HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 45 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 03:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,089

Journal Archives

See, smearing the quarter of Dems and third of independents who own guns like that...

is part of why it's so hard to have a civil conversation on guns. Gun control advocates don't often debate things like rifle handgrip shape legislation or carry licensure or pre-1860s capacity limits on their merits, they mostly just call us names and tell us to STFU.

The problem with that is that when gun-owning Dems/indies get shut up and kicked to the corner, it turns the discussion on guns into an echo chamber dominated by the loudest voices calling for prohibition. And within that cloister, impractical, quixotic, or downright counterproductive positions start to sound reasonable and end up dominating the party's message on the subject.

Case in point, there is a thread right now in the Guns and RKBA forum wherein a gun-control advocate is seriously advocating the banning and confiscation of all self-loaders with detachable magazines. That's 75% of civilian guns right there, without even getting into the bans on pumps and high-powered bolts and revolvers that the gun-control lobby keeps demanding. Case #2, the NY SAFE Act. Case #3, the magazine confiscation just passed in California. We're talking legislation that even Europe and Canada have rejected, but you think it's not only reasonable and achievable in the United States, you think it's relatively noncontroversial.

As to the slinging of racial stereotypes, a concealed-carry licensee was murdered a few months ago by an out-of-control police officer, and the killing made national news. And it doesn't even seem to click with the namecallers and mudslingers that the victim was one of the CHL holders and gun owners that you gleefully demonize day in and day out, because he had the wrong color skin to fit your stereotypes of what a gun owner looks like. Your leaders speak up in support of Michael Bloomberg putting tens of thousands of innocent African-Americans and other minorities in Rikers for pocketknives that aren't even illegal in NY, defended the killing of Jose Guerena and countless others, and defend making simple magazine possession a crime equivalent to rape or luring a child (NY SAFE Act), because "Weapons Are Evil And People Who Own Them Have It Coming", or something.

That is not only counterproductive to the cause of violence prevention---assuming you give a crap about *that*, as opposed to simply sticking it to people you dislike---but it's also damaging to the party at large.

How are airport parking garages different from other parking garages?

And what's the rational case against permitting a licensed, trained individual to discreetly carry while she is walking to/from the airport parking garage to pick up an arriving friend, and how is that different than her carrying while walking to/from a parking garage anywhere else?

No unchecked guns are allowed past an airport's security checkpoints, and you can already bring a gun up to the baggage check-in counter *without* a license (in a case) in order to fly with one, so allowing licensed carry when dropping off or picking up passengers doesn't really change the security situation in or around the airport.

This is another example of how gun control advocates view training and licensure with contempt, and thereby shoot themselves in the foot.

You realize even the *UK* has rejected that level of ban, yes?

And that Canada has considered and resoundingly rejected such bans? As has Norway, Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, etc. etc. etc.

Semiautomatic actually doesn't matter in terms of misuse; back when criminals mostly used 6-shot revolvers and manually operated shotguns, our murder rate was roughly twice what it is now. And if all semiauto rifles and shotguns were magically replaced with Australia-legal pump-actions, it wouldn't save even a single life.

Yes, I realize that. That's why I said "75% of civilian guns" above, which would encompass

detachable-magazine pistols, in addition to Canada/Europe-legal detachable-magazine rifles and shotguns.

From your posts, your top priority does appear to be banning rifles, though, which is sort of like banning Volvos to stop car accidents..

Clinton lost by 180,000 votes here; Cooper won by 15,000 I think, so that's about a 200k delta.

Keep in mind that the delta doesn't necessarily result from split tickets; it could also result from people simply leaving the presidential portion blank, or voting a protest candidate (Johnson or Stein).

Among other things, Roy Cooper is pro-choice on guns and was NRA-endorsed in prior elections, whereas during the primaries Clinton advocated banning popular rifles and magazines that about 2 million North Carolinians own, a position that is hugely unpopular here outside of Durham/etc. I'm not sure if that's the primary reason for the split, but the margin of loss is less than 10% of that 2 million, so even a 20% undervote with 50% turnout among that group would more than account for the delta between Cooper and Clinton.

There may be other issues in play as well, e.g. Cooper being a North Carolinian vs. the NY/DC-centric tone of the campaign, but I think the proposed bans were a big one. The NY SAFE Act or California's bans would *not* play here.

An inconvenient truth...

Rifle Homicides in the United States, 2005-2015

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285
2014: 248
2015: 252

(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2015, Table 20, Collated)

"Vote for me, and I promise to put you in prison unless you conform to my beliefs"

comes across as "Don't vote for me", regardless of whether the issue is censorship, or infringement of reproductive rights, or anti-LGBTQ measures, or attempts to compel gun owners into giving up their guns. Whether that is expressed as people staying home on election day, or leaving that portion of the ballot blank, or voting third party, or whatever, the net result is lost votes.

John F. Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt would be booed out of the tent today, whereas Michael "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg is the hero of the Third Way/DLC. That is profoundly sad.

Rifle homicide is *decreasing*, not increasing, from 442/yr in 2005 to 250/yr now.

Rifle murders have steadily decreased over time, and are now hovering around 250 per year out of 13,500 murders annually.

Rifle Homicides, 2005-2015
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285
2014: 248
2015: 252
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2015, Table 20, Collated)

Most states report either zero or single-digit rifle murders in any given year. Modern-looking rifles likely account for about half of that, say 125 to 140 annually. To put that into perspective, 722 people were died in 2014 riding bicycles, 1500 were killed with knives, and 50,000 to 100,000 died due to alcohol. Which makes it doubly ludicrous that the gun control lobby's top legislative priority for a quarter-century has been rifle-ban legislation.

As to "mass shootings", that depends on how they are defined. A shootout between gang members that sends four people to the hospital is a "mass shooting" according to the "mass shooting tracker"; by that definition, the NYPD engages in "mass shootings" with some regularity, and they also occur regularly in Australia and around the world, both by LE and by criminals. The FBI's definition is a lot more realistic, but produces less sensational numbers.

I'm not convinced that the gun control lobby even cares about mass shootings except as a PR tool, because the measures they propose---legislating rifle handgrip shape, criminalizing ergonomic rifle/shotgun stocks, criminalizing post-1860s magazine capacities---do not address mass shootings in the slightest. Requiring all rifle stocks to look like this:



will save exactly zero lives, but will turn tens of millions of peaceable citizens into felons. The fact that we can barely have a civil discussion about *that* fact without people trying to derail the thread says a lot about the debate as it currently stands.

I think *that* is a perfect example of how the gun control movement has lost its way.

She isn't protesting the nearly 14,000 murders every year; she's protesting licensed, discreet carry by the peaceable and nonviolent, who are statistically far less likely to engage in aggression than the population without CHLs, or even police officers.

And in so doing, she reveals precisely how the gun control lobby feels about training, background checking, registration, and licensure; they hold it, and those who submit to it, in abject contempt. That hurts, not helps, her cause, by showing that the gun control lobby will not abide any middle ground or compromise. If you want to understand the push that is taking Vermont-style licenseless carry nationwide, there's one big reason for it.

And no, she wasn't protesting open carry; she was protesting licensed concealed by openly carrying a dildo and making derogatory insinuations, to provoke reactions. Doing so is her First Amendment right, and if she genuinely got the reactions she was trying to provoke (setting aside the cui bono question), then it would show that there are unfortunately childish personas on both sides of this discussion.

Ultimately, the gun control lobby does itself no favors by sinking her message to the level of childish culture-war playground taunts rather than rational debate. But namecalling, demonization, and penis jokes comprise pretty much the entire pro-restrictions argument these days.

She could always go compare the violence rate of CHL holders to the broader population without CHLs, or to police officers...but that would reinforce the pro-licensure side, not the CARRY LICENSURE IS JUST LIKE SEX TOYS side, so we can't have that...

Thoughts...

I don't own a gun in lieu of other security measures, but in addition to them. The gun just means that I have the option to threaten or use countervailing force in the unlikely event of a home invasion. A gun isn't a substitute for decent doors/locks, a dog if permitted, a pepper spray (Kimber Pepper Blaster is a good option that can safely be used indoors), lighting, situational awareness, security system, etc. It's not either-or.

Owning a gun is certainly a deeply personal choice, and certainly depends on one's own experience/competence with them, attention to detail, etc. I personally am a competitive shooter and have been an avid shooter for 30+ years (I'm 46 now). I'd certainly recommend training, but one of the nice things about shooting a martial art is that it is a lot of fun.

As to choice of firearm, a handgun can be kept holstered on one's person, especially if one jumps through the hoops to qualify for a carry license, and habitually carries. For sheltering in place while calling 911, a long gun (small-caliber carbine like an AR, or a shotgun) is superior in a lot of ways (more precise, more powerful), but a lot less portable.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 45 Next »