Buzzflash: Had Enough Yet?

[MrBenchley]

Great piece....

"The most spectacular change in the U.S. civilian firearms market since the end of the Second World War has been the rise of the handgun. In 1946 handguns were only eight percent of firearms sold. Beginning in the mid-1960s this changed. Handgun sales are now twice the level of 40 years ago, consistently averaging about 40 percent of the overall market.
Not only that, the industry is making handguns smaller and more powerful so they can be concealed more easily and do more damage when used. The Austrian company Glock, one of the biggest handgun marketers in America, dubbed its contribution the "Pocket Rocket."
So those corny old movies and nostalgic television shows are right. In 1946, you could go to a party and maybe somebody would get angry. Maybe a punch or two would be thrown. But it would be darned rare for somebody to pull out a Pocket Rocket and start shooting. Not because people were better then, but because handguns were scarce. Not any more. Now every husband who decides to come home and pop the wife has a handgun readily at hand. Every depressed kid or senior who wants to end it all has a handgun. And every nitwit who wants to feel like a big man at a barbecue has a handgun.
There are a few ideological fantasists who are so hooked on the power of the gun that they claim the answer is simply more guns, to arm more people so they can "defend themselves" and "shoot back."
Jenna Cooper was enjoying a party. The bullet that hit her in the neck and took her life first traveled through another guest’s scalp. How in the name of blessed reason could she have defended herself from that bizarre sequence with yet another gun? "

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04189.html

[el_gato]

1. typical straw man arguement

Right here:

There are a few ideological fantasists who are so hooked on the power of the gun that they claim the answer is simply more guns, to arm more people so they can "defend themselves" and "shoot back."

The truth:

People are against government control of guns because governments
are ripe for takeover by totalitarian elements.



But hey, it's your fantasy world not mine.

[MrBenchley]

3. Nope, gato, just common sense...

[Sandpiper]

6. Common sense has never been a companion

of the gun nut lobby.

[MrBenchley]

8. Yup...

We can't do anything about the epidemic of gun violence that afflicts us because some "enthusiasts" need their popguns for the glorious revolution to come....(snicker)

[el_gato]

10. Yup is right, Big Brother is gonna protect you

NOT!

[Sandpiper]

15. No the NRA will

Hahaha!!!!!!!

[el_gato]

20. Can you at least try harder?

sheesh

[Sandpiper]

22. Try harder

As opposed to your right wing talking points?

[el_gato]

30. Yes, Try Harder

can you not understand anything but bush style binary thinking

Here is your mindset:

"If you believe in the right to own a gun you must be
a right wing ideologue and a servant of the NRA"

Now here is the reality:

There are people in this country including me who believe that
the current government is getting out of control and becoming
way too powerful. We are losing our liberty at a rapid pace.

[Sandpiper]

36. I'm truly dazzled by your logic

There are people in this country including me who believe that
the current government is getting out of control and becoming
way too powerful. We are losing our liberty at a rapid pace.

Uh huh. So what's your point. I'm supposed to buy a gun for the upcoming revolution? Is that it? Or is that by having guns, we will be able to prevent the erosion of liberty in this country?

Hmmm. There are already millions of gun owners in the United States, and last I checked, the Patriot Act is still in force, detainees are still be illegally held in Guantanamo, Bush is still president, and the PNAC agenda is still going ahead full steam.

If gun ownership is supposed to protect us from tyranny, and gun owners are supposed to be defenders of liberty, all I can say is that you gun enthusiasts have been doing a pretty piss poor job so far.

[el_gato]

39. You have actually said something I can agree with

Which is "If gun ownership is supposed to protect us from tyranny, and gun owners are supposed to be defenders of liberty, all I can say is that you gun enthusiasts have been doing a pretty piss poor job so far."

But then the gun grabbers are not helping either.

Nonetheless, I can't be a stooge for one side or the other.

[MrBenchley]

45. Just look at the fear on the face of that tyrant Cheney

as he faced a crowd of gun owners weekend before last...


Of course, even he made the gun owners go through metal detectors before he went near them...but then he knows what a dangerous and crazy bunch they are.

[el_gato]

46. ah, the old bench favorite

Since you don't want to talk about the subject at hand.

[MrBenchley]

48. That IS the subject at hand, gato....

But go ahead and scream and pout....

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

47. here's what I've got from it so far

There are people in this country including me who believe that
the current government is getting out of control and becoming
way too powerful. We are losing our liberty at a rapid pace.
Uh huh. So what's your point.

We (well, you, in the "national" sense of "you") are stuck in an infantile stage of development.

It might be the terrible twos, when the child just says "no! no!" all the time. It's the first stage of separation from the parent, of the child's awareness of personal identity.

It might be adolescence, another important stage in the establishment of an independent identity and personality, when the child moves from just saying "no!" to saying "you're not the boss of me!" and doing weird and often very stupid things just because someone told him/her not to.

"Freedom! freedom!" in the mouths of George W. Bush and his imitators, sounds just as infantile, to the rest of us out here in the world, as "no! no!" and "you're not the boss of me!" The previous King George is long dead, and the rest of us just wish that the lot of you would get over it and grow the hell up, eh?

Children and adolescents demand, and need, "freedom" so that they can determine the course of their own lives, and actually do stuff that is meaningful to them. The freedom to jump off a bridge isn't uppermost in most people's minds in that respect.

Freedom simply is not an end in itself. It is the means by which people, and peoples, live their lives. It is a tool, not a goal.

There are all sorts of things that one might be, and is, "free" to do. In our societies, there are also a large number of things that we are not free to do. Some of the things that we are free to do are totally and utterly pointless, and not things that any of us would ever choose to do. Some of the things that we are not free to do are extremely harmful to other people or our society, but some people would choose to do them anyway.

"Freedom" is the given; we should be free to do something unless there is good reason to restrict that freedom.

But "freedom" just IS NOT a reason for doing something. Not to anyone but a pissed off or stupid 14-year-old, anyway.

So when I hear all this "freedom" talk, I hear one of two things.

- pointless adolescent rebellion, foot-stamping and whining directed at some authority figure who is perceived as trying to be the boss of someone;

- a smoke screen thrown up by someone who wants to do a particular thing for reasons of his/her own, and damn the reasons that anyone else might have for wanting to prevent him/her from doing it, in the hope that the discourse of "freedom" will conceal the real aim.

The former are the dim; the latter are the disingenuous hoping to deceive the dim.

And that's about the size of what I've figured out so far.

.

[el_gato]

49. Can you post something besides blathering insults

If so I might take you seriously


You can't address the issue so you go on a very long rant
trying to explain how If I say X I really mean Y.

That's an awful lot like the kind of crap people like rush limbaugh practice.

[MrBenchley]

51. You will notice

the only "freedom" our friend gato seems to want to acknowledge is the freedom to shoot his fellow citizens....and the freedom of the gun lobby to cash in wherever they can, free of big govenrment interference.

[el_gato]

52. Again you attempt to fight a straw man instead of address the issue

pathetic

So much for your intellectual honesty.

Maybe one day you'll stop hiding and start thinking.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

55. What else needs to be said?

Peddle it walking, gato.

[el_gato]

153. the pathological hatred of anybody who does not tow the anti-gun line

Oh how I wish there were at least a few anti-gun people here who
would consider discussing this issue in a rational manner without
the use of demonization, whining, smears, and hate.

Just once it would be nice if the discussion did not involve trash like
"scummy" etc.

Instead we have the usual suspects come here and personally attack
anybody who does not agree with the anti-gun agenda.

Maybe the anti-gun gang would get somewhere if they kept to the issues
instead of waging personal attacks on anybody who does not agree with them.

[iverglas]

71. here's the question

There are people in this country including me who believe that
the current government is getting out of control and becoming
way too powerful. We are losing our liberty at a rapid pace.

Why do you CARE about whether you are "free" to acquire, own, transfer, tote, use, play with or do anything else with/to guns?

You aren't free to poop in the city park. You aren't free to drive at 75 mph through a school zone. You aren't free to marry five people at once. You aren't free to vote against Bush the day after tomorrow. You aren't free to stand up in the US Senate visitors' gallery and sing La Marseillaise. You aren't free to slaughter goats in your back yard. You aren't free to go to a movie without paying. You aren't free to travel to Cuba. You aren't even free to travel into my living room if you're not invited.

Your freedom is being trampled left and right, it seems to me. What is it about these gun things that has caught your attention when so many others seem to have eluded it?

You aren't actually using them to defend these freedoms you have lost, as has been pointed out -- and of course there are all sorts of other ways of doing that anyhow -- so there just has to be some other reason for this selective fixation on "freedom".

Why do you care about the "freedom" to do whatever you see fit with guns, and not about the "freedom" to do whatever you see fit in so many other ways?

A two-year-old doesn't say "no! no!" when someone hands him a popsicle. A fourteen-year-old doesn't say "you're not the boss of me!" when someone tells her to stay out as late as she likes. And you apparently don't say "freedom! freedom!" when the government tells you not to poop in the park.

You obviously want to be "free" to do what *you* like, which quite obviously happens to have something to do with guns. Why can't/don't you just put it out there and defend it?

All this "freedom" crap may work as herring for the easily distracted. Me, I don't give a shit. Freedom can be limited when there is justification. I don't see you denying that, actually.

.

[el_gato]

158. talk about a red herring

At least be honest Iver

Laws are in place to prevent one persons actions from
encroaching on the freedom of another persons actions.
My ownership of a gun has absolutely nothing to do with
your life and how you live it.

But you have exposed yourself as an individual who has absolutely
not respect for individual liberty.

Oh and by the way, I can slaughter a goat in my backyard if I want.
Why you brought up this rediculous example is a mystery to me.

Now that you are on the record saying you don't give a shit about freedom you have lost any respect I had for your opinion.

[iverglas]

183. uh, no

At least be honest Iver
Laws are in place to prevent one persons actions from
encroaching on the freedom of another persons actions.

Okay, I'll be honest.

I don't have a clue what that is supposed to mean.

But this most certainly is not why "laws are in place", whatever it might mean.

But you have exposed yourself as an individual who has absolutely
not respect for individual liberty.

And you have confirmed that you are one who has no respect for the truth.

Now that you are on the record saying you don't give a shit about freedom you have lost any respect I had for your opinion.

Do you want to buy some quotation marks? I can sell you some used, cheap. Then you can go back and pluck what I actually said from my post, and attach the quotation marks, and we'll know whose opinion deserves respect. Not the one who makes false statements about other people, in my book.

Let's save you the bother. Here's what I said, that I assume is what you are misrepresenting here ... or have sadly failed to understand:

All this "freedom" crap may work as herring for the easily distracted. Me, I don't give a shit. Freedom can be limited when there is justification. I don't see you denying that, actually.

What I don't give a shit about, my fine friend, is all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "freedom" -- "all this 'freedom' crap" -- engaged in by many here.

And the reasons I don't give a shit about it are, variously:

- because they really don't give a shit about freedom themselves, and are only pretending to in an attempt to pull the wool over others' eyes about what they're really up to, and so there is absolutely no reason for me to give a shit when they wail and gnash about "freedom";

- because they don't have the wherewithal to enage in a discussion of the actual issues and can only fall back on wailing and gnashing about something that is not in dispute;

- because the issue is not freedom, it is whether there is justification for interfering in the things that some people wish to do in the exercise of their freedom, as it is in the case of any public policy/law in the universe.

All the "freedom" shit spread around here is no more meaningful than it would be if it were being spread by people who wanted to poop in the park. The issue is whether society has justification for prohibiting or restricting certain activities.

Freedom *is* subject to justifiable restriction, and anybody who thinks that wailing and gnashing is an appropriate way of participating in a discussion of the justifiability of any particular restriction is quite dim, while anyone who knows that it is not and does it anyway is quite disingenuous.

Not that anyone hereabouts would fall into either category.

.

[el_gato]

184. again you can't address what I have said so you build a straw man

Pooping in the park is not the same as owning a gun.
How exactly is my ownership of a gun analogous to pooping in the park?

How does it affect you? Do you plan on rummaging through my stuff
and are afraid a gun might go off?
In other words your logic makes absolutely no sense.


By the way, why are you and your gang so obsessed with fecal matter?
You constantly refer to fecal matter in the process of presenting
your views. Is there some type of obsession you have with feces?

[iverglas]

186. makin' it real simple like

How exactly is my ownership of a gun analogous to pooping in the park?

Because it is something that people are capable of doing and something that some people want to do. And it is something that we are all "free" to do. Unless and until some restriction is placed on our "freedom".

Because when you choose to talk about "freedom" and nothing else, you are stuck with the implications.

If "freedom!!!" is sufficient response to proposals to impose controls on access to firearms, then "freedom!!!" is sufficient response to proposals to impose controls on where people poop, or on anything else that anyone might ever want to do.


In other words your logic makes absolutely no sense.

No, sweetheart. Whatever this picture that you are trying to draw of my "logic" is makes no sense.


Laws do not "restrict freedom". They restrict freedom to do something. All laws do that.

There are various kinds of justification for laws that restrict freedom. That one you made up ... how did it go ... "to prevent one persons actions from encroaching on the freedom of another persons actions" ... isn't really one of them. I mean, except in the case of laws against things like forcible confinement, eh?


How does <my ownership of a gun> affect you? Do you plan on rummaging through my stuff and are afraid a gun might go off?

Hmm. How would it affect me if someone killed you? Not at all, not a single solitary whit. And yet I still think there should be laws against it.

Of course, I've never said there should be any law against your ownership of a firearm, have I? Do answer, please, just so that I can be sure you know what you're talking about before we proceed.

Nonetheless, if you own a firearm, there are various ways it could affect me. Particularly if it is a handgun, the kind that is a favourite for being smuggled into Canada and used to cause harm.

You could leave it lying around where it is stolen, or you could sell it on to someone who sells it on to someone else, and it could then be smuggled into Canada and used to kill me. Or someone I know. Or even someone I don't know, which I'd still think was a bad thing. (In fact, those things could happen and the firearm might never leave the US, and just be used to kill or harm someone there, and I'd still think that was a bad thing too, if you'll forgive my having an opinion about something so plainly none of my business.)

Just f'r instance.

.

[el_gato]

189. you are still espousing a bad analogy

Pooping in the park is something that hinders people
in their ability to enjoy public commons.

A gun sitting in my house has absolutely no effect on
your ability to go about your life unimpeded.

But then again I am also not responsible for your
fear of others.

As well, your arguements could apply to automobiles
and given the fact that cars kill way more people every year
than guns shouldn't you tackle the bigger problems first?

The problem with life is that risk is inherent. I suppose
we could be more like Singapore where almost every aspect
of personal behaviour is regulated and people get publicly
beaten for spitting on the sidewalk, but I'm willing to take
that risk in exchange for self determination. Furthermore,
even in the instance where these types of draconian restrictions
are in place you will still not be protected from all potential
harm. Risk is a fact of life.

[iverglas]

195. try again

Pooping in the park is something that hinders people
in their ability to enjoy public commons.

Not unless they step in it, it doesn't. Besides, if I never go into the park, why should I give a pinch of it?

A gun sitting in my house has absolutely no effect on
your ability to go about your life unimpeded.

As long as it isn't stolen or sold on, or used by you to shoot me when I'm visiting town, it hasn't.

Works both ways, doesn't it now?

You pooping in your park has absolutely no effect on my ability to go about my life unimpeded.

A gun sitting in your house hinders me in my ability to enjoy the public commons when it is used to shoot me.


But then again I am also not responsible for your
fear of others.

Indeed. No more than I am responsible for your false representations of me.


As well, your arguements could apply to automobiles
and given the fact that cars kill way more people every year
than guns shouldn't you tackle the bigger problems first?

I dunno -- why don't you explain first why you are pretending that I have never had anything to say on this unceasing and imbecilic attempt to compare apples and oranges?


The problem with life is that risk is inherent.

Isn't it just? Some people just don't seem to be able to cope with that fact. They gotta tote guns around on their person, just in case.


I'm willing to take
that risk in exchange for self determination.

And of course, as I have pointed out more than once in the past, the risk that you are so willing to take is not a risk to yourself. But it's mighty generous of you to offer to take it, all the same.

The risk to yourself -- the perceived risk, that is -- is precisely the one that you and your chums are apparently *not* willing to take, else you wouldn't be so fired up about being able to tote guns around with you every minute of the day.


Furthermore,
even in the instance where these types of draconian restrictions
are in place you will still not be protected from all potential
harm. Risk is a fact of life.

There you absolutely have it! So can we just get on with beating some of those handguns into hoes now?

.

[el_gato]

196. Okay this is the weakest effort you have put forth yet

I don't even feel compelled to respond.

[pretzel4gore]

44. couldn't it be your local gov't?

community policing or something? i see people everyday who, to put it bluntly, i'd prefer to shoot to dealing with....thank god no one, not even bikers, carry guns here (canada) unless they're doing biz (rubbing out competitors, protecting shipments of drugs or other contriband ie legit criminal stuff)
lol

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

11. What IS the real issue, gato? Huh?

That you need a popgun so you can shoot your fellow Americans in some future revolution?

"we are locked up in padded rooms "for our own safety""
No comment....tempting as the offer is.

[Sandpiper]

12. Quick, into the bunker

The black helicopters are on their way.

[el_gato]

18. You are running from the facts and instead hide behind lame insults

I guess you think the Partiot Act is just a myth.
I guess you think the militarizaiton of the police is just
a rumor.
Same for citizen spy programs being set up by criminals like Poindexter.


Wake up now or wake up later. It's your choice.
Of course some people enbrace their own slavery rather eagerly.

The denial in here is rather palpable sometimes.

[Sandpiper]

21. Pardon my pointing this out

But the NRA and the gun lobby are squarely in the wingnut camp.

You spout gun lobby talking points yet completely gloss over the fact that the gun lobby are Bushco backers all the way.

[el_gato]

26. Maybe the world is just too complex for you

So instead you go back to the same talking points.

Do you want to discuss the issues with me or with the NRA.
If you want to argue with the NRA call them.
I speak for myself, although that may be a little difficult for you to understand.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

32. Very interesting

says alot about you

Now lets get back to the real issues:

We are losing our freedom in this country at a rapid pace.
The right is waging a war on freedom of speach, assembly, privacy,
and association.

The paternalistic elements of the left are also excuse makers
for the loss of privacy, and the ever increasing militancy of the police. As well, using the worn our "it's for your saftey" excuse, they are also making it possible for ever increasing government intrusions
into private matters.

Due to this dual assault on liberty we are losing our freedom.

The gun grabbers are part and parcel to this loss of liberty.

[TX-RAT]

33. Don't sweet talk him Sandpiper, tell him like it is.

You forgot delusional.

[el_gato]

35. So name calling is about all you've got

this is just way too easy

[Sandpiper]

37. The funniest thing about you is

That you think you're making some sort of salient argument.

Ok, if your point is: "We're rapidly losing freedoms in this country."

My rejoinder is: And you and your gun(s) have done absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening.

*YAWN*

[el_gato]

38. And yet you want to make it worse?

Your rejoinder does not address the issue.

We are losing our freedom so your solution is to give up more of it?

That makes no sense.

[Sandpiper]

42. Your "Issue" is a the very definition of a non sequitir

We're losing freedoms in this country, therefore we need guns. :crazy:

Two completely unrelated ideas as you have yet to come up with a shred of evidence that the latter is preventing the former.

You haven't a rhetorical leg left on which to stand, so you switch to another non sequitir: "Your solution to losing freedom is giving more of it up."

I'm guessing you probably weren't captain of the debate team.

[el_gato]

43. Maybe you should go back to school

You are the one without a position.

You admit we are losing freedom and then you hold the position
that we should lose even more of our freedom.


You are holding two contradictory positions.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

41. Name calling means you've lost

too bad for you

Your not even helping your side

[MrBenchley]

27. That's gun nut "logic" or whatever it is....

According to the RKBA crowd here, the only way to oppose what the Republicans want is to bend over and spread cheeks and give them exactly what they want....

Actually opposing the GOP's corrupt chums and their idiotic programs is somehow helping them.

[el_gato]

14. So I guess you think the current situation in this country is just great

Nevermind the fact that bushco. is totally corrupt and
has been making an effort to destroy every bit of freedom we have
in this country.

Nah, you don't give a shit.

[MrBenchley]

29. Guess again, gato...

You ain't come within shouting distance of reality yet....

[el_gato]

34. more running from the issues

Why do you not even address them?

Do you think an ever increasingly powerful government is a good thing?
Do you believe in the right to privacy?
What happens when a government becomes tyrranical? Would you still want to give it more power?

I would appreciate it if you addressed these questions.

[CO Liberal]

57. Pro-Gunners Don't Recognize Common Sense

They see it so rarely....

[el_gato]

148. Your position is not Common Sense even though you wish it so

typical binary thinking a la the rush limbaugh
"your either wish us or we will heap loads of invective on you"
that is your position

[CO Liberal]

64. I Wouldn't WANT Your Fantasy World, Gato

Sounds like it sucks.

[el_gato]

147. what the hell are you whining about now CO?

Are you saying that this government is not waging a war on civil liberties?

ARe you not aware of what's going on here in the U.S.?

[TX-RAT]

154. Please tell us Gato

Please tell us what you think is going on here in the US.

[el_gato]

164. Why don't you tell me what you think is going in

I have already said that we are losing our liberty due to the out of control invasion of the government into every aspect of our personal lives. They are creating databases to track your purchasing habits, your movement, your political associations, etc. etc.
This is also coupled with the physical surveillance of all public spaces and these surveillance systems are now being pushed into ever more private spaces.
This is also coupled with ever increasing government secrecy and the passage of anti-constitutional legislation like the patriot act.

Now why don't you tell me what you think is going on since
you seem to think these things are not happening?

[TX-RAT]

172. OK

I know of no liberties I have lost due to government invasion of my life.
My names been in data bases for as long as i can remember, so what i have nothing to hide.
Physical surveillance hasn't hampered my life style at all. Now if i was a criminal set on committing a crime in an area with cameras, that would be a problem.
Never said these things weren't happening. All I've said is its not a inconvenience to me. I simply don't share the same fears as you.

[el_gato]

173. ah, the old "it hasn't happened to me yet" position

[TX-RAT]

178. Please explain whats happen to you.

[el_gato]

180. there are tons of examples of what is happening

Did you not witness the police state in Miami during the FTAA talks?
Are you not aware of the pens that have been set up to incarcerate protesters?
Did you not pay attention to the widespread abuse of Americans exercising their right to freely assemble during the protests leading up to the invasion of Iraq?
If you were too busy to pay attention to these events you will
have ample opportunity to watch the upcoming destruction of the right
to freely assemble in NYC during the RNC.

You can hide your head in the sand if you want.

[TX-RAT]

181. Again, please explain what happen to you.

[el_gato]

182. do you not believe in the basic rights under the constitution

when the systematic destruction of our rights to freely assemble happens in this country it affects us all

As well, I took part in these protests and was subject to police harrassment along with everyone else.

so your little red herring is lame at best

Here's a little article for you:




Diverse Groups Line Up To Fight Patriot Act's Extension
by Beth Wilson
May 5, 2004
Amarillo Globe-News

(snips)

Passed just 44 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the act has drawn critics from all sides.

At the top of that list is the American Civil Liberties Union.

Will Harrell, executive director ACLU of Texas, said the Patriot Act represents the greatest erosion of civil liberties since the group began. It attacks, among other liberties, the right to privacy, freedom of association, and is a violation of the equal protection clause, he said.

Members of the Gun Owners of America, a 300,000-member group that relies heavily on its members to lobby congress directly, have weighed in with support of the Safe Act and with opposition to the Patriot Act's renewal or any expansion, Executive Director Larry Pratt said.

"Gun owners are sensitive to having their privacy respected," he said. "Weakening the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy in the name of fighting an enemy most gun owners agree needs to be fought, we're not persuaded the remedy is an appropriate one."

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/05/05/8161519

[TX-RAT]

187. I've spent most of my life protecting peoples rights.

Again there has been no systematic destruction of my rights.

The only protest experience I've had was when the doctor told me to quit cigars and whiskey.

Sadly, every time people gather to peacefully protest, theres also those that are there simply to disrupt. People have the right to protest, they don't have the right to disrupt.

[el_gato]

193. So now you are making excuses for the widespread abuse of citizens

that occurred in Miami by trying to label them as disrupters
when it has been heavily documented that the people being abused
were doing nothing but walking down the street with a sign
that reads something like "Stop the FTAA"

Maybe you ought to spend some time reseaching what is actually happening.

You can start here if you are interested:
http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?list=type&type=15

[TX-RAT]

194. Did i say that, NO

There are those that go to protests simply to disrupt. When that happens sadly everybody gets blamed.

As far as researching your interests, no thank you. I don't need fear and paranoia in my life.

[el_gato]

197. You made the excuses for widespread oppression

and now you don't want to see anything that might would
contradict your view.

You are in denial.

[el_gato]

199. Unprovoked Police Violence in Miami

Miami Police Engage in Unnecessary Violence Against Public Protests of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)

Miami, FL - Massive police presence and unprovoked police violence marked early morning protests today on the streets of Miami. As people marched down Biscayne Boulevard holding signs, banners and puppets, and chanting their opposition to a trade agreement that threatens to undermine the livelihood of people throughout the hemisphere, they were met by aggressive riot police who used weapons such as tear gas, pepper spray, tasers, and concussion grenades in an attempt to disrupt them.

"I saw no justification for the vast array of weaponry used by the police this morning," said Danielle Redden, a legal worker with Miami Activist Defense, on the streets at the time of the altercations. "Without cause, riot police charged the crowd and were literally beating people with clubs as they attempted to march down the street."

http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=206

[el_gato]

2. Of course I shouldn't have even replied to you

Since I already know your responses. LOL!

[MrBenchley]

4. Hell, I can always use a laugh...

and you sure provide plenty.

[iverglas]

5. and boom

Goes another one of those disingenuous "statistical" "arguments". The one about how there has been a (relatively) constant proportion of firearms-owners in the US population in the last few decades.

'Course, I already smashed it to smithereens, but I like this revisiting of it.

Fifty years ago, the proportion of the US population that owned firearms was more or less the same as today. But the firearms that they owned, and the purposes for which they owned and used them, were very different.

A handgun IS NOT "the same as" a hunting rifle. Period, full stop.

.

[MrBenchley]

7. Seems like we were making that argument ourselves

not too long ago.

Must be almost time for someone to complain that Buzzflash is a left wing source and has liberal bias....

[RoeBear]

17. I thought it was the assault weapons...

...that we needed to ban, now it's pistols. Would you please make up your mind.

[slackmaster]

25. Buzzflash IS a left-wing, biased source

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And I've seen your own essay on it BTW.

[TX-RAT]

16. Would be interesting to know

It would be interesting to know how much of an impact the dumping of used WW2 pistols made. Hundreds of thousand of used 45 autos and 45 revolvers were sold dirt cheap after the war.



Thanks for the fishing tip.

[slackmaster]

31. A lot more pistols than that were imported as relics after the war

Not just US ones. Bringing captured enemy weapons home as war trophies was a long-standing military tradition that ended only very recently (for US soldiers).

The number of 1911-type pistols made for the civilian market after the war far exceeds the number of used military ones sold on the open market.

[RoeBear]

13. So much bullshit, so little time...

..but let's start here:

"The problem is that America is awash with firearms hyper-marketed by a relentless and unregulated gun industry."

Hyper marketed? WTF, when have you ever seen a gun ad?

Unregulated? WTF, they have a whole federal department on their case.

[RoeBear]

19. Nice of Tom to make an arguement for concealed carry...

"How about the office. Bad idea. A co-worker might come in packing to settle an obscure score that has been sloshing around in his cranial brew for years. What about church, or synagogue, or mosque? Nope, that’s been tried. Angry, gun-toting people cork off there, too. Churches have been shot up, even priests officiating masses. Ditto, synagogues and mosques. Schoolyards, the Empire State Building, shopping malls, even the U.S. Capitol have been turned into shooting galleries. Oh, yeah, and the road rage shooters are out there, waiting to be crossed. One of them just might take the occasion of your flight to safety to decide that you are in too big a hurry, made too sharp a turn, or just plain look like a good candidate for road kill."

[MrBenchley]

24. Just the opposite, roe...

He's making a damn good argument why neurotics and flabby Republicans ought to be kept from lugging pistols around in public.

[Township75]

58. Only an anti gunner would say...

its a good arguement when it has no data to back it up, just sob stories.

Here is a sob story for you Bench, the majority of states are Right To Carry, not one has repealed it, not one is running in streets with blood, though a few are running with anti gun racists nazi pedophile horseshit.

The last line says it all:
Tom Diaz is the Senior Policy Analsyt a the Violence Policy Center.

The VPC = the shit hole of the anti gun lobby.

[MrBenchley]

60. Plenty of data there...

"not one is running in streets with blood"
Between 80,000-115,000 Americans are shot every fucking year...that's more than enough blood running in the streets to sicken me. Of course I realize the trigger happy amongst us want more....

[RoeBear]

62. And what does THAT have to do...

...with CCW?

[MrBenchley]

63. Every fucking thing...

It's a crappy idea, and produced no results whatsoever other than an increase in danger to the public.

[RoeBear]

75. Prove it...

..prove that CCW permit holders have increased the crime rate.

[MrBenchley]

84. Gee, roe...

The whole fucking excuse for letting loonies run around the streets with their popguns in their pockets is that they're suppose to CUT the crime rate...which turns out to be a big fat LIE.

[el_gato]

114. you can't prove anything so you revert back to shouting insults

as usual

[slackmaster]

125. Eat your spinach, MrBenchley

If I tell you it will make you strong like Popeye and that turns out to be a lie, what's it to you?

[CO Liberal]

65. I Guess Some Of Those Pro-Gunners Figure.....

...that as long as day-to-day life in America isn't like the opening credits of "Police Squad!" (where everybody was involved in gunfiguts with people off-camera), that everything is just dandy.

[MrBenchley]

66. Don't know how many more people need to get shot

before they get their rocks off....

[el_gato]

168. tells us benchly, how many times have YOU been shot at?

we would like to know

[minavasht]

59. Some people here like to spend their time digging for gun crimes

I’d like to have some links to the latest mass murders in police or sheriffs stations?
When was the last one?

[MrBenchley]

61. And some just babble whatever gun nut nonsense

they half-remember...

But with as much gun violence as we have in thsi country, it sure doesn't take much digging to find stories of America's gun owners being dangerous to themselves and others....

[minavasht]

68. Is this an attempt to answer my question about the shootings in police sta

Very informative!

P.S. Still trying to remember why you were talking about proposals when we were talking about the actual ‘94 AWB?
:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

72. No, I'm not going to bother

to answer nonsense questions....

[slackmaster]

23. Would that be the same Tom Diaz who said expiration of the AW ban

Wouldn't make very much difference because "assault weapons" are defined based on cosmetic features, and the gun industry simply removed the offending ones?

[ufansdilligaf]

67. Tom Diaz is just a hack from Handgun Control INC

With anti-2nd people like Tom Diaz helping Bush win who needs common sense? Maybe he and ted rall can start a Elect Bush 2004 campaign.

[iverglas]

69. look who's here!

Wondered what would be considered a decent time for somebody to just kinda hang out, before casually popping up in J/PS, when I saw you elsewhere here today. Eleven posts is a good rule of thumb, is it?

I once watched a friend of mine make her way through a crowd at a campaign party, slowly and indirectly but very purposefully, to end up beside the man that nobody but me knew she was "seeing". Skillfully executed to avoid notice, it was. I suppose that certain forms of armed warfare call for similar skills, dashing from tree to rock ...


So, I give up. Do you give a fuck?

[ufansdilligaf]

70. She Chameleon

While we are wearing casual dress...

"From the dolequeue to the regiment a profession in a flash
But remember Monday signings when from door to door you dash
On the news a nation mourns you unknown soldier count the cost
For a second you'll be famous but labelled posthumous" -dick

Oh...back to the chameleon reference (since we are all adults here)...

"So was it just a fuck, was it just a fuck, just another fuck I said
Loving just for laughs, carnal autograph, lying on a lizard’s bed
So was it just a fuck, was it just a fuck, just another fuck I bled
Degraded and alone, raped and still forlorn
Betrayed on a lizard’s bed, on a lizards bed
We chameleon, we chameleon, we (oui!) chameleon" -dick

done, did and do.

[MrBenchley]

74. Wonder who kicked over the rock...

and how long it will last in the fresh air...

[ufansdilligaf]

79. All dungeons need a bit of fresh air to clean out the mildew

Now and again. The stench of fascist dreams of disarming Americans is an odor that is foul as the dungeon is dark. I am here to help shed the light on truth, freedom and the pursuit of self-defense. If you feel that I can't keep up then it's because I'm so far ahead of the circle that I'm on the pace to lap...

[MrBenchley]

80. Lost in the ozone again....

"I am here to help shed the light on truth"
Not hardly....

[ufansdilligaf]

86. We are almost out of Ozone

Check the Environmental Forum...there's a very prolific poster of all things doom on Earth. I don't know the poster but he seem to know his hat from a rack.

[MrBenchley]

89. Guess that new acrid smell is something else. then....

[OpSomBlood]

88. As opposed to Benchley...

...who only shines light on VPC/Brady fearmongering propaganda.

[MrBenchley]

90. Better that than right wing horseshit, op....

But then you don't hear the Brady Center or the VPC screaming that they need popguns for the upcoming revolution...or hear them lying the way that gun nuts do.

[OpSomBlood]

92. You're absolutely right.

The VPC calling a semi-auto rifle a "spray-firing bullet hose" isn't lying, it's hyperbole. And Dianne Feinstein vocally speaking out against concealed carry when she used to carry a concealed gun isn't hypocrisy, it's a change of heart. And when the Brady Bunch says that assault weapons are "designed to be easily concealed," we know it's just an unfortunate dimensional oversight.

[OpSomBlood]

179. No response.

Ignore the people who prove you wrong, and they go away.

[MrBenchley]

73. fag ill id snafu?

Uh-HUH....

[ufansdilligaf]

77. Wrong answer...go to the back of the line

Try asking iverglas since he got it right. Your misinterpretation of dilligaf is telling...

[MrBenchley]

81. "Try asking iverglas since he"

Uh huh....

[Liberal Classic]

76. Consider the source

Tom Diaz is the Senior Policy Analsyt a the Violence Policy Center.

If we're going to go back to the year 1946 to discuss gun control, why not go back twenty more years to mention the repeal of alcohol prohbition. There were plenty of parties in which dignificantly more than "Maybe a punch or two would be thrown." Or does this intrude into the author's nostalgic vision?

[Paladin]

78. Puh-leeese......

As if you or any other RKBA activist has any standing to criticize anyone for "nostalgic vision." You're the guys who keep ranting about what the Supreme Court really meant, the last time it dealt squarely with the Second Amendment---that would be 1939. And how much space have you people burned up in this forum, repeating the same 18th century quotes from the same Founding Fathers, supposedly affirming the right of white guys to have all the guns they want? Talk about living in the past......

[MrBenchley]

83. I love the attempts by the bullets for brains bunch

to try to pretend the VPC is as extremist as the NRA. There aren't any racists on the VPC board...nor anybody as scummy as Grover Norquist.

[OpSomBlood]

85. The VPC lies and distorts to make it's "points"

At least the NRA is up front about being corrupt.

[MrBenchley]

87. No, it doesn't...

Although it's funny as hell to hear gun nuts who peddle preposterous crap day and night pretend the VPC does....

"the NRA is up front about being corrupt"
Yeah, surrrrrrre.......

[Liberal Classic]

98. I kind of think that was the point of my post

The good old days never were.

[iverglas]

101. jimmy cagney

... why not go back twenty more years to mention the repeal of alcohol prohbition. There were plenty of parties in which dignificantly more than "Maybe a punch or two would be thrown."

I wouldn't want to say that it seems like somebody's been watching too much television ... but, well ...

Ah, those Prohibition days. The US was just one big rootin-tootin, guns-a-blazin bar brawl for quite a few years, wasn't it? You'd invite a few friends over for dinner, and next thing you know there'd be pistols drawn on one side of the table, and a machine gun rattling from the pantry ...


I think you'd like this one:

http://www.thestranger.com/2003-07-03/ex7.html

The United States is a one-myth culture. The Federalist Papers read like John Locke having a conversation with himself, and your history is just an extended working out of the philosopher's ideas about individualism, private property, and the state. In the United States, the capitalists have acquired a monopoly on patriotism, and your response to other ideologies alternates between xenophobic isolationism and messianic internationalism. (See the recent resumé of George W. Bush for achievement on both alternatives.) The upshot is a country where the political ideology of market populism masquerades as nationalism, and where there is a free market in everything except good ideas.

... Both countries are trending away from traditional values, are becoming less deferential to authority and more individualistic. But while Canadians are moving toward values associated with idealism and personal self-fulfillment (e.g., creativity, tolerance, and cultural sampling), Americans are moving away en masse from the trends associated with civic engagement and social and ecological concern. You are becoming paranoid and isolated, more likely to see society as a war of all against all. America is becoming a nation of survivalists.

The failure of socialism to get any grip in your country is usually referred to as "American exceptionalism." But when you consider American values in light of the determined openness and internationalism emerging in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere, this "exception" is starting to look more like an aberration. Take a look around, America. Soviet Canuckistan is the new world order.

Just one guy's opinion, of course. But he'd obviously agree with me on that "you're not the boss of me" analysis of what some of our friends here are saying most of the time.

.

[Liberal Classic]

185. Iverglas, my friend, I love Canada

Not sure why I would be accused of hated and paranoia of our northern neighbor.

Good article from same source:

http://www.thestranger.com/2003-07-03/ex5.html

[iverglas]

188. well hmm

and here:

http://www.thestranger.com/2003-07-03/ex9.html

i used to think Vancouver had a skunk infestation problem. Being new to the city, I couldn't understand why every back alley and open window offered up dank puffs of smoke much like that green cloud that followed Pepe Le Pew around in Looney Tunes cartoons. I became obsessed with the idea that I had unknowingly moved to a town that smelled like N-bulymercaptan until, finally, a friend said, "Dude, it's the B.C. bud. Shut up already."

Reminded me of a visit to Chicago some years back that I have probably retailed here before. Between sets at the jazz club on North Michigan that I was sitting in a back corner of, downing Courvoisier and smoking stinky USAmerican cigarettes and exchanging spit with my new Chicago friend, we wandered outside for some other refreshment. Of course we had to deke into an alleyway, for respite from the wind and cover from prying eyes. We stood watching the foot traffic pass, and I spied a jacket from the university down the road from the one I had gone to in Ontario a decade and a half earlier. When we emerged, the group in question was stopped nearby watching a busker. I hailed the jacket wearer as a boy from my old 'hood. He peered at me, and said "I know you ... I saw you ...", and I, fresh from some national media attention back home, said smugly but graciously "... on the CBC." "No," he said; "standing in that alley back there smoking a joint."

Which segues us (by way of tales of unwonted self-importance) to ...

Not sure why I would be accused of hated and paranoia of our northern neighbor.

I didn't. Golly, when the author of that article said "You are becoming paranoid and isolated, more likely to see society as a war of all against all," did you really think that was me, talking to you, personally? Not to mention that it had actually nothing to do with paranoia about Canada ... .

What it does have to do with is the paranoia of those who see creeping authoritarianism and/or danger lurking everywhere (i.e. those who don't just claim to see it), and think they need firearms (or claim to think they need firearms) to avert it.

.

[Liberal Classic]

198. I apologize

I didn't. Golly, when the author of that article said "You are becoming paranoid and isolated, more likely to see society as a war of all against all," did you really think that was me, talking to you, personally? Not to mention that it had actually nothing to do with paranoia about Canada ...

Perhaps I am being over-sensitive.I have grown accustomed to being portrayed around here as a slack-jawed knuckle-dragger. When someone doesn't have a pointed statement to make, sometimes I take it as being pointed anyway. Please accept my apology.

[iverglas]

200. only

if you laugh politely at my story. We insecure Canadians require validation when we engage in that self-deprecating humour of ours.

The Salon writer really doesn't get it, but it's the only source I can ever find for this story, that I heard in a radio broadcast of the panel discussion in question:

http://www.salon.com/ent/music/vowe/1999/01/27vowe.html

In a recent panel discussion at New York's 92nd Street Y called "Why Are Canadians So Funny?" moderator (and Vancouver native) Michael J. Fox mentioned a contest once sponsored by MacLean's magazine. MacLean's, which Fox identified as the "Canadian Time" (as is the Canadian comparative habit <born, of course, of the need to explain anything foreign to USAmericans> ), once asked its readers to fill in the blank at the end of the phrase, "As Canadian as ..." to counterbalance the motto "As American as apple pie." According to Fox, the winning entry was "As Canadian as ... possible under the circumstances."

(edited to remove a stray idiot smileyface created by punctuation)

.

[TX-RAT]

201. I gotta ask

What the hells a busker.

[Liberal Classic]

204. Like a street performer

People who sing and dance in public places for tips.

So a busker festival is kind of like SXSW is Austin.

[iverglas]

205. ah

What the hells a busker.

Now *that* reminds me of when I was in DC even more years ago, at a National Lawyers Guild conference I went to on a whim. I was much younger then, and more likely to wander off to foreign parts with no real plans and less money. I arrived by train, went to the conference venue to register, and said "I understand there are billets". "Eh?" (or the local equivalent thereof), said the woman at the registration table. "Billets," I said; "I registered for a billet." "Eh?" she said; "A what?" "A billet," I said; "A place to stay in somebody's house". "Oh!" she said; "A place to stay in somebody's house!"

Sometimes we manage to speak the same language.

Buskers. Here are some, found for me by google-images:







And yeah ... the results were Cdn and Brit. I doubt there'll be any buskers at that Lake Whatsit in Manitoba, though. Where I'm at, they get licences and assigned spots on the streets for the summer. In the UK, there was a program that put classical musicians in the underground stations in London, and that was really pleasant. Oops, subway stations. Montreal does similar things I think.

I'll bet you say something like "street entertainer", or maybe "people who perform entertainment on the street and you put some money in their hat".

;)


(typo fixed)

[TX-RAT]

208. Thanks

No, i think I'll start using busker, i like it better.

[Liberal Classic]

202. That's why I perfer to call myself

A United Statesian.

:P

[iverglas]

206. still no polite laughter ... (nm)

.

[Liberal Classic]

207. I put a smiley in that post

to show amusement. I was trying to make a self-depreciating joke about being a United Statesian as opposed to an American, which obviously fell flat on its face. Sorry mate. I guess we're not on the same frequency today.

[iverglas]

209. that's all right

USAmericans and self-deprecating humour. Hmm. Dr. Johnson would probably have something to say about that ...

Women preaching is like dogs standing on their hind legs. We marvel not that they can do it well, but that they can do it at all.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/london2.html

LONDON: A POEM
In IMITATION of the THIRD SATIRE of JUVENAL
By Samuel Johnson

... Here Malice, Rapine, Accident, conspire,
And now a Rabble Rages, now a Fire;
Their Ambush here relentless Ruffians lay,
And here the fell Attorney prowls for Prey;
Here falling Houses thunder on your Head,
And here a female Atheist talks you dead.


My theme song.

.

[Liberal Classic]

210. Eee, skewer a man for trying why dontcha

"Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging."

[iverglas]

211. very excellent

If I'd heard that one before, I didn't recall. I am willing to love all mankind, except an American?

If I may ...

There is no arguing with Johnson; for when his pistol misses fire, he knocks you down with the butt end of it.

.

[MrBenchley]

82. Too TOO funny...

The RKBA crowd posts turds from every right wing cesspool they can find.

[Liberal Classic]

99. I didn't call the author a turd

A fellow of the VPC is hardly an unbiased source. Personally, I think the author was laying on a bit thick.

[MrBenchley]

104. And he isn't one...

Unlike the shitbirds the RKBA crowd dredges up for our consumption....

And I thought he was right on the money...and obviously, so did Buzzflash

[OpSomBlood]

91. Thanks for my RDA of anti-gun bullshit.

"The most spectacular change in the U.S. civilian firearms market since the end of the Second World War has been the rise of the handgun. In 1946 handguns were only eight percent of firearms sold. Beginning in the mid-1960s this changed. Handgun sales are now twice the level of 40 years ago, consistently averaging about 40 percent of the overall market.

The technology advanced. You know what else? More DVD players were sold in 2003 than VCR's. Does the forward progress of time mean nothing in your bizarre universe?

But don't let facts get in your way.

Not only that, the industry is making handguns smaller and more powerful so they can be concealed more easily and do more damage when used. The Austrian company Glock, one of the biggest handgun marketers in America, dubbed its contribution the "Pocket Rocket."

Glock has not yet manufactured a highly concealable pistol. Glocks are among the bulkiest pistols on the market, even the models 26 and 27 that were dubbed "pocket rockets".

Also, please explain exactly how a small-frame 9mm does "more damage" than a full-size 9mm. Oh, wait...that just was bullshit propaganda like "spray firing" and "bullet hose."

But don't let facts get in your way.

Now every husband who decides to come home and pop the wife has a handgun readily at hand. Every depressed kid or senior who wants to end it all has a handgun. And every nitwit who wants to feel like a big man at a barbecue has a handgun.

Pretty scientific stuff presented here. Never mind the fact that these people are pathological criminal assholes, and that taking guns away won't magically cure them of their psychoses overnight.

But don't let facts get in your way.

There are a few ideological fantasists who are so hooked on the power of the gun that they claim the answer is simply more guns, to arm more people so they can "defend themselves" and "shoot back."


My God...what a radical fucking concept. There are serial killers, rapists, gay bashers and terrorists, but those who wish for the ability defend themselves against these threats are the "ideological fanatasists." You insult everyone's intelligence with this fucking tripe.

But don't let facts get in your way.

Jenna Cooper was enjoying a party. The bullet that hit her in the neck and took her life first traveled through another guest’s scalp. How in the name of blessed reason could she have defended herself from that bizarre sequence with yet another gun?"

And the coup de grace...the single extreme horror story that is supposed to stereotypically represent every violent crime in the history of man.

But don't let facts get in your way.

[MrBenchley]

94. Any time at all....

Times change, but the kind of ignorance and bullshit represented by "gun rights" is eternal.

"Glock has not yet manufactured a highly concealable pistol."
Gee, op....it's hilarious to hear somebody who makes such a fuss about the VPC spout rubbish like this. Especially when gun nuts on the rest of the internet tell us what a pantload it is.

"So what is it? The 26 is the smallest gun in the Glock range, and as such, slips easily into a pocket if you can’t/don’t want to holster it (inside the belt is also quite good)."

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/reviews/glock26/glock26_review.htm

"Glock Model 26, 9mm ultra compact pistol. "Pocket Rocket" !! New!! Get on it! Super hideout pistol, very concealable, great for carry states."

http://www.thegunrunner.com/hgglock.html

"The model 29 is the smallest 10mm auto ever made and is what a true pocket rocket is."

http://g125.tripod.com/glock29.html

But don't let facts get in YOUR way, op.

[FeebMaster]

97. Airsoft. Hahah.

This isn't the first time I've seen an airsoft link posted here in the dungeon. The last time was funnier though, when the gun grabber who posted it was explaining to us how easy it is to buy a grenade launcher here in the US and how we should try ordering one to see what would happen, just be sure not to give them your real name and whatnot. Good times. Laughs all around.

[OpSomBlood]

100. Don't let experience get in your way.

I don't care what your anti-gun websites say, I speak from experience. I used to own a "Slimline" Glock 36 for concealment and it was too bulky. My father has a Glock 27 and it is too bulky. It's just the design of the frame and slide. They are excellent guns, but too wide to wear under clothes.

But those guns are designed for concealment, despite the fact that they aren't very good for that purpose. If concealed-carry is legal, then what exactly is the point of singling Glock out? There are dozens of manufacturers that make concealable pistols.

I know why, because Glock is a highly recognizable buzzword that strikes fear in people who don't know much about guns.

Also, you never answered my question about how exactly a small frame 9mm with a lower ammo capacity does "more damage" than a full-size 9mm pistol. You are the one who posted that ridiculous claim, so please own up to it and offer an explanation.

[MrBenchley]

105. Jeeze, op....those were gun sellers....

But then that's the level of attention to detail that's expected from the bullets for brains crowd.

"I know why, because Glock is a highly recognizable buzzword"
No shit. It's always revealing to see the RKBA crowd rush to stick up for a company actually headed by a neoNazi sympathizer.

But then that's the thing about the gun rights crowd...their arguments may be weak and dishonest, but their friends are public life are the scum of the earth.

[OpSomBlood]

111. Please post proof that Gaston Glock is a Nazi.

I stick up for Glock because they produce a superior product. The politics of the person running the company have very little to do with my decision to buy their products.

If you don't want to buy products from companies with Nazi ties, then you'd better boycott IBM, Ford, Siemens and Mercedes-Benz too.

[MrBenchley]

121. Gee, op...google "Glock" and "Haider" and you'll get dozens of links

Here's one of many:

"Mr Gaston Glock has bonds of friendship with the party on a political level and personally with the leader of the FPOe (Mr J. Haider) in Austria and is commonly recognised to be a main sponsor of that political right extremist party. Further, Gaston Glock, is considered by journalists as a supporter of an historical well known right extremist "german" ideology."

http://www.boosman.com/blog/archives/000335.html

"The rise of the far-right Freedom party (FPO) in Austria, under the leadership of the yuppie fascist Jörg Haider, thrust the alpine republic into a limelight it was wholly unused to.
Observers say he has now given up all hope of fulfilling his life's dream of becoming chancellor - no foreign leader would ever want to be seen shaking his hand.
Unless of course that leader's name is Gadaffi. Haider the pariah stokes the fire every now and again by taking business trips to Libya and Iraq where he has purchased cheap fuel for the Carinthians. And last week an Austrian paper revealed that he was flown on a "secret mission" to Moscow by the pistol manufacturer Gaston Glock, to look at buying Soviet fighter jets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4126258-103478%2C00.html

The RKBA crowd has just the NICEST playmates...

[OpSomBlood]

127. And this has to do with the quality of their product how?

[MrBenchley]

130. "Please post proof" says op....

And then when he gets it, he pretends he never asked...

And that's why it's not worth doing anything but reminding the rest of the board who posted from the stentorian when op posts.

[OpSomBlood]

136. I asked you to post proof...

...because I had not heard that allegation and I was willing to listen (try it sometime).

I wasn't accusing you of lying, I only asked you to support your claim.

[MrBenchley]

142. Tell it to the stentorian

[OpSomBlood]

152. Yet another content-free post by Benchley.

You truly are the master.

[el_gato]

165. he can't even discuss the issues, so he spews hate

just like the rest of his little crew,
attacking the messenger instead of debating the issue

[JayS]

93. "So those corny old movies and nostalgic television shows are right"

Sounds like they did some serious research for this article.....not.

[MrBenchley]

95. Sounds like they did...

and that they communicated effectively.

[JayS]

103. Finding Nemo is out on CD.

I hope they do a story on marine ecology. I've been hankering for a good read on sea life.

[MrBenchley]

106. That's about the speed for the RKBA crowd

they prefer fairy tales to reality...

[JayS]

108. "they prefer fairy tales to reality"

If that were true we would be using Buzzflash for information on gun control issues.

[MrBenchley]

122. Gee, jay...

You don't love Buzzflash? Tough titty.

[JayS]

131. Actually Buzzflash has some great articles. It is when they...

...publish the work of a journalist that allows his/her agenda to cloud their writing that I take them to task.

[MrBenchley]

140. Too TOO fucking funny

"allows his/her agenda"
Yeah, unlike those objective gun nuts....

[slackmaster]

144. Argumentum Ad Hominem

Subset "tu quoque"; a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

[JayS]

151. "Yeah, unlike those objective gun nuts"

I assume that you are mocking yourself. Yes, I would say that you allow your agenda to cloud your writing but I am sure that you are aware of that. Please don't consider journalism as a career.

Please see DU guidelines on the use of profanity when you get the chance.

[MrBenchley]

155. Gee, jay....

If you think the bullets for brains bunch is objective, seek help.

[JayS]

161. I don't know who the "bullets for brains bunch" is so I cannot...

...comment on their objectivity. Sorry.

[MrBenchley]

162. Do you think you might be able to take a guess? (snicker)

[JayS]

170. Oh, you mean Sarah Brady and her associated groups. While...

...I don't think it is necessary to denigrate them I would agree that these groups have allowed politics and fund raising to get in the way of what once was a noble cause.

[MrBenchley]

176. Well there's nothing like informed opinion...

sure wish the gun nuts had anything approaching a speck of same.

[JayS]

191. "sure wish the gun nuts had anything approaching a speck of same"

I too wish this but I don't think the gun nuts will ever attempt to become informed on the issues of the RKBA crowd.

[MrBenchley]

192. Gee, jay...

If you mean the vast majority of Americans don't give a crap about gun porn, you're right.

[JayS]

203. I'm not into pornagraphy so I can't address that. n/t

n/t

[OpSomBlood]

163. The "bullets for brains bunch"...

Is everyone who doesn't comply with Benchley's narrow worldview. If you think that Americans have the right to own a gun, you are obviously the victim of NRA mind control.

[el_gato]

166. again it's the pathological hatred of anybody who doesn't hate guns

He can't debate so he calls people names.

[MrBenchley]

169. Actually, op...

My world view is shared by pretty much everybody but the NRA and its few supporters. And it's a pretty wide world view...because it's not bounded by a few lies and a dribble of right wing nutcase propaganda.

[OpSomBlood]

171. You can count on one hand...

...the number of people who agree with you HERE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD, and this is the Internet's bastion of liberal Democratic thought.

So please, save your "everyone agrees with me" for people gullible enough to buy it.

[MrBenchley]

174. And that's why I can quote from Buzzflash

and other liberal and moderate blogs and pretty much any newspaper or magazine in the country and John Kerry's own words...and you're stuck sniveling because your stentorian picture is the idiotic gibberish I say it is.

"people gullible enough"
Sorry, the gullible ones all bought that "gun rights bullshit.

[el_gato]

177. bench, why can you not post without spewing insults

How old are you?

[el_gato]

175. your view has resulted in the decline of the democratic voter base

and thus the total takeover of our government by the people you say you hate

Who's side are you working on?

[Columbia]

96. Geez

Almost a hundred posts of insults hurled at each other.

As someone once said before, can't we all just get along?

[Wickerman]

110. One more time, kids

The purpose of Democratic Underground is to exchange ideas that create an environment that will lead to the re-defeat of GWBush*.

Back and forth insults, as Columbia so succinctly noted, don't do anything for the harmony.

If you want to talk guns, great, talk guns - watch the personal attacks. Of late we have lost some good players here who tired of the game.

[OpSomBlood]

102. The parts Benchley omitted:

It wasn’t always that way. The American gun industry -- one of only two consumer products in America free of federal product health and safety regulation (the other is tobacco) -- has created this nightmare.

Why doesn't the author present some statistics on injuries and deaths due to firearm mechanical failure? Because if injuries and deaths are occuring because of misuse (and not due to design flaws), then safety regulation of the product is not necessary. You need safety regulation on the person buying it.

And since when is tobacco free of health regulation? Last time I checked, there was a big warning on every pack from the Surgeon General saying that cigarettes would kill you. There is a prohibitive tax on cigarettes. Is that not regulation? Or in the mind of a gun grabber, is the only "regulation" a complete ban?

It has deliberately changed the mix of firearms sold in America over the last 30 years. It has done it because, unlike many other consumer industries that follow population growth, the gun business has faced saturated, declining markets. So it has relentlessly pushed new models of handguns to stimulate sales. This was described some years ago in a magazine called American Firearms Industry: "Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market. . . This innovation has driven the handgun market."

Why is innovation considered demonic in the gun industry when it is absolutey essential for survival in every other industry? Am I the only one here who understands how business actually works? That if your product is inferior to your competitor, you'll go out of business?

What a radical concept...a company producing technological advances in order to satisfy their customers. Stop the fucking presses.

[MrBenchley]

107. Too fucking funny, op....

Amazing that DU has a rule about reproducing articles in full.....guess that was why I "omitted" some part in such a sinister fashion.

"Why doesn't the author present some statistics on injuries and deaths due to firearm mechanical failure? "
Because that's not the point he's making. Geeze, some answers are so simpel as to be silly.

"when is tobacco free of health regulation? Last time I checked, there was a big warning on every pack from the Surgeon General saying that cigarettes would kill you."
Koresh! They sure threw the booklet at old Joe Camel, didn't they? A warning!

"There is a prohibitive tax on cigarettes. Is that not regulation?"
No, it's a tax.

"Am I the only one here who understands how business actually works?"
Well, you seem to be the only one who can't tell the difference between a tax and regulation....

[OpSomBlood]

109. How else do you regulate something while keeping it legal?

Because that's not the point he's making. Geeze, some answers are so simpel as to be silly.

The point he is making is that the gun industry produces such an inherently dangerous product that it needs governmental safety regulation. In every other industry, this type of regulation occurs when products malfunction leading to injuries and death.

Gun injuries and deaths rarely occur due to mechanical malfunction of the weapon. They happen because of user error or misuse.

That's like "regulating" the auto makers in an attempt to lower DUI rates. If the product functions exactly as it was designed, then there is not a safety issue with the product itself.

[iverglas]

115. well, except that ...

The point he is making is that the gun industry produces such an inherently dangerous product that it needs governmental safety regulation. In every other industry, this type of regulation occurs when products malfunction leading to injuries and death.

... that is precisely NOT the situation for tobacco, the other industry that he SPECIFICALLY NAMED and drew a comparison to.

If a product is "inherently dangerous", it is NOT "product malfunction" that leads to injuries and death, it is the use of the product as it was intended to be used that leads to injuries and death. Cigarettes don't actually "malfunction" when you light them up and inhale the smoke, do they? When someone shoots someone else or him/herself with a firearm, is the firearm "malfunctioning"?? Of course not. And no one suggested that it was.

Gun injuries and deaths rarely occur due to mechanical malfunction of the weapon. They happen because of user error or misuse.

It simply IS NOT "misuse" of a firearm to aim it at someone, or one's self, or anything else, and fire it. THAT IS WHAT FIREARMS ARE DESIGNED TO BE USED FOR.

Just as tobacco illnesses and deaths rarely occur due to any malfunction of cigarettes. They happen because the cigarettes are used exactly as they are designed to be used.

Some people may use cigarettes "better" than other people: they may smoke only once a day, and they are therefore in no danger from their cigarettes. They could be in danger from other people's cigarettes, of course, when those other people are using cigarettes precisely as they are designed to be used - by lighting them up and smoking them.

Some people may never point a loaded gun at their head and pull the trigger, so they are presumably in no danger from their own firearms. They could sitll be in danger from other people's firearms, however, when those other people are using firearms precisely as they are designed to be used - by loading them, aiming them and firing them.

Sheeze.

.

[OpSomBlood]

117. There is no safe way to use tobacco.

That is the difference.

[iverglas]

132. there most certainly is

A person who smokes one cigarette a month is subject to absolutely zero increased health risk as a result of the cigarette use.

Just as a person who owns a firearm and keeps it locked in a safe in a secret underground bunker until s/he dies is at absolutely zero increased health risk as a result of the firearm use.

Tobacco manufacturers do not expect their customers to smoke one cigarette a month. Firearms manufacturers do not expect their customers to lock their firearms up for life.

.

[OpSomBlood]

167. The difference is...

You can safely fire tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition through a firearm without ever hurting yourself or another person, whereas smoking tens of thousands of cigarettes will likely end you up on an iron lung.

[iverglas]

190. and the similarity is

You can safely fire tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition through a firearm without ever hurting yourself or another person, whereas smoking tens of thousands of cigarettes will likely end you up on an iron lung.

... Ya just never know which one of all of them might kill you.

I'm afraid there is just nothing more sensible to be said to such silliness.

.

[MrBenchley]

126. This is all leading

back to more snivelling about the gun industry getting sued.

[MrBenchley]

124. You regulate it, op....

Geeze, what a comment...

[OpSomBlood]

128. This post makes no sense whatsoever.

Par for the course.

[iverglas]

112. hmmmmm

So American Firearms Industry said:

"Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market

Damn, if that isn't exactly what *I* say in response to that moronic "prohibition" "argument".

There is *not* an infinite, unsatiable market for firearms, the way there is for alcohol and other intoxicants.

Firearms are *not* consumed, requiring constant replenishment of supply by users.

Firearms are *not* addictive. (Hey, far be it from me to say they are.)

People may *like* to keep acquiring more firearms, but they don't *need* to keep acquiring more firearms to fulfil the purpose for which they acquire them.

And despite all the bathtub/backroom firearms production guff I'm always hearing, the firearms artisans tinkering away in secrecy under prohibition are really, I think, just not going to be engaging in the technological innovation that the industry itself acknowledges is essential if people are to be persuaded that they "need" more firearms.

Bing, bang, boom. Out of the mouths of the purveyors themselves.

Of course, I bother to address the "prohibition" "argument" only in so far as it is relevant to anything I actually advocate, which is not remotely in the way of a prohibition on firearms, but does involve very tightly restricted access to certain firearms, in particular handguns.

.

[OpSomBlood]

113. Nobody forces people to buy new guns.

Companies innovate in order to attract customers away from their competitors. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

[iverglas]

116. uh

If you can explain what you said had to do with anything I said, maybe I'll have some idea of why you're asking me this question.

But let me answer anyway:

Companies innovate in order to attract customers away from their competitors. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Uh ... because your "concept" is so flawed by omissions as to be false?

.

[OpSomBlood]

119. If you don't understand simple business concepts...

...it's really not my problem.

You say that firearm technological innovation is really some secret ploy to subconsciously convince people that the gun they already have is obsolete and that they need to hoard. And how is that different from innovation in ANY OTHER INDUSTRY?

It is the consumer's decision to purchase a "new and improved" product of any kind. It is up to them to decide if what they have is satisfactory, or if they want something newer and better.

Some people spend tens of thousands of dollars collecting firearms because it is their hobby and they enjoy it. When they plunk down $800 for a new pistol, they know full well that they are spending their money.

I don't understand how a manufacturer is to blame for giving their customers what they want by being technologically competitive.

[iverglas]

129. simple ... simplistic ... simple-minded ...

If you don't understand simple business concepts it's really not my problem.

Your "simple business concept" was stated thus:

Companies innovate in order to attract customers away from their competitors. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Gosh, maybe you can tell me how this explains the introduction of NEW PRODUCTS onto the bloody market. Products for which THERE ARE NO COMPETITORS, because they are **NEW**.

What was television competing with? What were VCRs competing with? What was insulin competing with?

Nonetheless, to make some attempt to stay on topic -- what does any of this have to do with ANYTHING ***I*** SAID in the post you were responding to???

Nothing I said had anything to do with this "concept".

It had to do with the fact -- which I have previously stated on many occasions and which this firearms industry source said -- that there is not an unlimited demand for firearms ... the way there is for alcohol and other intoxicants, the products to which firearms are continually and disingenuously (or dimly, take your pick) being compared.

I DIDN'T EVEN QUOTE the portion of the quotation that I underline below:

Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market. . . This innovation has driven the handgun market.

Why the hell would you think/pretend that I was addressing something I specifically did not quote?? I was addressing the bit about how the market for firearms COULD BE EXHAUSTED. Yes, I suppose I could have underlined that bit to make sure that nobody missed what I was talking about, but I would just have thought that what I was talking about could be determined by reading WHAT I SAID.

Why is it apparently so difficult for YOU to take and address the point of what someone else says?


I don't understand how a manufacturer is to blame for giving their customers what they want by being technologically competitive.

I don't understand why you would be wasting your time babbling on about this to me, when I SAID NOTHING about anything remotely related to it.

Maybe if you tried reading my first post in this little chat again and starting over, you'd grasp what I was actually saying and/or decide to address what you had already perfectly well grasped. There are only the two possible explanations for your decision to go off on this bizarre tangent ...

(html fixed)

.

[OpSomBlood]

133. Are you saying that there is no competition in the gun market?

Gosh, maybe you can tell me how this explains the introduction of NEW PRODUCTS onto the bloody market. Products for which THERE ARE NO COMPETITORS, because they are **NEW**.

Please offer an example of a bold and radical firearm produced in the last 50 years which at the time had no competitive rival. To the contrary, as slackmaster stated below, gun innovations have mainly come in the form of lighter, advanced materials being used in existing proven designs.

[iverglas]

139. what the bleeding hell are you talking about?

And why are you nattering about it to *me*?

Your stupid fucking "simple business concept" was a simplistic, simple-minded, deceptively and disingenuously incomplete expression of how the supply side of the economy works. Of course, such simplistic, simple-minded, deceptive and disingenuous statements can, I'm sure, be made by clever and honest people.

But it still has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said.

Okay, we've had our fun for the day. Now let's all go on back to our favourite CUmpetitor and talk about what a raging mentstruating alcoholic fucking c*nt (I quote) iverglas is, 'k?

Maybe our new pal here can read some there and figure out the error of his ways. Hey, I always just figure I should be flattered when somebody calls me "he", eh?

.

[OpSomBlood]

156. Supreme irony.

A post entitled "what in the bleeding hell are you talking about?" is one of the most incoherent, haphazard rants I've ever seen.

Congratulations.

[MrBenchley]

135. Bear in mind

you're debating someone unable to tell the difference between "tax" and "regulation".

[OpSomBlood]

137. Imposing a prohibitive tax is a form of regulation.

You're the only one who doesn't see it that way.

[MrBenchley]

157. So is actual regulation...

and that's a helluva lot more direct.

[OpSomBlood]

160. What "actual regulation" of tobacco do you propose?

Short of making it completely illegal.

[slackmaster]

141. With regulation invariably comes a registration FEE

Remember how the Southern US states imposed poll taxes before the Civil Rights Act? Governments are always looking for ways to raise revenue. Give them a foot in the door, a captive audience, and they always go nuts with fees until something like market pressure or the law stops them. California relies on motor vehicle registration fees for over 6% of the state's operating budget, and it shure as heck doesn't cost that much to keep the DMV running.

It's unconscionable and unconstitutional to levy a tax or fee on a person for exercising a civil right.

[slackmaster]

123. I must disagree with you on one small point

People may *like* to keep acquiring more firearms, but they don't *need* to keep acquiring more firearms to fulfil the purpose for which they acquire them.

As a collector of firearms, I say that's not accurate. I could switch to Hummels or salt shakers but they don't appeal to me as much. My gun collection is a small segment of my retirement savings. I plan to continue on that course because I enjoy it and have specialized knowledge that gives me a leg up on other investors in the field.

If you don't like it, that's not my problem.

[iverglas]

134. are you saying you are addicted to firearms?

As a collector of firearms, I say that's not accurate. I could switch to Hummels or salt shakers but they don't appeal to me as much.

Or you could just stop collecting.

Except in persons in whom there is a pathology, collecting really is not an addiction.

I think you might actually have understood that to be the point I was making in distinguishing between purchases of firearms by collectors and purchases of alcohol or other intoxicants by addicts.

If you don't like it, that's not my problem.

I really don't give a shit, and it's completely beyond me why you would respond to a statement of some facts by me with such belligerance.

I made no comment whatsoever as to whether anyone *should* collect firearms. Why do these mischaracterizations of what is said have to be so fast and furious around here? What wall am I talking to today?

I simply said that no one NEEDS to acquire firearms IN THE SAME WAY AS SOME PEOPLE *NEED* TO ACQUIRE ALCOHOL OR DRUGS. That is not a value judgment or opinion. It is a statement of fact.

Do you people really want firearms acquisition to be recognized as an addictive activity?? All I was saying is that it is not, and that therefore this moronic "prohibition" "argument", which assimilates firearms to alcohol and drugs, is based on a false premise and can be disregarded as the nonsense it is.

And that the firearms industry obviously agrees with me.

.

[slackmaster]

138. No

Or you could just stop collecting.

Or not.

I really don't give a shit, and it's completely beyond me why you would respond to a statement of some facts by me with such belligerance.

You have earned my mild belligerance by the manner in which you have treated me, iverglas.

[OpSomBlood]

143. Collecting stamps is a hobby...

Collecting guns is pathological.

Technological advancement in the auto industry is crucial...technological advancement in firearms is a diabolical scheme.

Auto makers are not responsible for bad drivers...gun makers should be sued when people abuse their products.

Guns rarely injure people due to mechanical malfunction...but they should be subject to governmental safety regulation like products that do.

Notice a trend? Guns get their own special set of rules.

[iverglas]

149. got some quotation marks?

Collecting guns is pathological.

I asked whether someone wanted me to say this ... and now you have said it yourself.

I sure as hell won't, though. And haven't.

Collecting guns is a choice. Therefore, if for some bizarre reason a prohibition on the acquisition of firearms were imposed, the dynamics of the situation would in no way resemble the dynamics of the situation under prohibitions of alcohol or firearms.

Shall I assume that you were just being all facetious, and you really agree with me? I think so.

.

[iverglas]

145. I hear an echo

Or you could just stop collecting.
Or not.

Repeating back exactly what I said. Was there a point?

However, this one doesn't quite work:

Or an alcoholic could just stop drinking.
Or a junkie could just stop injecting.
Or not.

Nope. Not the same thing. Like I said. Like American Firearms Industry said. Anybody want to address the point?

The belligerance of those who choose to do otherwise, preferring to get all morally indignant about something no one said, is devoid both of sense and of a target.

.

[slackmaster]

150. Here's what you actually wrote

So American Firearms Industry said:

"Without new models that have major technical changes, you eventually exhaust your market"...

Substitute the name of any other durable good for "firearm" and the statement holds true. Like "computer", for example. Most computers are forced into obsolescence years before they would actually wear out.

[iverglas]

159. indeed I did

That is what I wrote. Now let's add what you wrote:

Substitute the name of any other durable good for "firearm" and the statement holds true. Like "computer", for example. Most computers are forced into obsolescence years before they would actually wear out.

... and see whether we can get to a point, shall we?

FIREARMS (AND COMPUTERS) ARE NOT LIKE ALCOHOL AND DRUGS.

There you have it.

That was, and still is, my point. Can you see it? Is there a glimmer of it getting through?

Maybe go back and read the post you quoted from. See whether I said anything about the product development or marketing tactics of the firearms industry. See that I did not. Wonder, with me, why nobody seems to have seen this before, or saw it and simply chose to misrepresent what I said as being a criticism of the firearms industry's product development and marketing tactics, even though I said nothing about them.

If a prohibition is imposed on alcohol or drugs, it will in all probability be unsuccessful because of the constant need of users to replenish their supply and because of the pathological need some users feel for the product.

Firearms users do not have a constant need to replenish their supply, and firearms users do not have a pathological need for the product.

So a prohibition on (certain) firearms COULD NOT BE EXPECTED to lead to the events that are known to occur under prohibitions on alcohol and drugs -- burgeoning black markets, explosion in organized crime activities, exploitation and endangerment of the users of the product, widespread disregard for the law, etc. etc. etc.

I cited the comments by American Firearms Industry in support of this argument.

Getting it? Anybody?

.

[slackmaster]

118. Metallurgy has improved a bit in the last 90 years, but ballistics

Haven't changed much.

Did anyone else notice a significant omission from this piece? Not one CALIBER of these alleged "more powerful" handguns is mentioned.

Yes, there have been many new, more powerful calibers developed since the early 20th century but improvements in readily concealable handguns have been modest. The 9 mm Parabellum cartridge dates back to about 1904 (the year it was adopted by the German navy), and remains one of the most widely-used handgun cartridges today. The "+P" version of that round is only marginally more powerful.

This is typical Tom Diaz Chicken Little writing - He relies on hyperbole and dreadful fantasizing about what other people might have inside of their heads, throwing in one or two anecdotes that are certainly horrible in their own right but fail to support the thesis because they could just as easily have happened two or three generations ago. And he conveniently confuses Glock's marketing hype with a real claim of technological improvement. I think Mr. Diaz knows better. The ballistic power of the 10 mm round, like any other handgun cartridge, is correlated with barrel length and not some magic derived from giving it a high-tech sounding name.

The learned folks who founded this country were well aware that firearms had been improving steadily for about 350 years, and had no reason to doubt that technology would continue its slow progression to better materials, designs, and manufacturing techniques. It was the firearms industry that first attempted to make the leap to interchangeable parts and the assembly line concept. Unlike microcomputer technology which continues to accelerate at a dizzying pace, Moore's Law does not apply to the weapons industry. Today's handguns are not really much more concealable or more powerful than those of 100 years ago.

[OpSomBlood]

120. I'd still like to know...

....how exactly a small frame 9mm with a lower ammo capacity is "more powerful" and does "more damage" than a full-size 9mm pistol, as this article claims. Benchley still has not offered an explanation for this gem.

[OpSomBlood]

146. Tick-tock.

Please stop posting articles if you are unwilling to defend their false premises.

Thanks in advance.