I really do like when gun control advocates use their ignorance about guns, crime rates, and legislation as a point of pride.
In order to end crime in America and make our streets safer, I propose a complete, total, absolute, and permanent ban on MurderDeathKill Guns. No exceptions! No “grandfather clauses”! If you own a MurderDeathKill Gun, turn it in, or face severe penalties! I am confident that the vast majority of honest, responsible, law-abidin’ gun owners who like to hunt and fish and stuff will agree with me. Indeed, this ban on MurderDeathKill Guns is the only gun ban we’ll ever need!
Come on guys, who’s with me?
Just what we need. More political polarization, and a gun war between left and right.
Severe penalties are have made the US the prison capital of the world while making us less safe. John Tierney had a great article on this in today’s New York Times:
Side track rant: I am also opposed to chemical and biological warfare. I do not need to know the difference between anthrax and bubonic plague and pneumonic plague to know that they should not be used in war. If you are trying to draw fine lines – permit bacteriological weapons but not viral or fungal, for instance – then yes, you need to know the differences. But if you oppose them ALL, then, no, I don’t think I need to fill my head with irrelevancies.
I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons by either individuals or governments, and to the spread of the technology to build/employ such. I do not need to know the differences between fission and fusion or boosted fission to know that I oppose them, all and sundry. People who want to split hairs, to allow fission bombs but not fusion bombs to be sold at Walmart, they’ll want to immerse themselves in the distinctions. But I don’t need to.
I am opposed to genocide. I don’t need to worry about the legal definition in international law. I condemn it, entirely and whole-heartedly.
I am opposed to rape, and I’m glad it is illegal. I do not need to know the technical legal definitions. I suppose that if ever I were (falsely) accused of such a thing, I would have to learn those distinctions, but otherwise, I see no need for me to be well-versed in the laws (and the comparative laws of other nations) to know that I am opposed to rape. Different persons (such as lawyers, for instance) will obviously have a different perspective.
And so on. I’m not advocating ignorance, I’m simply stating the simple fact that I can’t learn everything. I try to spend my learning-time on things that will be either interesting to me (guns are not) or important to me (guns are not, except in a negative way.)
I dropped out the the NRA years ago over various disagreements. However once this talk of new gun bans started, I joined back up.
I was never pro gun until I heard people like our mod Dexter chime in. I am pro Obama, a liberal, and a gun owner.
And I am now, also, ‘pro’ gun.
Ignorance is not bliss. Though many on the anti-gun side are quite happy with it.
Oh, and Dex, could you bring any more Straw men to this discussion?
So, you want to ban all guns–what was the point of bringing up your friendly neighborhood barber who doesn’t need a “bazooka” to hunt deer with? Is he one of those guys who hunts deer by sneaking up on them with a big knife?
<Sharpens pencil>
Starts to write about deaths due to malaria that could have been prevented by use of DDT.
<Breaks pencil>
Wanders off mumbling to self about blanket bans not necessarily being a good idea supported by the data.
<finds pen>
Starts to write about less than lethal chemical or biological weapons used as incapacitating agents.
<shakes pen and realizes it is out of ink>
Wanders off mumbling to self about blanket bans not necessarily being a good idea supported by the data.
Just in the interest of accuracy:
Twenty-three was the number of people on the boat, but only one died. And how responsible the radiation was for his death has always been a matter of controversy. The only indisputable death from H-bombs I’m aware of was Lekoj Anjain, who died in 1972 from leukemia caused by fallout.
Sorry for the pedantry, but it’s not often the subject of my expertise comes up here.
Trying to address the point behind your sarcasm: This used to true of the vast majority of gun owners, but not any more. Hunting, in the US, is in decline. The tremendous increase in gun sales we’ve seen during the Obama administration isn’t due to foodies developing a love for venison, but because people are buying military-style guns, with maximal lethality bullets, optimized for use against human targets.
Most US gun owners are probably still responsible, but saying it’s the vast majority is going too far.
Look at this thread:
Part of responsible gun ownership is that you don’t have your guns look like toys. Not only do guns pictured in the above link look like toys, none of the responsible gun owners are condemning that. Maybe most gun owners think to themselves that it is unfortunate, but a lot of them have been silenced by extremists, such as those who took over the NRA in 1977, and still control it.
Now, this doesn’t make me a gun control absolutist. I really think a lot of these people would, just like they say, kill law enforcement officers if they came to take away their high-capacity magazine weapons. Sop, realistically, a lot of the guns bought since the end of the assault weapons ban cannot be retaken by law enforcement until used in a homicide, or illegally transferred. However, there are some things that would help without creating a right wing gun war, such as requiring background checks for all transfers, and limiting bullet sales.
I must have missed the memo that explained that it’s irresponsible to have your gun any color other than dour wood tones or tacticool black. If you keep your gun safely locked away when it’s not under your direct control, it doesn’t matter what color it is. And if you leave your gun lying around where children can get at it, again, it doesn’t matter what color it is.
Universal background checks? Sure. Limiting ammunition sales? What kind of limit would you propose, and how would it have any effect?
I suppose you have a cite for this, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
How 'bout a cite for that? The US military has used a gun as its primary firearm that looks like a plastic toy for about 50+ years.
As a responsible gun owner (25 years, and counting with no murders linked to my guns or myself…) I have built a pink gun for my daughter. It opened a door for her to make the gun look less scary and allow her to relax, learn, and have fun. I think you are just pissed that pink guns make women get interested into the shooting sports. I have no cite for that however. I admit I am pulling that one out of my ass.
Maybe. They should feel free to start their own .org and do with it what they would like. Right now, the NRA is 4 million strong and growing by thousands every week.
Haha, if guns look like they do normally, black, they’re evil. If they’re made to be another color, now you’re just not taking guns seriously enough. Yes, coloring your gun pink is a wildly irresponsible action. Let’s ban all guns.
Correct yourself again. It wasn’t 23, it was 1. Reread that link. 23 crew members, only one of whom died.
I always saw shooting as a gentleman’s sport. And gunsmithing is a gentleman’s hobby. And like most sports and hobbies, they bring together people from all walks of life and talk/act on even terms.
They are also ideal solitary pursuits, freeing the practitioner from humdrum to learn and perfect being himself, just himself.
Here I am in my den, shielded from even my family, as I regard my collection of firearms and knives from three generations back.
It’s of course a judgement call. My judgement is that if toy and real guns, in civilian hands, look similar, police will be more likely to mistake the type of gun with tragic results.
Here’s one memo:
Now, I do realize it’s not just a matter of irresponsible real gun people, but also of irresponsibity on the toy side, as in this story:
Then we might agree on the most important point.
The devil is in the details on this, and I have no specific proposal. Israel is supposed to have a 50 bullet lifetime limit, but I don’t know the details such as how they handle target shooting and hunting (there’s not a lot of hunting in Israel, but web search indicates some). And I don’t know what Israel’s rate of non-political gun crime and gun suicide is. So JXJohns will probably accuse me of getting the idea out of a smelly body part, but c’est la internet.
Wow, way to go. I see you’ve mattered the art of sweeping generalization. The fact is, you’re wrong. I live in what would be considered rural America. Guns are a big part of or lives and we shoot just about every weekend as we have a shooting range on our neighbors property. The weekend target shooting if a social event, bringing most of the neighbors together, enjoying a common interest. Every one of us if concerned at the ridiculous gun ban proposals making the rounds. The reason that is cited most in our conversations is not the fact that a weapon might be banned, but the fact that the proposals being made are useless. They do nothing to solve the problem and seemed to be written by someone who is almost clueless when it comes to firearms.
To say we don’t care is pure propaganda on your part. There wasn’t one among us who wasn’t heart broken at the news of the school shooting. We all agree that something needs to be done, but are smart enough to know that feel good rhetoric isn’t going to do a damn thing. Do us all a favor, don’t Try to tell us how we feel or what we care and don’t care about. If you want to play that game I am sure we will have no problems assuming what you think about issues, regarded of your true opinions and actions.
You could just as easily say that if everybody assumes that brightly-colored guns are toys, all it takes is for criminals to paint their guns pink and suddenly they have the upper hand. The color of an object that otherwise looks like a gun is not as important as the context and the behavior of all involved actors. There is absolutely nothing irresponsible about having a bright pink gun so long as you always treat it the way a gun ought to be treated.
I’m not sure it’s important, or that it will even make much difference. I just don’t think it’s a big deal and I don’t oppose it. Private sellers already have to go through the FFL transfer process (which includes the background check) when selling to anybody not in their own state, and this is often enough the case on auction sites like gunbroker.com. Many private sellers insist on it even for in-state sales, just because their conscience and/or cover-your-ass instinct insists. Requiring it as a matter of course shouldn’t get anyone’s panties in a twist. Probably the only reason the NRA opposes it is because they think any compromise will be taken as a sign of weakness.
What I’m suggesting is that there are two quantities of ammunition here: the quantity of ammunition a potential mass murderer needs to be deadly, and the minimum amount any sport shooter or enthusiast needs to keep on hand, and that these two quantities are so far apart as to make any compromise impossible. Fifty rounds? That’s more than enough for a massacre – but a target shooter could easily use several times that in just one afternoon of practice. (Slow, steady, aimed practice, too.)
For example, I have on hand right now, approximately:
[ul]
[li] 500 rounds of 5.56x45mm NATO[/li][li] 500 rounds of .22LR[/li][li] 300 rounds of .45ACP[/li][li] 200 rounds of 7.62x54R[/li][li] 50 rounds of 12-gauge, mixed buckshot and slugs[/li][/ul]
This is hardly a considerable stash; I don’t really stay “stocked up” the way some people do, because I don’t go shooting all that often. I actually do have a few orders out right now for a couple thousand more rounds of 5.56, but given the current demand it looks like it’ll be several months before my orders start shipping. And this isn’t because I’m a survivalist nut, or anything; I just like to have enough to go shooting with friends now and then without having to worry about the occasionally unpredictable ammunition market. I also save money buying in bulk.
Any proposal to limit ammunition sales that would put a crimp in the cache of a “mass shooter” would be viewed by legitimate gun owners much as you would feel about being allowed to only purchase a pint of gasoline at a time, or to only have a quarter of a roll of toilet paper in your house. Not even close to reasonable.