HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mr. LaPierre - You're An ...

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:58 PM

Mr. LaPierre - You're An Expert On Guns - Are There Any Guns You Would Recommend Being Banned?....

I'm just wondering what his answer to this question would be. I'm listening to this hearing today - and am sickened by the arguments given by the pro-gun people and the Repugs.

7 replies, 658 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 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mr. LaPierre - You're An Expert On Guns - Are There Any Guns You Would Recommend Being Banned?.... (Original post)
global1 Jan 2013 OP
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #1
Sheepshank Jan 2013 #2
neverforget Jan 2013 #4
malaise Jan 2013 #5
randome Jan 2013 #3
dmallind Jan 2013 #6
global1 Jan 2013 #7

Response to global1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:13 PM

1. He doesn't want background checks either

Apparently, Felons and Mentally Insane included. His solution to criminals with guns is for more "good guys" with guns to just shoot the "bad guys" with guns.

Methinks, Mr. LaPierre is INSANE and HE should not have a gun either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:16 PM

2. Immediately after Sandy Hooks

...La Pierre, representing and speaking for the NRA wanted a dabase established to list persons with mental health problems to be listed. Seriously, THIS database would be ok, but not background checks? How does one figure out the "good guys"?...take them at their own word?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:19 PM

4. Arming everyone works out well for the gun makers. Not so much for the rest of us. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:39 PM

5. He's disgusting

Meanwhile Mark Kelly is talking about another shooting in Phoenix today with multiple shots fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:18 PM

3. Of all the heart-felt stories being told at the hearing today...

...not one heart-warming story about how a high-capacity magazine or an AR-15 saved someone's life. Or did I miss it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:46 PM

6. I'm neither WLP nor particularly expert, but that's a pretty easy question

Easy, but wrong-headed assuming the intent is to save lives.

Banning types of guns makes sense only in limited cases. Heavy machine guns for example have no conceivable non-military application that cannot be met by a more efficient and wieldy alternative. If we wanted to reduce gun deaths (and I assume we all do) then we should realize that despite sensational outliers, fatalities due to exotica like semi-auto versions of military long guns are a tiny fraction of those that come from the cheap and ubiquitous .38. Banning the former (of which I own and will always own not a one - no saving personal oxen from goring here) would be like banning only Mexican cigars over 7" in length to save smoking deaths, but leaving cigarettes freely available.

Banning types of ammunition has some more valence but not much. Small caliber steel tipped bullets for example are available but rightly banned from civilian sale because their extreme penetration renders use in typical human habitation dangerous for anyone behind the legitimate target (and, probably more germane to their proscription, renders almost all body armor useless).

Banning guns that are substandard and unsafe with responsible use would do a little, and protect shooters more than the shot, but I for one see no reason to offer anything without a trigger guard or without adequate safeties that prevent firing when dropped etc. Ditto for anything which is prone to blowback or explosive fracture on misfire (yes .40 cal Glock, I mean you).

Banning types of loading devices would be little more than a feel good bandaid and may in effect risk higher body counts in mass-killing outliers as the extra-capacity magazines are far more prone to jamming than standards, but it has the advantage of probably being passable politically. Wouldn't object there either, as long as standard capacity is acknowledged to be a variable rather than fixed number.

Banning a combination of firearm and ammunition on the basis of unreasonable risk to unintended targets when used by a basically competent but inexpert user would be somewhat effective but require exceptionally thorough specification and testing. But if we do find a way to identify overpenetrative, wildly inaccurate, or otherwise uncontrollable combinations then count me in for being ok with lopping off the bad eggs. Possible examples would be the Scandium airlights with hot .357 magnum loads, FN Fivesevens with hard ball, cheap spray and pray AK replicas and so on, but again would need more rigorous examination than my thought experiment could provide.

But if you want to lessen gun deaths none of these will be serious impacts. The only things that would be are utterly unworkable and centuries away (if that) total bans, which would entail true police state tactics, a massive body count and hugely disproportionate penalties for would-be gunsmiths etc, or the far more feasible overhaul in not what guns are sold but how and to whom they are sold. Other gun-owners certainly can and definitely do disagree with me, but I could favor highly restricted sales channels with individual assessment and background checks for all sales including resales; licensing and registration of individual firearms to owners with serious penalties for illicit resale, unreported theft, or suspiciously frequent theft; requalification intervals with safety and competency testing and rechecks; a fully funded and required mental competency reporting system that was consistent in all states and applied standards that neither permanently disarmed, say, a temporarily depressed teen nor relied on spiteful or activist tittle-tattle, while removing the option for the truly high-risk individuals, even with unavoidable grey areas; a reasonable but not unduly restrictive qty limit (if you collect antique firearms, they don't all need to be functional and while yes there are different guns for different needs, the additional utility of your 5th, or 50th, double stack semi-auto in 9mm/.45ACP is not really worth much is it?).

Depends on whether you seek a doomed grandstanding cause, feel-good inanities, or tough but compromised middle ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:54 PM

7. Just Listening To This Hearing Today Makes Me Wonder Would We Be Having It Today If......

action was taken 30 years ago on gun ownership, weapons, magazines and ammunition. How many deaths might have been prevented if action that is being contemplated now was in effect for years? Would any of those kids at Sandy Hook be alive today? Would Gabby still be in Congress? Would Lanza's Mom still be alive?

One thing I didn't hear being brought up today was that shooting that took place in NYC around the Empire State Building. If I recall right - weren't there some good guys with guns there that day and didn't they inflict some wounds on some innocent bystanders?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread