So now you know the decision making process of every person who has ever bought a firearm, too? You’re amazing.
How much do you want to dig in with this line of stupid?
Someone in this thread brought up the ridiculous strawmen that people who own guns for self defense only concern themselves against defending themselves against people with guns. He even specifically said 100%+ of the people have that as their only concern. What the plus means, I don’t even know.
This is obviously a ridiculous statement. Do you disagree? So I point out how ridiculous it is. How nonsensical it is that you’d own a gun specifically only against that particular subset of threats. Why wouldn’t you own a gun to defend yourself against other people who pose a threat to you for a multitude of reasons that would still exist even if all guns but yours magically dissapeared from the world? It’s not a reasonable position. No one said to themselves “I can handle all other possible threats with my bare hands, I solely need guns to defend myself against people with other guns”, the idea is ridiculous.
And here you are asserting that I must somehow be a mindreader to know the exact mentality of every single person who ever bought a gun. As if you’d somehow win a point if you could prove that indeed, one insane person out of 80 million gun owners does indeed think such ridiculous thoughts. Of course all 80 million gun owners are insane, right? Let’s keep jerking.
Yes, there has been some jerking going on, you’re quite correct. Somebody (you don’t remember who, exactly, but boy you sure do know what his motives are) jerked your chain and you’ve been going on about it for about a page and a half.
I didn’t say anybody was crazy, Beef. Don’t get too excited. Try and save some of that nervous energy so you can do your bit about how now is no time, seeing how we’re all so emotional and upset, to discuss gun laws. Unfortunately, with a large population and heaps of guns, there’s always a recent atrocity to prevent discussion. Why, it’s almost as if you have no interest in thinking about the subject and would rather that nobody else did, either.
You should get some Facebook friends from St. Louis. You’ll get a steady diet of this kind of shit. All the stuff on that idiot gun range instructor’s page? I’ve seen it already.
And no, they’re not joking. Our very own SDMB gun nuts admit to practicing their quick draw so they can get the drop on the bad guy, when the inevitable shit goes down.
Who argued that?
As you so ably demonstrated in post 131, reading doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. So, cite?
He thinks I argued it. But I really didn’t. I even repeated my post in the hopes that SenorBeef would catch on. Ironically, the only person making a straw man argument in this thread is SenorBeef himself. I will admit that my mockery may have caused him to see red. I have more antics in my rhetorical pit arsenal but I’ll set them aside for now.
This is why responsible neuro-typical gun owners need to support scientific self defense research, risk assessment and pro-consumer investigation. They should take the lead in crafting firearm regulation, testing and safety advice, rather than leaving it to the Bradys and the NRA.
The problem I think is that you’d have to form an organization with competitive economic and populist power to have any sort of lobbying impact. But evidence based analysis and clear eyed risk assessment are not nearly as sexy fundraising and recruiting tools as fear and loathing.
I think the problems and possibiilties go deeper. The problems are associated with the NRA being one of the most effective political institutions in history: LaPierre pulls in a million dollars per year, far more than your comparable NGO, and the NRA’s doe-eyed membership loves him with all their heart.
Among possibilities, a 10,000 member organization can punch above its weight. They can issue scorecards and analysis; they can conduct research, but they can also advocate for research along their lines. Consumer reviews can shift the mindspace of some from a jittery snarl of nerves and paranoia to a cool headed assessor of risks and benefits. Also, everybody can benefit from informed thinking on self defense, as opposed to adolescent fantasies of heroics with bigguns.
Sure the NRA will always surpass the rationally inclined in terms of membership: they are experts in stoking the rubes after all. But you don’t need a large membership to have an outsized effect.
Keep in mind that calling oneself a Patriot does not make one a Patriot.
The American flag bumperstickers do that.
What you say is true and has worked at times and to various effect, and I’m intrigued by your ideas, MfM, but… the frothy-lipped gun guy down the street just convinced the newsstand guy you’re a foreign agitator and a communist Nazi. So now I’ll have to look for your newsletter somewhere else.
ETA: On review, I was tempted to line-break that post ellipses part into e. e. cummings stanza form. I have resisted.
I’m gonna’ say approximately 99% percent. No, guns would not “disappear” if they were banned. I’m familiar with sarcasm. There are more guns than people in America.
If you see no problem with that fact, you’re only helping those who want more. It’s so simple. And yes, millions of Americans are crazy, dumb, or both. And many of them are armed. You find this situation sane, do you ?
a waiver ever being signed is not terribly irrelevant. Waivers aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on in the face of gross negligence (or wilful acts). And this instructor was grossly negligent; the fact that the negligence resulted in his own death is a twisted joke, but …