


LearnAboutGuns.com
Firearm information and politics from a gun rights perspective, with an emphasis on self defense rights.


No, not prejudiced at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:46 PM

2. "911 did not stop an Indiana home invasion, three bullets did"

 

"HAMMOND IN, Nov 2007 – She was on the phone to the 911 system approx 5 minutes before shots fired. 5 minutes while this guy was breaking in to her home and looking for her! Not a cop in sight, only her firearm to protect her.

She was attacked by stalker Ryan Bergner. Prior to this he had slashed her tires, kicked at her door , accosted her at work, broken in to her house and stolen from her. Six police complaints filed against him did not stop him. 911 did not stop him. Three bullets did.

http://eoars.avrnlive.com/welcome-to-eye-on-america-roadshow/2010/12/08/911-did-not-stop-an-indiana-home-invasion-three-bullets-did/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:59 PM

4. THREE bullets, not 30.

Thanks for making my point about limited mag capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:01 PM

24. Yes, "three bullets."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:33 AM

99. Because the victim

 

Because the victim was firing from point-blank range, not an ideal position to be in before deploying a firearm. Fortunately for her, it worked out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:51 AM

106. So this "Home Invasion" should have been stopped before it happened

If the police had taken the complaints seriously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #106)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:07 AM

110. Agreed.

 

In some communities, at least for ordinary persons, police services are being cut back.

There are some reports of the cut-backs on the web. See, e.g.,
Fifth-Most Crime Ridden City in America Dismisses a Fourth of its Police Force. 911 Still in Service

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297556

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:52 PM

3. No matter what legislation you can come up with the

NRA will come up with a argument. No matter how ridiculous a weapon is they find a reason they need one. I have to have a 30 round magazine because of wild dogs or something where I hunt. You can't limit magazines capacity because I need 30 rounds for target shooting. I need 30 rounds cause 10 people may try to break into my house. If those excuses don't work they only want it to cover newly manufactured magazines then they say the law didn't work because of all the old ones already out there. Why eliminate semi-autos when it is possible to shoot a pump gun as fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:06 PM

7. True, which is why we need to keep pointing out the holes

in their arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:16 PM

9. Have you ever looked at the gun magazines on the market? Most of them have a

Rambo or Dirty Harry lookalike on the cover holding some kind of semi-auto pistol or some military type weapon. They probably have center-folds of guys holding guns. Guns and Ammo this month has a picture of a Thompson sub-machine with a drum magazine, like we all need
one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:18 PM

10. Who is

 

WE do you have a turd in your pocket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berserker (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:41 AM

139. Yep! and he talks to me. He also has a CCW. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:09 PM

8. Your "trained professionals" argument is false

 

Most law enforcement only fire their weapons once or twice a year when qualifying while target shooters like myself shoot weekly or monthly. I have trained many shooters and can easily outshoot my BIL who is an expert marksman with our local sheriffs dept. he has also been to quantico and been trained by the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:33 PM

13. I was only repeated the arguments used

by others. It is not my statement.

However, just because you think you are better than your BIL doesn't mean that it's true across the board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:59 PM

23. About 90% of the people that own guns

never fire them yearly. What percentage of gun owner train weekly or monthly or twice a year like most LEOs do? Your argument is false in that most gun owners are not target shooters. Most gun owners have them sitting in a closet and are never taken to the range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:09 PM

71. Oh great, a gun toter that thinks they are better than police.


And apparently one who profits from guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:59 PM

79. I am a better shot than some police

 

And how do I profit from guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:58 AM

140. That's what MANY people believe....

"I am Rambo! If I had only been there......"

Please, spare me. This is why so many armed people are dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #140)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:36 AM

142. I have trained cops to shoot

 

I have shot against cops, I shoot competitively on a regular basis, you on the other hand don't know squat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:26 PM

11. You need to read more...

 

A single shot may not be enough when hunting certain beasts. Do you think it reasonable to legislate a charging bear?

I DO go to a range for target practice. WTF does this even mean?

To say that guns are useless is to ignore reality. We may study, we may assemble statistics, but we may not have our own facts.

Mag capacity limits MAY have some merit. Can we keep discussions based in reality? Try to get some laws that make sense? As facts will point out, the AWB had little effect on gun violence in America. Handguns remain the weapon of choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:37 PM

14. I would LOVE to have a discussion based in reality.

It is true that handguns are the weapon of choice. What kind of legislation would you have in mind?

I agree that much of the rhetoric has been over-the-top on both sides of the issue.

And, BTW, while it is true that overall gun violence increased during and after the AWB, during the ban gun violence went DOWN with regards to the banned weapons. So the ban did actually work, it obviously needed to be expanded to include other types of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:49 PM

21. Correllation does not equal causation.

Violent crime, in general, went down sharply during the 1990s, and started to do so before the AWB was passed. Furthermore, since the ban did not actually prohibit the sales of military-style semi-auto weapons (You could have picked Lanza's blood soaked rifle off the floor, sent it back in time to 1996, and it would NOT HAVE BEEN AN "ASSAULT WEAPON" for purposes of selling it), trying to correlate it to a drop in violent crime is dubious at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:29 PM

12. It's pretty simple.

You first ban "assault weapons", because you the hell needs an "assault" weapon anyway? But don't worry, legitimate weapons won't be prohibited or confiscated or registered or restricted.


Then you expand the definition of "assault weapon". You do it again and again, because those damn gun makers and gunsmiths keep violating the spirit of the AWB.


You ban more features. Then you ban all semi-automatic long guns entirely. Then you ban all guns fed by a detachable magazine. Then you prohibit rails for mounting flashlights and lasers and stuff.

Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:46 PM

17. Ah yes, the NRA slippery slope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:47 PM

18. It's here.

Feinstein's new AWB is stricter than the old, Clinton-era AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:48 PM

20. It s based on California's

Which has prevented none, in spite of the talking points, from enjoying their fire arms.

Incidentally, CA has a lower death rate by fire arms than MO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:57 PM

22. "Incidentally", indeed.

Trying to prove that a ban on some features on semi-auto rifles (used, at most, in a small percentage of homicides) actually caused California to have a lower death rate is something of a statistical leap. Missouri and California are, to put it mildly, different in more than just their firearms laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:11 PM

27. It is funny, another NRA talking point

We do have a direct relationship of lower gun death rates and tougher gun laws.

California is but one example. But I am sure you will tell me how unique the South in general is...

If I had my way, California, with it's closed gun show loophole, would be the national standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:02 PM

25. "Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation"

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
•120 specifically-named firearms
•Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
•Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
•Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
•Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test
•Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address
attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than
10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
•Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
•Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or
sporting purposes and
•Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
Act, to include:
•Background check of owner and any transferee;
•Type and serial number of the firearm;
•Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
•Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
•Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119


The formatting on the PDF didn't carry through... it's easier to read in the PDF.


So you don't think making semi-autos fall under the same regulatory standards as full-autos will affect people? Really?

And "Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" means that the definition of assault weapon gets expanded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:12 PM

28. If I had my way, the 1934 legislation would apply

Class III licenses.

As I said, read California law.

I will add this.

You and I know this will be watered down this session.

We also know we will have a few more shootouts and shootings. (I am talking the spectacular kind) Those will add pressure for more dramatic legislation I guarantee you will like even less.

Yes, we did have a cultural crossing point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:18 PM

30. There's 108,000 words in California law.

I don't live there, I don't want to live there, and if your lawmakers want to make things as complicated and confusing as possible, that's California business, not mine.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:27 PM

37. Well, I want at a minimum universal background checks

Enough with that nonsense.

But I will be blunt...the more resistance, with more spectacular events, the less you will like the laws.

You know why that universal background came to be? A mass shooting down from where I live at Santa Anna High School in Santee.

Don't bother looking for it as spectacular. As horrific as that was in Santee, it is no longer in the list.

After spectacular events like this people will continue to demand more stringent laws. Sandy Hook was a cultural crossing point. And yes, local gunnies complain, they still go target shoot and hunt..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:32 PM

39. I agree with you.

As long as the process was not expensive or time-consuming. But this has to be done on a state level. The feds don't have juristiction.

I fail to see why the ATF can't create a special class of permit or license that would allow people to access NCIS and facilitate private transfers. Not a gun dealer, but a transfer agent that checks IDs, keeps records, makes sure the forms are filled out, and runs background checks.

That's something that maybe I'd like to do in my spare time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:47 PM

48. No, it has to be federal.

Gun laws need to be federal. Enough of this patchwork quilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:54 PM

50. 10th Amendment.

The feds can't regulate intrastate transfers, only interstate ones.

But the feds can help by making a Federal Firearms Transfer Agent license so states can implement background checks on all firearm sales without causing chaos and confusion.


Feinstein and Shumer should be working on this, not another AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:59 PM

54. Do guns cross state lines?

Yes, commerce clause.

Well established and trodden constitutional terrain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:55 PM

62. And when they are sold across state lines, it's through FFLs.

Private citizen brings gun to an FFL in his state, who then mails it to an FFL in the buyer's state, who then does background check and other state checks (as required) to transfer it to the buyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:58 PM

63. This is why it has to be federal

No more private to private sales.

Enough already.

That loophole has to be closed...period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:03 PM

64. But it won't be.

Maybe it should be federal, but that's unconstitutional. It will have to be state by state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:08 PM

65. How so?

Guns and ammo cross state lines...I know you don't like this...and any regulation you don't like. But this is covered under the Commerce Clause.

Don't worry, the more resistance and more mass shootings will lead to more regulations you won't like.

So enjoy...people are starting, for real, to demand change...for real. Things like Sandy Hook have need led to gun laws...at the Federal Level. A famous event in 1929 led to a famous aw in 1934, for example. It's passed constitutional muster, and this RW SCOTUS will not be here forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:11 PM

66. Because it's an intrastate transfer.

Buyer and seller in the same state. Not federal.


And I've said I like this idea, and even offered an idea to make it easier to implement. Put down the broad brush, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:06 PM

70. I am telling you the way it is

And state laws don't work. We need federal if we are going to close this. Proof is in the pudding, only six states have closed it. Period. Two of them by citizen action.

I don't expect Texas or Florida to do it, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:26 PM

73. And we can't get federal

And if the politicians in favor of strict gun control continue to flog assault weapons bans instead of making private sales go through an FFL-like person, then ask yourself why they are doing this.


It's because they're pandering to the people that began screaming for a new AWB while the bodies in Newtown were still warm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:11 AM

85. Yup, you got ths figured out

Since the status quo is just perfect.

You and I will not see eye to eye on this, but my views are colored by seeing in the flesh what these rifles do to the human body.

So I admit to a certain bias. My bias also comes from a certain sense of national security (due to straw purchases) which rarely enters the discussion.

For the record, you see any regulation as a violation of the Second. I also hold a very originalist interpretation on this. National guard is the modern day militia. My authority is the historic context and these things called dependent clauses. More than a few lawyers are starting to subscribe to this view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:38 AM

93. For what record?

Again, you're putting words in my mouth by claiming positions that I've not stated.

I've never said that an AWB is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. It's been constitutionally upheld, right? The federal ban sunsetted, right? States that have their own AWB without a sunset provision have not had them struck down, right?

I think it's a waste of time. I think it's arbitrary. I think it's pandering. I think it's ineffective. I think it's how politicians avoid real issues and real solutions. But I don't see it as a violation of the 2nd.


I'd like to see background checks on all private purchases. I'd like to see the states take up this issue because the more states that do it, the better chance we'll have of proving that it's effective, and the better chance of getting it passed in the red red red states. I think the ATF can help this process by licensing transfer agents that would perform private-sale background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:20 AM

112. Florida do this????

Thanks for the laugh, same goes for AZ and Texas.

The last two are sources for many straw purchases that end up in the black market.

Thanks for the laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #112)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:00 AM

113. So because Texas won't do it, California shouldn't? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #113)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:36 PM

124. If it is going to work, truly, it needs to be federal




I know this is real hard for you to understand. The reason L-III licenses work so well, it's because they are federal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #124)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:41 PM

125. It needs to be as widespread as possible.

So let's get started on the state legislatures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #125)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:42 PM

126. It needs to be federal

Proof, pudding and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #126)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:58 PM

127. If Washington can make that happen, then fine.

That's fine. It doesn't change my opinion that federal action is outside the constitution, and it will have be done by the states.

If somebody in DC can figure out a way to make it federal, that's great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #127)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:00 PM

128. The same argument was made for the 1934 legislation

The SCOTUS found it was legal, constitutional even. It was the Commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:04 PM

130. For the $200 transfer tax.

Maybe the solution is to have a $20 universal transfer tax on all firearms, which is used to run a NICS check.



This might be another way to accomplish it, rather than a mandate. Hmmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #130)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:06 PM

131. They are talking national databases and universal

background checks right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:27 PM

123. I agree on consistent and universal checks

I have gone through numerous background checks as I have a CCW, and NFA firearms and Supressors. I maintain a trust, and one thing I would like to see is STATE level requirements of some type of insurance, but one that not set up to be prohibitively expensive. Do it much like auto insurance, your rates go down as you attain more education and training, as well proof of secure storage. I have chosen to have most of my firearms be registered, but I do not advocate for the majority of Americans.
I have a policy of only selling a firearm to a CCW permitee, This shows me that they have attended some education on laws and have shown very basic handling skills, also that they have gone through a NICS level background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:17 PM

29. Isnt that the point? If the 1994 was ineffective, why not expand it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:27 PM

35. Ban more cosmetic features?



It was always be ineffective because it's about cosmetics. Sandy Hook wasn't done with an "assault weapon", it was done with a rifle that was 100% legal under current Connecticut law, which itself is a copy of the new-expired federal ban.


The Norwegian massacre was done with a Ruger Mini-14, which would not be an assault weapon under the 1993 ban or the 2013 ban.


If you're serious about stopping mass shootings (which, let's face it, are a horrific but tiny aspect of homicide in America) you'd ban everything but break-action long guns. Not one ban them, but confiscate with compensation of all non-break-action long guns.

Even then, I doubt there would be no mass shootings.

You'd really have to go back to muzzleloaders to lower the rate of fire enough to prevent a mass shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:42 PM

43. Yep..what you said. If I was serious, I would, or close to it.

Not only would that help with mass shootings, but gun violence in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:46 PM

45. Of course, if we really wanted to cut gun violence...

...we'd legalize drugs. Immediate and permanent reduction in violent crimes.

But, again, we'd rather argue over whether a rifle is an "assault weapon" than do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:56 PM

51. Agreed...drugs, and gangs deserve much more scrutiny. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:41 PM

60. Let's look at a California legal "assault weapon"

The present California AWB is stricter than the original AWB - this weapon is legal in California:



http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx

I have no problem with a law that allows me to buy such weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:57 PM

78. And this one is illegal in CA (gun image warning for those that are bothered by them)



We really have better issues to lose the House over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:40 PM

143. But shouldn't it be?

I mean I keep hearing from the "pro gun" crowd that the old AWB was full of loop holes that criminals could get around.

So why wouldn't it's replacement try to close those loop holes?

Seems damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:47 PM

19. Sounds like a good start...

.. to a sane plan to reclaim our Nation from the NRA terrorists.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:04 PM

26. If you want to use the same language and argument style as...

Post 9/11 BushCo, be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:26 PM

33. If you want to use the same language and argument style as...

... a terrorist NRA tool, be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:33 PM

40. Civil libertarians are terrorist-enablers. Remember that line?

Keep talking. You're damaging your cause, and I love it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:47 PM

47. Oh goody!

What you "love" is really fucking important to me. I center my world around you, your opinions and brilliant sophistry on these pages. It really is all about you and your "precious."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:57 PM

53. *pats head*

Awww... It's fun attacking caricatures, isn't it? Waiting for the shiny metal penis jokes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:03 PM

55. I can't help that you are a living...

... typing caricature. Maybe therapy would help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:35 PM

59. Mirror, mirror... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:56 PM

67. Yep...

... that's you in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:42 PM

15. ..

If you need more than a single shot when hunting, then you suck as a hunter.

Only someone who knows nothing about hunting would say something so silly.

If you like target shooting, then go to a shooting range.

No thanks, I'll shoot right here on my property.

For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense and only increase the probability of innocents being shot.

Tell it to the police, this demonstrably false talking point, that is..

Limiting mag capacity makes much more sense because most shooters are stopped while reloading.

Please demonstrate where you got this idea, eh? Surely you can link us up to some collaborating stats or even some anecdotal examples?

If that were true, then why argue against them?

Because outlawing constitutionally protected shit that doesn't matter only outlaws shit that doesn't matter..even gun control groups admit that the AWB made no difference to crime stats.

Lastly, you do realize that there are only 3 or 4 million NRA members and somewhere between 100 and 150 million gun owners, no? Going around pretending that people who believe most of your "reasonable restrictions" are stupid and not effectual are all "NRA supporters" is simply naive and/or a sideways slur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:21 PM

32. Perhaps I should have said "NRA TALKING PINT supporters"

If you need more than a single shot when hunting, then you suck as a hunter.

Only someone who knows nothing about hunting would say something so silly.

After the first shot, the intended target runs away if it is still alive.

If you like target shooting, then go to a shooting range.

No thanks, I'll shoot right here on my property.


then you are being reckless when you do so.

For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense and only increase the probability of innocents being shot.

Tell it to the police, this demonstrably false talking point, that is..

Again, I am only quoting arguments that I have heard in FAVOR of high-capacity mags.

Limiting mag capacity makes much more sense because most shooters are stopped while reloading.

Please demonstrate where you got this idea, eh? Surely you can link us up to some collaborating stats or even some anecdotal examples?

Well, of course I am talking about mass shootings and not those that were ended by the shooter killing himself.

If that were true, then why argue against them?

Because outlawing constitutionally protected shit that doesn't matter only outlaws shit that doesn't matter..even gun control groups admit that the AWB made no difference to crime stats.

Actually, the incidence of gun violence with banned guns DID go down, although gun violence itself went up both during and after the ban. And the "shit" is NOT "constitutionally protected"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:49 PM

49. LOL

After the first shot, the intended target runs away if it is still alive.

then you are being reckless when you do so.


Again, "Only someone who knows nothing about hunting (or shooting) would say something so silly."

Again, I am only quoting arguments that I have heard in FAVOR of high-capacity mags.

"Quoting" from where? "Quoting" has a definite meaning...a definition..

Well, of course I am talking about mass shootings and not those that were ended by the shooter killing himself.

Which ones?

Actually, the incidence of gun violence with banned guns DID go down, although gun violence itself went up both during and after the ban. And the "shit" is NOT "constitutionally protected"

Which gun violence "went up"?



"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."



"Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994."

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:08 AM

83. WHY is it "silly"?

And I am "quoting" arguments that I have seen right here on DU.

Oh, and so gun violence has actually gone DOWN? But I've seen so many supporters swear it went UP! I guess the AWB must've worked, after all. Of course, I notice your chart reads "non-fatal".

But again, you are saying that gun violence went down, which directly contradicts many other arguments I have seen. Thank you for proving my OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:08 AM

96. It's nice to quote "they"

unless you actually want people to believe what you are saying. That requires one to quote actual people saying things being attributed to "they".

According to BJS it has..



After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988.


Guess what else has happened in the same time span? Concealed carry went from 6 states to 49. Every single day of that period there were more firearms in private citizens possession than the day before...

It is silly because you can't find me any avid hunter or hunting writer who wouldn't think it was silly. No the old "one shot, one kill" nonsense, as it applies to hunting, is lore. The black powder hunters and archery hunters are as close as you will come. Also because there are many people who have berm type shooting ranges on their property, perfectly safe amd legal.

As for proving your OP. The only proving I have done was proving wrong..

If you need more than a single shot when hunting, then you suck as a hunter."

Demonstrably false.

If you like target shooting, then go to a shooting range.

Nonsense

For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense and only increase the probability of innocents being shot.

Demonstrably false.

Limiting mag capacity makes much more sense because most shooters are stopped while reloading.

Again, false.

Wasn't that how you summed up your OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #96)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:02 AM

102. If you want to go back through all the threads

to find "they", be my guest. I wish I had that graphic back then. Thank you for disproving them for me.

As for all your "demonstrably false" and "false" statements, you haven't said or done one thing to prove they are false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:27 AM

108. I'm not searching threads for that which I know isn't there..

it's you who are claiming ubiquitous attributions with none listed.

Even without your acknowledgement of the fallacies of your OP, others who wander along can see where you've gone wrong.

As for pretending that 1994 failed AWB had anything at all to do with the numbers would require one to also attribute the numbers to the enactment of concealed carry, "stand your ground", and "castle doctrine" legislation in nearly every state during the same period. The whole "correlation does not imply causation" argument is justifiably used when talking about the latter, it is even more obviously flawed when attributing any results to the failed and expired AWB.

Oh, and it is obvious to others that your assertions in your OP are straight out of the wacky thinking files of the gun control lobby who are every bit as ridiculous with their claims as the pro-second amendment lobby's claims....usually more so and easier disproved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:20 PM

133. You claim you "know" they are not there, how do you "know"?

And you have not proven that any of what you claim as "fallacies" are untrue.

True, we don't know which of those actions is responsible for the numbers, although it has been demonstrated that States that enacted the "Stand your Ground" laws have seen an increase in gun violence, so we can safely discount those.

Also, you keep claiming that the AWB failed. Where is your evidence for this?

And if my assertions are so easy to disprove, they why haven't you done it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:54 PM

137. Oh, because I've been around for 6 years or so and

have never seen the things you claim exist in great numbers.

True, we don't know which of those actions is responsible for the numbers, although it has been demonstrated that States that enacted the "Stand your Ground" laws have seen an increase in gun violence, so we can safely discount those.

No we haven't, and no we can't. Post a link to this stat, I've seen no such information.

Also, you keep claiming that the AWB failed. Where is your evidence for this?

It is voluminous and prolific...here's an example:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

DOJ says there is no evidence that the assault weapons ban had any effect at all.

And if my assertions are so easy to disprove, they why haven't you done it?

It has already been done in this sub thread and a few others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:44 PM

16. No, the arguments against the old AWB are pretty coherent.

For instance, I keep reading/hearing that the previous AWB targeted weapons' features that were cosmetic and didn't really serve any purpose.
The old AWB was notable in how it targeted a number of irrelevant features. Bayonet lugs were irrelevant due to the complete lack of bayonetings in crime. Flash suppressors redirect the muzzle gasses so that the fireball does not ruin the shooter's sight picture. Important if you're trying to make precise shots against in low light conditions, but why they're banned is somewhat mysterious. Folding stocks look cool, but don't make weapons particularly more concealable, and certainly don't effect weapon performance once shooting breaks out. Pistol grips look cool, and help make the weapon more accurate (Why this is bad, I don't know). Certainly, it's possible to make semi-auto weapons without a pistol grip. At the end of the day, the ban didn't do much to change the essential functionality of semi-auto weapons; Lanza's AR-15 was legally purchased under Connecticut law, which uses an exact clone of the Federal Assault weapons definition (And bans weapons meeting that definition from being sold). Actually, it's rather impressive that pro-AWB types can stare at a perfect example of the bald-faced failure of the old AWB definition and still proclaim it to have been effective.

One of the most common arguments I read for high capacity mags argued that even trained professionals actually had very low hit rates. Well, if these guns are so ineffective in the hands of trained professionals, that pretty much destroys any argument that they would be useful in the hands of civilians.
Huh? Wouldn't civilians, just like the professionals, suffer from the same low hit rate and thus have the same reason to want more rounds in the magazine in a self-defense situation?

For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense and only increase the probability of innocents being shot.
So police officers carry guns not because guns are useful tools in defense against dangerous people, but only because police officers want to increase their chances of shooting innocents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:27 PM

36. As for your point #1,

if these features are unimportant, AGAIN, then why argue against banning them?

As for point #2, it would be assumed that civilians would actually have a lower hit rate than professionals. Which renders them practically useless. They do not make one safer, they only make one FEEL safer and gives people a false feeling of security.

As for your point #3, it directly conflicts with your point #2 - which is the basis of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:35 PM

134. It's not reasonable to ban things by default.

You should need a reason FOR abridging civil rights. It is not sufficient to say "well, we might as well abridge a civil right with no positive effect."

That's like saying we might as well ban all cars that aren't grey. We might as well ban skirts above the knees. We might as well ban painted signs at demonstrations. These are all just aesthetic, so there's no reason not to ban them, right? Oh, ban watercolors while you're at it -- kids drown in water all the time, so we might as well get rid of paints with water in the name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:01 AM

141. 1. They are unimportant only in their impact on crime.

 

They are, obviously, ergonomic aids to a variety of lawful purposes. You're flailing here.

2. "it would be assumed". Got stats? The ones I've seen say Citizens hit their target better, and hit bystanders far less, than police. there are a number of possible reason for this. One is here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html In short, many police have abysmal firearm training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:19 PM

31. Well that certainly brought out the

NRA Gungeoneers. They must have an alert system in place that notifies them when common sense about gun control appears anywhere on the Internet, and especially on DU. I guess it's a form of practice so that they can keep their rote false equivalence talking points memorized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:38 PM

42. They certainly seem to be well-organized.

And their strategy appears to be "overwhelm" rather than have a meaningful discussion. Although at least one seemed willing to have a reality-based discussion, which is what we really need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:43 PM

44. I'm afraid that a "reality based"

discussion is next to impossible when arguing against right-wing NRA talking points and "statistics", and that's all the Gungeoneers normally repeat ad infinitum. Most are from the "cold dead hands" faction of the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:59 PM

68. No just pointing out the fiction of your OP

and asking real questions...you know, "reality-based discussion"...Or do you mean "reality based discussion" about, say, hunting.."If you need more than a single shot when hunting, then you suck as a hunter." LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:02 AM

81. What fiction? I have yet to see a reality-based argument.

And as I said before, after the first shot if still alive your target will simply run away. Spray and pray is for lousy shots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:27 AM

97. This is a "it stands to reason" statement

which is demonstrably patently false. I have killed a fair amount of deer many with one shot and several with 2 or 3. Any hunter who does any amount of hunting would concur..reality. Further in my part of the country and throughout the south there are ferrel hogs, they are mean, if you miss on the first shot you better hope you have a second. Same goes for other big game in North America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:41 AM

100. Yeah

 

It sure would be more convenient, not to mention less challenging to one's preconceived notions, if you just had an Amen Corner to shout to and have your views reflected back to you, wouldn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #100)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:25 PM

119. And another Gungeoneer

has joined the "discussion." Welcome to DU...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:12 PM

135. I see less "discussion"

 

and more, "Agree with me down the line on guns or you're one of 'them'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:27 PM

34. "... most shooters are stopped while reloading." Any evidence? EDIT - I'm right.

 

Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm pretty sure most high profile shootings were stopped when the cops (you know, someone else with a GUN) showed up.

To touch on another point, there is no Federal or State "Department of Needs". So to someone propositioning what others need and then stating they "would be willing to compromise"... I would have to suggest that they go eat fecal matter.

EDITED TO ADD INFO FROM POST 75:

Look down this list of Mass shootings and descriptions compiled by mother Jones...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

I did a quick count going back TWENTY FIVE years (to 1987) using MJ's list and descriptions. I decided to stop at 25 years, but feel free to analyze the rest of Mother Jones' compilation... although I think the trend is undeniably evident:

35 Mass shootings were ended with suicide
9 mass shooters were killed in action by police
15 mass shooters were taken into custody by police - either after being shot/wounded, arrested at a later date
2 ... TWO shooters were subdued at the scene by other bystanders until police arrived. (Kipland Kinkel, Oregon & Loughner, Arizona)

I stand by my assertion that the claim in the OP is complete fabricated bullshit and that most mass shootings end ether in suicide (when armed police show up) or armed police use force to actually stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:30 PM

38. Loughner was stopped by a retired

Colonel in his seventies, as Loughner was reloading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:40 PM

75. That was one incident; the OP said "most", which is total crap.

 

Look down this list of Mass shootings and descriptions compiled by mother Jones...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

I did a quick count going back TWENTY FIVE years (to 1987) using MJ's list and descriptions. I decided to stop at 25 years, but feel free to analyze the rest of Mother Jones' compilation... although I think the trend is undeniably evident:

35 Mass shootings were ended with suicide
9 mass shooters were killed in action by police
15 mass shooters were taken into custody by police - either after being shot/wounded, arrested at a later date
2 ... TWO shooters were subdued at the scene by other bystanders until police arrived. (Kipland Kinkel, Oregon & Loughner, Arizona)

I stand by my assertion that the claim in the OP is complete fabricated bullshit and that most mass shootings end ether in suicide (when armed police show up) or armed police use force to actually stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:03 AM

82. And I stand by my assertion

That these are not civilians, are they? But whatever.

This is a talking point by the NRA.

Believe it or not we need, as part of the solution, the kinds of laws the NRA and civilian gun owners will fight. Time for this shit to stop...enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:37 AM

92. That "NRA Talking Point" card is getting raggedy.

 

In case you failed to notice, I used a MOTHER JONES article and compiled those numbers myself (I a not a member of the NRA). I fail to see how the details in my post can be an NRA talking point. Sometimes, facts are facts - and calling them talking points makes you're argument look feeble at best. Attack the CONTENT of an opposing viewpoint rather than just "debunking" it by association.

The "but they are cops" canard is pretty weak. Also, remember that cops are people too. They wake up and put on their pants just like everyone else. Most cops qualify once or twice a year and that's all they shoot - most cops go thier entire career without ever having to use their gun in public. Almost every gun enthusiast I know shoots more often (and more proficiently) than your average police qualification requires. The only officers I know and consider to be "good shots" either have other training (SWAT/Military) or are also gun enthusiasts OUTSIDE of their jobs. It is not difficult to achieve basic competency with a handgun. One could simply require gun owners or people with carry permits to train at a firing range 2hrs a month or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #92)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:07 AM

111. I noticed

A good guy us needed to stop a bad guy IS an NRA talking point, from the horses mount, Wayne Lappeirre, no less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:52 AM

94. Loughner was reloading because his POS hi cap mag jammed

 

And he was trying to clear it, not because he was out of ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:16 PM

132. Same thing with recent school shooter, gun jam. Then he killed himself with the handguns.

first police arrived about 5? mins later.

Thank God a lot of those types of guns & mags out there are cheap garbage brands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #132)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:07 PM

138. Big +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:35 PM

41. Actually, the "Department of Needs" is called Congress.

As for your suggestion, I am glad to know that you refuse to discuss and are unwilling to compromise. I now know to ignore anything you may have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:46 PM

46. The point he's making is that a person doesn't have to define a 'need' for an item;

congress (or state or local gov) has to be able to justify why something should be limited, and pass the standards of judicial scrutiny in doing so.

The standard identified in Miller, and later confirmed in Heller and McDonald, is "in common use for lawful purposes".

Those were the tests that DC and Chicago failed, throwing out handgun bans in their respective jurisdictions.

What makes you think that a 11+round magazine ban would pass the same test?

Oh, wanted to add.. what are you going to give gun owners in your 'compromise' that they don't already have? Cause, you know, it's not compromise to say, "I'm only going to take half of what I want.."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:09 PM

57. Then how was the AWB not challenged on that basis?

What if an item proves to be deadly? Passing a law banning that item is for the "Common Good" as prescribed by the constitution, is it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:26 PM

58. "Promote the Common Good" is not a blank check to write whatever law a body wishes.

Lots of things are dangerous, even deadly. That has never been held to be reason enough to infringe a right. Rights are dangerous things!

See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “in some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659.

No, depending on the standard of judicial review, (likely 'strict scrutiny' for this), the restriction has to meet certain criteria:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:00 AM

80. It wasn't challeneged because it was pointless. It didn't actually keep people from buying guns

Manufacturers took the bayonet lugs off their rifles and sold them.

The TEC-9 was renamed the AB-10 (for "After Ban") and was sold (it was banned only by name). Yes, we actually threw away the House over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:10 AM

84. If it was "pointless", then why argue against it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:13 AM

89. Why argue against a pointless law that gives Republicans control of the House?

Seriously?

There are things it's worth taking a huge political hit on. A pointless law isn't one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:59 AM

95. My first AR type weapon was made by Olympic arms and also

 

Had no bayonet lug. It was called the Olympic Arms PCR for politically correct rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:56 PM

52. I haven't seen too many posts that

are written to support the NRA. i think I have seen more posts that point out that the person posting IS NOT a member of the NRA..(I am not an NRA member).

By the way, hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:03 PM

56. Zimmerman. repeat Zimmerman. Repeat Zimmerman. The poster boy of the NRA.

 

Zimmerman did more to get rid of guns than any single thing in history

When the last gun is in the street because of a new law at some point, they should call it the Trayvon Martin Law.

Because Zimmerman showed 100% of what a gun is for.
It was the end of the fascade.

and the idiocy of it is, the NRA should have disavowed it from day one, yet they remained silent and brought out all the lies.

The irony(though not funny because of all the deaths from guns) will be
that the NRA shot itself in the ass when Zimmy in cold blood shot and killed Trayvon Martin as Martin was not a direct threat, being that the police told him to back off.
(Had he been a direct threat, in what world or stretch of the imaginination would he have been able to phone police?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:30 AM

98. Zimmerman?

 

"Zimmerman did more to get rid of guns than any single thing in history"

News to me, since I distinctly remember gun sales surging in the aftermath of that event in response to the overheated rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd, same as it does with every high profile shooting, same as it's doing with this last one at Sandy Hook. Gun stores have been cleaned out ARs, magazines and ammo and a back order list six months long created. Another million or two plus weapons in circulation. Congratulations.

At some point one might think you'd realize that the howls for prohibition are having the direct opposite effect of what you wish for, and effort would be better spent in addressing something more practical like root causes of violence. Unfortunately, for many their egos and emotions are so wrapped up in this they either can't or won't come to that realization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:43 AM

101. It takes decades for a redwood seed to grow into a majestic redwood

 

trouble people make is wanting instant gratification on things that took decades to fester.

Zimmerman was a turning point
Much like Rodney King was a turning point
Much like Mathew Shepard was a turning point
Much like Ryan White was a turning point
Much like Anderson Cooper exposing the lies that there was ZERO riots in Katrina
Much like Danzinger Bridge took years to go from being denied to three cops at least in jail

It takes a village of these events to make things happen

and Zimmerman was the JENGA moment

All the bull spewed by the NRA shall be over.
Many more will die first of course, but all great causes have many dead.

After all, the vile Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal"
Took 100 years after the greatest President of all time, Lincoln signed the 13th
before the 3rd greatest president of all time LBJ signed the Civil Rights/Voting rights acts
and another 50 years before the 4th greatest President, Obama became President

Mr. Trayvon Martin's death was not in vain, senseless as it was.
Because his death was the start of the beginning of the end of the gun culture and the NRA

And THANK GOD for Mike Bloomberg, the Great Equalizer.
Finally someone to put his dollars against the blackmailing NRA.
2012 was a test.
The election in California of an anti-gun candidate upsetting the pro-NRA candidate will be told across America in 2014.

It takes a seed decades to grow into a majestic redwood

The seed has been planted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:27 AM

103. That's very poetic

 

But protestations about police conduct re: Rodney King didn't result in increased police brutality against blacks.

Outrage against the murder of Matthew Shepard didn't spike an uptick in attacks on gays.

Public support for Ryan White didn't negatively affect Americans' perception of those suffering from HIV.

And planting a Redwood tree doesn't cause a hundred others to fall down.


I thought the concern for victims of gun violence was something we need address in the here and now, not something that might or might not come about in 100 years as the result of some prohibition style movement that has proven itself to vastly increase the number of the very items it seeks to restrict. There are already 300,000,000 guns in circulation. How many more million are you willing push into the public sphere as a result of these repeatedly-failed prohibition efforts until the Redwood reaches full height? Or is it enough just to be able to wax poetic about the noble struggle of it all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #103)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:36 AM

104. It took 100 years from Lincoln to LBJ. Patience is a virtue. Even God took 6 days before resting.

 

like the trueism cliche says Patience is a virtue.

time is a mere measurement of a mortal person
but eternity is forever

like an illness
people die while a cure is found
sad for the last person to die
but good for the rest of the people in the universe when it happens

You can't put a roof on a home, until the foundation is built, then the floors, then the walls,
then the stairs, then you finish and put the roof on.

You can't reach a destination, without taking that first step forward

and you can't hear an encore in a concert, without listening to the whole set first.

You can't recite the alphabet in order, without starting at the letter A.
Just saying Z doesn't cut it.

Without that first sip of a water, a person will die of thirst

and without getting a Christmas tree, you can't put the thingy on the top on.

You can't fill up a car at a gas station, without driving to the gas station

And you can't have the new season of Dallas the continuation, without having had the first 14 years of episodes earlier on.

And there was no Home Alone 3, without having Home Alone 1

And though you had Thomas Jefferson writing the declaration that all men were created equal,
until President Johnson signed the voting rights acts, civil rights, after Lincoln got the 13th.,
you couldn't have had President Barack Obama

The longer the insanity goes on, the more people will die from guns.
Therefore the blood is on the NRA and gun sellers hands.
And it continues to drip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #104)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:16 AM

105. Platitudes

 

Platitudes and trite homilies are no substitute for strategies when it comes to saving lives. No one cares whats going to happen a century from now when children are dying today. Especially when your current strategy has proven itself over and over to result in harm.

Attack the problem of violence in this country at its roots - joblessness, poverty, the drug war, glorification of violence in media, education - rather than indulging in the insanity of repeated failed movements, hoping for a different outcome each time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #105)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:03 AM

107. Taking all LEGAL guns out of the street is the only way ANY meaningful advancement can happen

 

You make new law to take all guns off of street (except for federal,state,local law enforcement and the military and national guard or those bodyguards protecting an individual that are federally approved. NO OTHER exceptions at all.

The gun can be kept in a private home and gun enthusiasts can go to shooting ranges and leave their weapons there, can protect their private home, they can collect in their home but leave their weapons in the home.

Any gun at all on the street will be considered illegal and any means possible to have no one on the street with a gun that isn't dealt with by any legal means possible. ANY.

If you secure the streets, you secure a school, a movie theatre, a shopping center, a mall,
a bank, a bar, anywhere and everything outside the home.
(after all, you cannot bring a truck into a bank's front doors, and security is now such that Oklah. City cannot happen again).

and homes should have signs so people know a weapon is there.

more eyes in the sky and more checkpoints.
My privacy is already violated with worrying about whether a gun is somewhere.

and those that can have on the street as the new laws could be written, would have to leave said weapons at the office(police station) and not carried with them.

Because all this violence is done by people who (to quote your bottom paragraph) do not have any roots in poverty, joblessness, drug war,etc but are fine upstanding citizens one day,
mega killers the next, this violence, means no legal guns.

And how did Zimmerman get a gun? He qualified to be a Paul Blart mall cop type.
So he too had nothing to do iwth your people you are worried about.
That type of violence is easier to stop but is not the problem of the mass shootings
that are normally all-American stereotypical people doing all American crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #107)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:37 AM

109. A "new law" can't be unconstitutional

therefore before your new law you must amend the constitution...making your entire post laughable. Let us know how that works out for ya.

"Because all this violence is done by people who (to quote your bottom paragraph) do not have any roots in poverty, joblessness, drug war,etc but are fine upstanding citizens one day,
mega killers the next, this violence, means no legal guns."


No, by far most violence with guns is perpetrated by people who are illegally in possession of their guns...felons, gang members, illegal drug violence, and poor people. The vast, vast majority of gun murders are single murders, not "mega killers", committed in the act of committing another crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:30 AM

115. Why are you talking about the mafia?

 

The mafia only kills those who interfered with them, without almost any collateral damage.

whereas these mass shootings are 100% collateral damage.
and do you worry 24/7/365 that the mafia is coming after you?


oh, wait, am I missing something? You aren't talking about the mafia?
What gangs are you talking about?

and a corrupt court interpreted the 2nd.
A different court can narrowly define what they meant
Because according to the 2nd, you can have shoulder to air missiles and be covered.

you know, a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion
and look how narrowly that is defined now.
Guns could do the same.

btw-there is NO constitutional right to a bullet at all.

and well, there was no constitutional right for a woman or black, until their was.

we also have a constitutional law that states a President has power under the War Powers act, and we can reclassify guns as WMDs and treat them on the war on terror

because anyone going into the street to go to a movie is terrorized, and people with guns in the street are terrorists

(you must agree, as you yourself are so afraid of all those people you are talking about coming after you 24/7/365.)

You know, its too bad, the kid who was a peacenik, Mr. Trayvon Martin, didn't have a gun with him as legally he could have.
His life was indeed in mortal danger, and he could have defended himself if only he had a gun.
From the killer Zimmerman, the Paul Blart coward who shot an innocent man just to watch him die like in the Johnny Gangsta Cash song.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #115)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:29 PM

136. Just more of the same..

Cutting through the sophistry, we get to an actual question.."What gangs are you talking about?"

Why these gangs, that's who..

As Chicago struggles with its highest homicide rate in years, the role of a single street gang stands out: more than a quarter of the city's nearly 400 slaying victims through Sept. 25 were affiliated with the Gangster Disciples, according to Chicago police statistics obtained by the Tribune.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-03/news/ct-met-street-gang-bloodshed-20121003_1_gang-violence-gangster-disciples-black-p-stones

Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. We’re redoubling our efforts to disrupt and dismantle gangs through intelligence-driven investigations and new initiatives and partnerships.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs



You know, the ones who commit crimes. You do know there are gangs operating around you, no?

and a corrupt court interpreted the 2nd.
A different court can narrowly define what they meant
Because according to the 2nd, you can have shoulder to air missiles and be covered.


LOL..A different court, eh? No, not in either of our lifetimes will a SCOTUS "narrowly define" anything which would result in an interpretation allowing, "You make new law to take all guns off of street (except for federal,state,local law enforcement and the military and national guard or those bodyguards protecting an individual that are federally approved. NO OTHER exceptions at all."

You do realize that over the pat 30 years we have gone from 4 states with concealed carry to 49? That #50, Illinois, was very close to a veto-proof majority last time concealed carry came up? No, we all like to believe that most other people believe as we do, it isn't always so.

"you know, a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion
and look how narrowly that is defined now. "


Yeah, it's narrowly defined because it isn't an enumerated civil right/liberty, it falls under the broadly (liberally) defined 14th Amendment. All of the Amendments should be liberally defined.

btw-there is NO constitutional right to a bullet at all.

A laugh a minute I tell ya...Chris Rock isn't a constitutional scholar, he's a comedian. Words have definite definitions.

arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun

Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".


and well, there was no constitutional right for a woman or black, until their was.

Exactly. It required a constitutional amendment. You have the same process available to change or remove the 2nd Amendment too. Good luck with that from one of the 49 states which passed concealed carry.

we also have a constitutional law that states a President has power under the War Powers act, and we can reclassify guns as WMDs and treat them on the war on terror

OFFS...you gun controllers sure do love you some patriot act dontcha? Just another nonsensical bit to add to the oppositions opposition, eh?

Of coarse the rest is just more silly sophistry..don't pretend you know me, it makes you look like a dolt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

61. Too bad possessing a gun for self defense is a constitutional right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:06 PM

69. The cosmetic feature that matters is the pistol grip, and it's what people actually want to ban

based on a misunderstanding of what it means (people see it and think it means "deadly military weapon spewing rounds very quickly").

It's also, ironically, the only of those features that actually matter, in that having it makes a gun safer.

How about this: ban every single enumerated feature in the AWB except the pistol grip? People can still buy AR's, people will still be safe from bayonet attacks.

Alternately, how about stop throwing our party's political capital away on what a legal rifle can look like and concentrate on how a legal rifle (or, better yet, legal handgun) can operate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:17 PM

72. What I want to ban is allowing those attracted to such crap having right to buy one.

Yes, it's a Catch 22. But these guns are marketed to appeal to gun cultists' baser instincts. Good enough reason to prohibit gun cultists from acquiring one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:28 PM

74. Yes, I do get that

That was the thought process that handed the House to the GOP for a decade, without actually doing anything about gun crime. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:14 PM

116. Great, so we have another 100 million of the dang things, and will have another 100 M in decade, so


paranoid people can walk around in public with a gun. Sorry, that is foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #116)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:23 PM

118. We have less than 50% the murder rate of 20 years ago

Meanwhile semi-automatic weapons have essentially replaced revolvers and break-action rifles in private hands.

No, I'm not one of those people who thinks the lower murder rate is because of the guns; I just think the questions are orthogonal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:57 PM

121. And yet you keep buying guns. Of course 50% has nothing to do with NRA types and their guns.


But thanks for the right wing gun culture commercial.

Just think how low the murder rate would be if there weren't so many of your guys toting and accumulating guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #121)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:21 PM

122. I don't own any guns. I live in a city where it's difficult to, and I don't like them

I associate guns with hours of tedious cleaning and manual labor in the heat. Not for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:52 PM

76. I'm a little confused about this - how does the pistol grip make the gun safer?

I thought it was simply necessary due to the design of the action/receiver?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:54 PM

77. It makes drops less likely, and firing from the hip nearly impossible

It provides better control both in carrying and firing, and enforces better shooting positions. (This is why militaries use it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:12 AM

87. So, then it is NOT "cosmetic".

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #87)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:14 AM

90. True, in that sense. It's functional in that it's a safety feature.

I think when people say "cosmetic" they mean "on the outside of the gun" as opposed to dealing with its actual operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #87)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:22 AM

114. No, but it doesn't do what I think you think it does..

Pistol grips, or any vertical handgrip in general, do serve a purpose - to allow greater control of the weapon when it's held to the shoulder in a "normal" firing position, allowing for greater accuracy of carefully aimed shots. There's a good reason the rifles our Olympic shooting team uses look like this:



Even "regular" rifles, without separate pistol grips, are tending towards the exact same ergonomics...this isn't the kind of thing you use to spray-fire from the hip..



Long story short, the pistol grip was originally developed by the military, but not for soliders to wave their bullet hoses around...it was for more accurate and stable aimed fire. Of course, now I'll be accused of spewing NRA talking points; I'm just looking for consistency and rationality. Magazine limits would be far more effective than any feature-based bans, of course - and if you really don't like those icky "assault weapons" I'd suggest a blanket semi-automatic rifle ban instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #114)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:18 PM

117. ^ That

If we want to find a way to pass a high capacity magazine ban, and institute a generous buyback program, I am 100% behind that (lower the number of magazines out there and get some stimulus -- two birds with one stone).

If we want to ban (or more likely, reschedule) semi-automatic weapons, it's not my preferred option but it would at least do what you're trying to do so I'd be willing to spend the party's capital on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)


Response to logicnreason (Reply #86)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:13 AM

88. Is that you Mr. Weiner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:23 AM

91. Get the one for concealed carry: TTE, "If you make us open carry, we will be the first targets

of the bad guys with guns" which negates their "Guns make us safer" and is kind of similar to the don't publish gun owner names & addresses, which I actually do have some sympathy for, because it will make people come after our guns.

Again, these things make you safer? So the rest of us are supposed to tolerate risks such as concealed carry, which mixes the bad guys with the "good" guys, so you can FEEL safer, even though your REALLY aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:27 PM

120. not sure why you call all pro 2A posters NRA supporters

well yeah I do know why

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:02 PM

129. What do we need the NRA for anyway? They are today just a lobbyist for gun sellers & bribe politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread