Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3301  
Old 11-11-2013, 06:47 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,056
Is that what my post looked like through your eyes? Huh.
  #3302  
Old 11-11-2013, 06:56 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
I went to their website, they said, in its entirety:

Quote:
OTC has responded by noting that in the image above, they were posing for a picture. You can see another image of the group here.
That's what it looked like through my eyes. So, they were posing for a picture because they were proud of what they were doing? Well, good, I am much relieved to hear it. Before, I was thinking they were doing something they shouldn't, like assholes. But now that I know they were proud of what they were doing, I know that they are total assholes! Either that, or from Dallas.
  #3303  
Old 11-11-2013, 07:04 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,056
Oh, I see now. You were responding solely to the last sentence of my post, and you understand the ThinkProgress update to be merely pointing out that they were posing for a picture. Got it.
  #3304  
Old 11-11-2013, 07:43 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
I posted the whole quote! WTF? That was it, no editing. A link to another picture, which I had already seen, I noted the flag which wasn't visible in the other picture. So far as I can tell, the sum total of new information here is that they were posing for a picture! (Which, IIRCAANJHASM [If I recall correctly and am not just having a senior moment], has already been mentioned upthread...)

Is there a hidden subtext? I already knew there were kids and women there, so what? Am I to be pleased that they are raising up a fresh crop of Ted Nugents? You think because there are kids there it makes it wholesome? Why? Its not like they were out to Chuck E. Cheese. Well, that's not exactly wholesome either, but still....

They knew what they were doing, they were proud of it, but wait! They're teaching their kids to do the same thing. So, all good.

I don't get it. Who are you, and what have you done with Richard Parker? (If there is a ransom involved, we can probably do a bake sale, or source a cloud. Something. Valuable guy, don't want to lose him....)
  #3305  
Old 11-11-2013, 08:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Its not like they were out to Chuck E. Cheese. Well, that's not exactly wholesome either, but still....
They did go to Hooters afterward. Sorta makes up for it.
  #3306  
Old 11-11-2013, 08:27 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
They did not take their kids to Hooters! And don't you try to tell me they did, because they didn't!
  #3307  
Old 11-11-2013, 08:48 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,210
I went there once. A girl with lipstick on her teeth recommended the clam basket. I forget what else. Lame tangent, sorry.
  #3308  
Old 11-11-2013, 09:37 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
A feminist once told me I shouldn't patronize Hooters, so I don't; I just sometimes look in at the window and lick the glass for an hour or two.
  #3309  
Old 11-11-2013, 10:18 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Never been. Why go to the Museum of Unobtainium?
  #3310  
Old 11-11-2013, 11:46 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Never been. Why go to the Museum of Unobtainium?
To lick the glass.
  #3311  
Old 11-12-2013, 12:08 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
False equivalency. Don't pretend a circular saw can kill as many people as fast as an assault weapon.
It depends on how you line them up.

But generally I don't know that gun accidents are much more common than power tool accidents, the fact that guns can also be used more offensively doesn't make gun accidents all that different than other types of accidents does it?. But this is the stupid gun new thread so every gun accident in the country has to be documented here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Wow, you're a special kind of stupid, I'll grant you that.

The 'women and kids' you say were there ain't the story. The 40 guys packin' heat in the parking lot - purely by accident! Random chance, we promise! - of the restaurant where the MDA moms were meeting - they're the story.

When ESPN carries a story of a football game and it only has one picture to the article, my guess is they show a picture of....the football players, not the people in the crowd.
By now you realize that the kids were posing in the picture with the gun toters, does that change how you view the original photo?

Quote:
Gotta say, sometimes the gun nuts make our job so much easier. Their stupidity is my best argument - 'these are the people you want us to trust to use firearms responsibly? God help us, this is how they act when they're apparently sane and sober....'
And yet your side seems to be unable to pass even purely symbolic background check laws at gun shows. The gun debate is one of the few areas where the liberals are the ignorant fact free side of the debate. There is probably more room for gun control but none of the current crop of gun grabbers is well informed enough or objective enough to achieve anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Mike View Post
I am not really in the middle of this discussion, so pardon my intrusion.

With that said, I am a very strong supporter of gun ownership. I agree that the 2nd amendment has some flaws in it which may not be applicable to modern day society, but nonetheless, I think (like the Supreme Court recently) gun ownership has become enshrined as a right in our culture and should not be abridged without a legitimate public interest.

Ok, now that I have explained my general perspective, I must say this about your defense here Richard. I appreciate you are trying to defend gun owners and their rights. But,...
So, with that said. You may think you are defending something good and noble here Richard, but these are not the sort of people you wish to defend. I don't need them on my side.
IOW, these guys are jerks, you don't have to defend every single jerk with a gun. Sure the gun grabbers were trying to paint these jerks as assassins or something but that what they get for being jerks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
OK, they were posing for a picture. While they were doing what they should not have been doing. Well, that changes everything! Well, something. Actually, not much.
The picture is prejudicial but I doubt it changed any minds.
Its not like someone yelling "let them die" during a Republican primary debate on health care.
  #3312  
Old 11-12-2013, 12:44 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
...And yet your side seems to be unable to pass even purely symbolic background check laws at gun shows. The gun debate is one of the few areas where the liberals are the ignorant fact free side of the debate.....
Are you really sure you want to suggest that sheer power or the lack of it somehow is indicative of knowledge and wisdom?

Still, you managed to get through a moderately lengthy post about guns without once mentioning the AWB. We are all very proud of you.
  #3313  
Old 11-12-2013, 02:25 AM
Malacandra is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England, Britain, UK
Posts: 18,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I went there once. A girl with lipstick on her teeth recommended the clam basket. I forget what else. Lame tangent, sorry.
"Clam basket". Right.
  #3314  
Old 11-12-2013, 04:07 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
IOW, these guys are jerks, you don't have to defend every single jerk with a gun. Sure the gun grabbers were trying to paint these jerks as assassins or something but that what they get for being jerks.
Really? Being painted as "assassins or something"? Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?

Frankly I'm stunned that people seem to be willing to die on the hill of "this photo doesn't show everyone who was present". I don't care if there were 20 orphans, three clowns and the Pope there; it doesn't detract from the fact that a large group of people with guns standing outside a restaurant where four women are having a gun control meeting over lunch is going to come across as intimidating, and it certainly isn't unreasonable to assume it was their intention to appear so.
  #3315  
Old 11-12-2013, 04:57 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
The photo makes it seem like they're trying to intimidate people by crouching beside a car with guns at the ready.
I've seen both pictures, you moron. And you lose all credibility when you rant and screech at how the top picture makes it look like 'they're trying to intimidate people by crouching beside a car with guns at the ready'.

No it doesn't you dim-witted bulb, it looks like they're posing for a picture.

There could be any other reasonable reasons they didn't want to run the picture with little kids in it, but quite frankly, I'd think the group would be -happy- that they didn't run the picture with little kids in it. You realize that having little kids running around while the manly men bring out their guns and strut around a parking lot to 'protest' four women eating at said restaurant does not, in actual fact, paint the group in a better light?
  #3316  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:48 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 31,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Never been. Why go to the Museum of Unobtainium?
The clam basket.
  #3317  
Old 11-12-2013, 09:11 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
The aesthetics of the photo shoot are enhanced by the fact that the subjects are uniformly beige in complexion. Your darker complected types in Texas seldom gather for armed photo ops, as the effect is aesthetically displeasing and likely to attract unwanted attention.
  #3318  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:33 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
From the discussion, and particularly Richard Parker's characterization, I thought the photo in question would show some people lying in wait or sighting the restaurant.

I have to say that I just don't get your take on this, Richard Parker. Looks like a clump of people with guns from either side to me. The fact that they were assembled bearing arms is reflected in both pictures, and is a tactic these folks like to employ.

I remember a video from Ohio that I'm not going to bother digging up that showed a bunch of these douchebags doing something similar to women there - bearing arms, milling about looking vaguely menacing.

Whether the women in these situations realize that guys like this are really pussies (e.g. the kind prone to fire sight unseen at someone knocking at their door), I don't know. I also don't know if that would make them feel more or less comfortable. Panicky people arming themselves to help them cope doesn't make me feel better about things.

In any event, Richard has really gotten fixated on one of the least relevant aspects of the story. I don't know why.
  #3319  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:42 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Such tactics can be very effective. For instance, the famous example of Oakland Black Panthers strolling around in Sacramento, lo, these many years past, with unlimbered firearms openly carried. Many California Republicans discovered a previously unrealized devotion and dedication to gun control. Put a whole different complexion on the issue. So to speak.
  #3320  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:45 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
In any event, Richard has really gotten fixated on one of the least relevant aspects of the story. I don't know why.
I think I've explained my reasons pretty clearly, it's just that you disagree. That's fine.

For me, and apparently a lot of other Americans based on the discussion of these photos elsewhere in the media, there is an important difference between a group composed exclusively of men, crouched near a car holding guns facing toward the supposed target of their intimidation, and a group of men, moms, and their kids posing for a group photo and also carrying guns. I could expand on each of those differences and why they are less menacing, but since I think its pretty self-evident, I assume we're basically at the irreducible level of perception that's no use arguing.

And characterizing me as fixated is a bit odd. Almost every news source without an open partisan affiliation has reported the photo controversy as part of the story (example), as have all the usual right-wing sites. And, as pointed out above, even ThinkProgress saw fit to update their story with this information.
  #3321  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:47 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,804
So, nothing about why they were there and what they were so proud of doing that a group photo was called for? Nothing?
  #3322  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:48 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,056
Are you addressing those questions to me?
  #3323  
Old 11-12-2013, 10:54 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,804
Do you see anyone else here evading them?
  #3324  
Old 11-12-2013, 12:14 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
For me, and apparently a lot of other Americans based on the discussion of these photos elsewhere in the media, there is an important difference between a group composed exclusively of men, crouched near a car holding guns facing toward the supposed target of their intimidation, and a group of men, moms, and their kids posing for a group photo and also carrying guns.
Yes. The difference is that the latter is far more disturbing.
  #3325  
Old 11-12-2013, 01:04 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,056
Good on TPM for putting this on the front page: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...sters-in-texas

Quote:
A photo of an armed protest on Saturday in Texas may not have been exactly what it seemed.

The photo (posted below) gained national attention this past weekend after it was released by the gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense. Taken at a distance and from the side, it showed the armed protesters gathered in a parking lot, staring forward, with some kneeling, their guns in hand.

Moms Demand Action pointed to it as proof the armed demonstrators had been trying to intimidate a small meeting of the gun control organization's state chapter that was taking place at a restaurant in Arlington.

But shortly after the story broke, a second photo surfaced online that seemed to show the armed group in a different light. It was taken from the front, and clearly showed them posing and smiling for the camera. Someone in back was holding up an American flag.
  #3326  
Old 11-12-2013, 04:22 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Note the artful wording, Richard. "Seemed to show". "May not have been exactly".

Few if anyone thought that the armed bunch was actually setting up a firing line to mow down innocent women. I didn't, you didn't. "Intimidating" is not quite the word? How about "disconcerting" and "unnerving"? What is there about this that is positive, what is there that moves our discussion forward along reasonable and civil lines?

Are we invited to believe that the people who pulled this happy horseshit are innocently ignorant of the effect? Please. For my two bits, all this was about was an "in your face, neener neener" demonstration, adding nothing worthwhile to what is already a bitter and acrimonious dispute.

TPM never believed for a moment that there was any actual threat of violence intended. Thier clarification does not represent approval so much as a strict clarity. Good enough, I hold them blameless. But the jerks who pulled this stunt are cheerfully adding heat at the expense of light, and the horse upon in which they rode.
  #3327  
Old 11-12-2013, 04:43 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,056
Here I thought TPM agreeing with me that the two photos "tell different stories" would create a nice coda for this little row, since it alleviates my criticism of them for being misleading and we can all agree that this is what makes liberal media better than Fox News.

But, alas, it was not to be. Instead I get from you another round of "if they were up to no good, then any effort to make them look even more devious if fair game." I respectfully dissent. I think fair reporting means portraying them without exaggerating their menace. Apparently TPM agrees, and so me and TPM can skip down the road together in agreement that these protesters, accurately portrayed, are nitwits.
  #3328  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:17 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
...Instead I get from you another round of "if they were up to no good, then any effort to make them look even more devious if fair game."....
Didn't say any such thing. I advise that I am entirely capable of putting words in my mouth, and do not require any assistance. Respectfully, of course.
  #3329  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:34 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Such tactics can be very effective. For instance, the famous example of Oakland Black Panthers strolling around in Sacramento, lo, these many years past, with unlimbered firearms openly carried. Many California Republicans discovered a previously unrealized devotion and dedication to gun control. Put a whole different complexion on the issue. So to speak.
In fact I recall the fine people of FoxNews keeping a close eye on a black guy in a beret at one polling place and suggesting that he was there to intimidate non-Obama voters. And that guy was unarmed and his "intimidating behavior" was opening doors for people.

If that's intimidating, I think a large group of people holding guns in that particular context can be said to be intimidating too. That they brought the wives and kids doesn't make it less so.
  #3330  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:55 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Oh, I definitely think the presence of kids damps down the fear level. Still stupid, pointless, and mean spirited. And did you look at the guns, in the front row where you can see them? Only one to my eye appears to be an "ordinary" hunting rifle, the rest looks like they were under Rambo's Christmas tree. I know they aren't military weapons, so why do they go do so much trouble to make them look like it?

Because it works, that's why. Because they foster the very fear they claim to cure. They are selling the sizzle more than the steak. Buying a scary looking gun makes the mark feel safer, tougher. And oh! how the money rolls in, rolls in.

Now, my stance remains as it was, Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You, and muzzle-tov! I sympathize with the gun control crowd, but getting rid of them just isn't possible. Best we can hope for is medical science being able to cure testosterone poisoning....
  #3331  
Old 11-12-2013, 07:19 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Best we can hope for is medical science being able to cure testosterone poisoning....
So what's their excuse?
  #3332  
Old 11-12-2013, 07:32 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Wow, The Onion is really getting sophisticated!
  #3333  
Old 11-12-2013, 08:44 PM
sinjin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,263
This is the part that gets me:

Quote:
Son: no dad, we are not pointing them at anything, people should not be afraid of guns.
Why shouldn't we be afraid of guns in a public place? I'm not afraid of them in a hunting situation. I'm not afraid of them at the shooting range. But 40 armed men in the parking lot outside of the restaurant where I am talking with three other women about gun control. Why would I not be afraid of them? Why would I not be afraid of them at the supermarket? How about the movie theater? Should I not be afraid of them there? How am I to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Do they wear white hats? How do I distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?
  #3334  
Old 11-12-2013, 09:18 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
One of the newsy shows I just watched had a piece about all this flap ended with a photo I had not seen before. Taken afterwards, showing the same happy crew posing with Hooter girls on the steps of said bar. Now while its true that having kids there lessens the threat perception, its nothing like making themselves look damn silly. Just lets all the air out of the tires.
  #3335  
Old 11-12-2013, 09:26 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjin View Post
How about the movie theater?
Is it in Aurora, Colorado?
  #3336  
Old 11-12-2013, 09:35 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
"We ain't tryin' to intimidate these gals . . ."
  #3337  
Old 11-13-2013, 04:41 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjin View Post
Why shouldn't we be afraid of guns in a public place? I'm not afraid of them in a hunting situation. I'm not afraid of them at the shooting range. But 40 armed men in the parking lot outside of the restaurant where I am talking with three other women about gun control. Why would I not be afraid of them? Why would I not be afraid of them at the supermarket? How about the movie theater? Should I not be afraid of them there? How am I to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Do they wear white hats? How do I distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?
They're all good, law-abiding, responsible gun owners until one of them shoots somebody. That's how we know the difference.
  #3338  
Old 11-13-2013, 12:12 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Are you really sure you want to suggest that sheer power or the lack of it somehow is indicative of knowledge and wisdom?
No, I'm saying that their sheer lack of knowledge and wisdom has led to their lack of power.

Quote:
Still, you managed to get through a moderately lengthy post about guns without once mentioning the AWB. We are all very proud of you.
I'm trying but you aren't making it easy. See below where you talk about scary LOOKING guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Really? Being painted as "assassins or something"? Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?
Yeah, are you? One photo protrays this group as far more menacing than the other. now we think that the people who procided the meancing looking photo had access to both and chose to provide the menacing looking one. I don't blame TPM, they ran with what they had and frankly they also ran the other photo when it was provided to them and acknowledged taht the two photos gave different impressions.

Quote:
I don't care if there were 20 orphans, three clowns and the Pope there; it doesn't detract from the fact that a large group of people with guns standing outside a restaurant where four women are having a gun control meeting over lunch is going to come across as intimidating, and it certainly isn't unreasonable to assume it was their intention to appear so.
The presence of kids changes things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Good on TPM for putting this on the front page: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...sters-in-texas
Well that should be the end of that. Or maybe not... The gun grabbers just can't admit theyw ere ever wropng about anything can they? its like they think that admittingt error about anything means they are wrong about everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Oh, I definitely think the presence of kids damps down the fear level. Still stupid, pointless, and mean spirited. And did you look at the guns, in the front row where you can see them? Only one to my eye appears to be an "ordinary" hunting rifle, the rest looks like they were under Rambo's Christmas tree.
I think you may be a little obsessed by color. I see one rifle ith wood furniture that looks like it would get your seal of approval and Isee another rifle with black plastic furniture with a fixed stock and no pistol grip but with a magazine. See lower right hand corner. Gee why would anyone ever get a black palstic rifle instead of one with wood furniture? Becuz plastic is usually than wood. The guy on the lower left is holding a 22lr rifle (look at the thin magazine).

Quote:
they aren't military weapons, so why do they go do so much trouble to make them look like it?
You know those "traditional hunting rifles" youa re talking about? They look almost exactly like the Enfields and Garands that were used in the military during WWI and WWII. In fact they OPERATED almost exactly like the military versions.

So now you have civilian versions of military rifles and you want them to create civilian versions of the stock and front grips? Why would they do that?

Quote:
Because it works, that's why. Because they foster the very fear they claim to cure. They are selling the sizzle more than the steak. Buying a scary looking gun makes the mark feel safer, tougher. And oh! how the money rolls in, rolls in.
Can you tell me the features taht you think look scary? Because, with very limited exceptions the gunowners I know are reluctant to add unecessary weight to a gun for purely cosmetic reasons. Is it the picatinny rail that looks menacing? or the magpul furniture?

Quote:
Now, my stance remains as it was, Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You, and muzzle-tov! I sympathize with the gun control crowd, but getting rid of them just isn't possible. Best we can hope for is medical science being able to cure testosterone poisoning....
Or perhaps we can educate people to stop being afraid of inaminate objects no matter how deadly they can be in the hands of a madman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjin View Post
Why would I not be afraid of them? Why would I not be afraid of them at the supermarket? How about the movie theater? Should I not be afraid of them there? How am I to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Do they wear white hats? How do I distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?
So the fact taht these guys have their kids with them doesn't change their threat level? Maybe its just me but even the msot menacing looking guys look significantly less meancing with a baby bjorn strapped to their chest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
They're all good, law-abiding, responsible gun owners until one of them shoots somebody. That's how we know the difference.
What percentage of gun violence is committed by previously law abiding gun owners?

Now tell me how many times guns are used in self defense?
  #3339  
Old 11-13-2013, 01:49 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Boy, if only those gun grabbers would stop blocking funding for such studies, huh? Clearly, they are afraid of being proven wrong.
  #3340  
Old 11-13-2013, 03:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,804
After a couple of dozen times asking that question here, even answering it himself once or twice (based on some gun-polisher study he found somewhere), you'd think he'd get off his arse and go find out himself. Instead, he thinks he's actually making a point of some kind. Sad little wanker.
  #3341  
Old 11-13-2013, 04:27 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Oh, and about that whole shtick about how gun manufacturers don't make guns to look scary, or anything like that, those are utterly practical decisions made for entirely pragmatic reasons?

So, let me get this straight, here. My suggestion that they are made to look that way to appeal to the fantasy Rambo that lurks inside the minds of the testosterone impaired.....that is nonsense? No such thing, never happens? All those guys at gun shows, they are all paragons of strict reason, then, unaffected by the same sort of male folly that urges us to buy cars with more engine than we will ever need?

Truly, this is an extraordinary suggestion, and I confess, I had no idea! Is it inhaling cordite that does it, erases all that atavistic instinct from the male persona? All that foolishness we get up to that cause the soft guys charged with our care and feeding to roll theirs wonderingly?

They are all immune to such folly, then? None of them, presented with two weapons that perform roughly the same, would be moved to select the gun that looks more like something a tough guy would carry? And no manufacturer of guns ever considers that selling point when they design the Damned Thing?

Well, OK, then, I guess that certainly settles that!
  #3342  
Old 11-13-2013, 05:05 PM
Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,616

And now, for something completely different...


So, there's this lawmaker in Idaho, right? And he applies for, and receives, a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Then the sheriff discovers he had a conviction for rape, and didn't disclose it on his application, and so the sheriff revokes the permit. The lawmaker cries "Foul" for several reasons, including but limited to "but I wasn't guilty, I only pled guilty".
That's OK, it Just Doesn't Matter.
"A 1990 law makes Idaho the only state in which legislators are exempt from gun permit requirements, an anomaly that rankles some lawmakers." (from Wonkette)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...t-application#
  #3343  
Old 11-13-2013, 07:28 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,908
A speedy recall election should be able to remove his exemption right quick, doncha think?
  #3344  
Old 11-14-2013, 09:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Boy, if only those gun grabbers would stop blocking funding for such studies, huh? Clearly, they are afraid of being proven wrong.
So why doesn't the DOJ conduct such studies? Oh wait, they did you just don't like the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Oh, and about that whole shtick about how gun manufacturers don't make guns to look scary, or anything like that, those are utterly practical decisions made for entirely pragmatic reasons?

So, let me get this straight, here. My suggestion that they are made to look that way to appeal to the fantasy Rambo that lurks inside the minds of the testosterone impaired.....that is nonsense? No such thing, never happens? All those guys at gun shows, they are all paragons of strict reason, then, unaffected by the same sort of male folly that urges us to buy cars with more engine than we will ever need?

Truly, this is an extraordinary suggestion, and I confess, I had no idea! Is it inhaling cordite that does it, erases all that atavistic instinct from the male persona? All that foolishness we get up to that cause the soft guys charged with our care and feeding to roll theirs wonderingly?

They are all immune to such folly, then? None of them, presented with two weapons that perform roughly the same, would be moved to select the gun that looks more like something a tough guy would carry? And no manufacturer of guns ever considers that selling point when they design the Damned Thing?

Well, OK, then, I guess that certainly settles that!


There are definitely accessories out there that are sold for the express puspose of making a gun look tacticool just like some people put airdams and spoilers on their Honda CRX. But go over to AR15.com and when people ask about accessory A vs accessory B, weight is usually a much greater concern than how scary something looks.

I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make. you keep bringing up this point about guns being intentionally made to look scary or something. So what? Does that mean we should regulate or ban guns that simply LOOK scary? Oh wait, we did THAT too (see AWB) and it had NO EFFECT on gun violence. So what's your point, that some people buy guns that look scary BECAUSE they look scary? OK so what? Some people buy knives that look scary BECAUSE they
look scary.

Thats not to say that aesthetics don't come into play but I'm still trying to figure out what features scare you. I've heard people point to quad rails and say they find those things scary, is that the part that scares you? What part of the gun do you find most scary?
  #3345  
Old 11-14-2013, 11:04 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by luci
Buying a scary looking gun makes the mark feel safer, tougher.
People buy things for cosmetic reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DA
Can you tell me the features taht you think look scary? Because, with very limited exceptions the gunowners I know are reluctant to add unecessary weight to a gun for purely cosmetic reasons.
No they don't!

Quote:
Originally Posted by luci
Oh, and about that whole shtick about how gun manufacturers don't make guns to look scary, or anything like that, those are utterly practical decisions made for entirely pragmatic reasons?
Yes they do!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DA
So what's your point, that some people buy guns that look scary BECAUSE they look scary? OK so what?
OK they do, but who cares!


Well done, sir. You've, um... won?

Last edited by steronz; 11-14-2013 at 11:04 AM.
  #3346  
Old 11-14-2013, 11:22 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Not about me, as much as you might wish otherwise. I don't have any. Not going to get any. Do not want. My perception is that the people who make money from the manufacture and sale of weapons are eager to sell more. Tres duh. To do that, it is important to make people believe that they need guns, that they are at risk, that fear is a reasonable and rational reaction to their circumstances.

And fear is destructive, it rots the mind. The more afraid you are, the less likely you are to make reasonable and appropriate decisions. This is a Bad Thing.

One of the chief propaganda points of the Fear Lobby is the alleged defensive use, and some of the numbers offered are patently absurd. I think a definitive study of the question would be very difficult to design. But I cannot help but notice which group of people is most resistant to such a study being conducted. In my time walking to and fro upon the Earth, I have noticed that people who are most resistant to an effort to find the truth are those people who profit most from avoiding it. YMMV.

Your insinuation that I am some sort of nervous Nellie who might faint dead away at the sight of a scary black fun changes nothing, I am but one, and we are many.

Last edited by elucidator; 11-14-2013 at 11:23 AM.
  #3347  
Old 11-14-2013, 02:27 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
scary black fun
I'm glad you're not traumatized, Luci, but from now on you can stay the hell out of my search history.
  #3348  
Old 11-14-2013, 10:59 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Not about me, as much as you might wish otherwise. I don't have any. Not going to get any. Do not want. My perception is that the people who make money from the manufacture and sale of weapons are eager to sell more. Tres duh. To do that, it is important to make people believe that they need guns, that they are at risk, that fear is a reasonable and rational reaction to their circumstances.

And fear is destructive, it rots the mind. The more afraid you are, the less likely you are to make reasonable and appropriate decisions. This is a Bad Thing.

One of the chief propaganda points of the Fear Lobby is the alleged defensive use, and some of the numbers offered are patently absurd. I think a definitive study of the question would be very difficult to design. But I cannot help but notice which group of people is most resistant to such a study being conducted. In my time walking to and fro upon the Earth, I have noticed that people who are most resistant to an effort to find the truth are those people who profit most from avoiding it. YMMV.

Your insinuation that I am some sort of nervous Nellie who might faint dead away at the sight of a scary black fun changes nothing, I am but one, and we are many.
There are two thoughts here I'd like to address. One is the notion that objecting to research by one government entity while leaving another government entity alone to do as much research as it wants means that they don't want research done. Reasonable or not, the reason they objected to the research by the CDC is because they thought it was biased and treated guns like a disease.

The other is the notion that gun owners are the victims of industry propaganda to make them afraid that they don't have enough guns to protect themselves. It has been noted before that there are fewer gun owners but each gun owner owns a lot more guns and frankly I don't know anyone with an AR15 who doesn't also own at least one other gun. What do you think I imagined that my tenth gun would do for me that my first gun would not? The only gun related items I have bought were some Magpul magazines when Feinstein started talking about banning high capacity mags, it as totlaly irrational, Feinstein didn't have the votes and I already have more Pmags than I will wear out in my lifetime.

I MIGHT have bought my first gun out of safety concerns. Is THAT what you are talking about? That these gun manufacturers are trying to scare first time gun buyers into buying scary looking $600 AR15s when they could just as easily be selling them $600 handguns.
  #3349  
Old 11-15-2013, 02:07 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
So, how is it that this is about you? If you are a reasonable sort of person who owns a gun, does that mean the stereotypical "gun nut" doesn't exist? Because you are not subject to any twisted and atavistic feelings about weapons, that means nobody is?

And this:

Quote:
...the reason they objected to the research by the CDC is because they thought it was biased and treated guns like a disease....
That makes sense to you? You see a legitimate complaint there, someone's dignity is offended? Being insulted by being compared to cholera or smallpox? Because what, the CDC study method is named "epidemiology"? I can believe somebody is dumb enough to buy that, just can't believe its you.

Of all the lame ass insinuations of bias I have ever heard, that one takes the cake. Now, if you looks me right in the monitor with a straight face and tell me that makes sense to you, I'll probably believe that you do. But it will be quite a stretch.
  #3350  
Old 11-15-2013, 09:07 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
So, how is it that this is about you? If you are a reasonable sort of person who owns a gun, does that mean the stereotypical "gun nut" doesn't exist? Because you are not subject to any twisted and atavistic feelings about weapons, that means nobody is?
Well, it would be nice if you could point to some significant number of people who own AR 15s who are buying them out of gun industry generated fear. Instead, the most effective use of fear to drive AR15 sales has been the fear generated by Feinstein's threats of an AWB. The gun industry didn't create that fear, Feinstein and company did.

Quote:
That makes sense to you? You see a legitimate complaint there, someone's dignity is offended? Being insulted by being compared to cholera or smallpox? Because what, the CDC study method is named "epidemiology"? I can believe somebody is dumb enough to buy that, just can't believe its you.
Because they never seem to take the benefits of guns in society into account. There is only a downside to guns in society as far as these people are concerned.

Quote:
Of all the lame ass insinuations of bias I have ever heard, that one takes the cake. Now, if you looks me right in the monitor with a straight face and tell me that makes sense to you, I'll probably believe that you do. But it will be quite a stretch.
Like I said, reasonable or not...

I think the NRA is as misguided about this as they were about resisting litigation a la Heller. I think biased studies only serve to reveal the bias of the authors of the study. I think that the facts line up better for the pro gun side than the anti-gun side especially regarding bans of small subsets of "scary looking" firearms.

However, I can see why the NRA would resist the efforts of what they consider to be biased research. And the research certainly seems to have an agenda beyond just fact finding. For example, authors blur cause and effect to say things like "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns." Or do you really think these guys are impartial fact finders?

Personally, I would be interested in a better study on defensive gun use. I would be interested in a study on the effects that the trend towards "shall issue" carry rules have had on gun violence and crime. I would be interested in a better understanding of how guns get into the hands of criminals so we can try to identify choke points where we can impose some better policing without unduly infringing on the rights of average Joes.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017