HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 28 Next »


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: 11,826

Journal Archives

Not with the rest of us, either.

I think you've put your finger on the misunderstanding that cost Gore his home state in '00 and Kerry so many blue-collar Dems in '04, and that is that most gun owners Gen-X and younger don't own the same styles of guns that were/are popular with the Baby Boomer generation. So tailoring legislation around straight-stocked rifles, revolvers, and large-caliber single-stack pistols hasn't made sense for 40+ years now; by and large, that's not what we own. I don't expect you necessarily to approve of our choices, but it's good to at least understand the scope of what you're advocating. FWIW, I'm a Gen-X gunnie and casual USPSA competitor,

What Gore/Kerry didn't understand is that banning rifle handgrips that stick out, when the most popular rifles in U.S. homes have handgrips that stick out, is a slap in the face to mainstream rifle owners, not just to fringe types who play dress-up on the weekends. Given that handgrip shape has nothing to do with rifle lethality, and rifles are the least misused of all weapons (all rifles put together kill fewer Americans annually than bicycles), the *only* thing such bans do is harass lawful owners.

Likewise, banning magazines over 10 rounds has much broader impact than you think, given that 15+ round rifle magazines have been mainstream since the 1860s, and most smallish-caliber carbines and full-sized 9mm pistols have used such magazines since the 1930's. Banning anything over 10 rounds would affect 50+ million owners and probably a third of a billion magazines; it's not a fringe thing.

If the NRA membership is 5 million,

then there are about five times as many "assault weapon" owners as there are NRA members, two or three times as many carry license holders as NRA members, and twelve or fifteen times as many owners of over-10-round magazines as there are NRA members.

If the NRA disappeared tomorrow, the backlash against attempts to outlaw the most popular guns and magazines in U.S. homes would not abate; it would just find a different outlet. My money would be on the Second Amendment Foundation at the national level, though most pro-gun advocacy is through state-level organizations (like Grassroots North Carolina in my state, or the Virginia Citizens' Defense League).

Because we don't line babies' cribs with lead bullets,

nor do we cover our baseboards with them or let toddlers teethe on them. If you leave bullets where an infant or toddler could eat them, you will probably find yourself in some trouble at the ER.

Any chance that lead ammo use might be reduced in favor of alternatives was eliminated when the gun control lobby banned the best alternatives to lead as "armor piercing". You can't have it both ways.

Solid copper bullets for handguns and the most popular rifle calibers

are banned by Federal law as armor-piercing, IIRC. Most of the practical alternatives to lead are similarly banned as AP, because they are harder than lead and therefore more penetrative. The virtues of lead are its density, softness, and abundance. Gold would also work, but obviously is cost prohibitive.

Solid copper is used in some big-game hunting loads (e.g. Barnes X-bullet) because it penetrates like crazy, since it doesn't deform much on impact.

Composite projectiles have very short range, as do aluminum projectiles. The old Thunderzap rounds (LE only) were aluminum, as I recall. I wonder if a .357 could drive a lightweight composite or aluminum projectile fast enough to penetrate NIJ IIIA armor; I know the Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (that famously took down the Air France hijackers in the '90s, among other things) used to use .357's with AP bullets.

You dredged up a story from eleven YEARS ago?

Since that was written, at least a hundred million new guns were purchased by U.S. gun owners, and the murder rate dropped. The "assault weapon ban" expired, and rifle murders dropped. Now, eleven years later, the U.S. murder rate is at historic lows.

It's ironic that even back in 2004 in that article, gun control advocates acknowledged that modern-looking rifles weren't a crime problem, even though rifle crime was higher then than it is now. Though that hasn't stopped you guys from trying to outlaw them...

This is a riot control weapon

that can still kill if fired at the head instead of the torso (did you read the article?)

It's a longer-range alternative to beanbag rounds, which are also lethal if misused. Used very carefully, they can distract someone and cause a lot of pain without causing lethal injury, but it's not something that would be used in lieu of a firearm, or a taser for that matter.

Another example of the "assault weapon" meme shutting down rational thought.

Does he realize that two or three times as many Americans are killed annually riding bicycles? Better dump that Dorel Industries/Pacific Cycles stock. And it would be supremely ironic if the pension fund invests in alcohol companies...

Of course, the "assault weapon" fraud has never been about gun misuse, or saving lives.

Especially ironic...

since this same newpaper just last month called for the forced confiscation of the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, even though rifles kill fewer people than bicycles do.

I commend the President for not going down that road; I was relieved to see absolutely none of that in the executive actions announced this week. It's certainly not for lack of lobbying by the NYT, other large media corporations, Wall Street tycoons, and Third Way groups.

From just this past month:

New Republic:

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

"Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them."

New York Times:


"It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles (sic) used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."

Given that you blithely suggested a proposal that wouldn't even fly in Europe...

without so much as a "in my ideal end state" caveat, then yes, I figured you were one of those that didn't fully understand the scope of what you were advocating.

It is my experience that the majority of gun control advocates and journalists think that "semiautomatic" describes niche weapons that constitute the minority of guns sold and fire faster than "typical" civilian guns, rather than one-shot-at-a-time weapons that constitute 75% of the civilian market.

That's as ridiculous as claiming that beer should be treated like cocaine.

"Semiautomatic" is how the overwhelming majority of civilian guns work. It means a gun that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled.

An office stapler is semiauto; a sewing machine is automatic. Methinks you are either conflating the two, or else don't realize that you're advocating banning and confiscating most of the civilian guns in U.S. homes.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 28 Next »