Well, that’s something, I guess. Thank you.
It’s not like he’s sponsored any gun legislation. He’s voted on two bills in six years, and the second one, it’s not clear to me why ‘nay’ is more anti-gun than ‘yea.’ But I trust the pro-gun groups that grade him know how they *want *him to vote.
It seems fair (to me) to characterize him as a limiter of gun rights, not an outright opponent. Both votes were to keep the status quo.
I’d rephrase the question as: given that the general population is always going to have a certain subset of people with problems involving anything from lack of self-control, through anger management issues, all the way to total insanity, what should we do to try to minimize the incidence and danger of firearms in the hands of these people? Should we try to identify them (can we identify them in advance of violence?) and keep firearms out of the hands of the whole lot of them? Should we restrict firearms in general in some manner, e.g. limiting the number of shots that can be fired without reloading? Should we do nothing at all?
I have been really really pissed and then posted on the Dope.
But usually not while naked.
Pissed, like, angry, or pissed, like, in your cups?
From my experience, if the latter, one may not recall.
So,dude, c’mon…tell us about your personal track record on raping and strangling toddlers. I’m sure it will put your “it could happen to you!” assertion wrt to gun crime in a much more favorable light.
Except it doesn’t have to be “everyone” to make it effective policy.
I saw just today a study that showed more gun owners drive drunk, (not EVERY but MORE)
I have no idea what you’re referring to with regard to the second group. In fact this is a position I’ve personally encountered much more often with certain Republican-voting pro-gun groups who envision white guys carrying guns as righteous patriotic warriors defending their family, home and country from nasty gun-wielding thugs who by some strange coincidence are often non-white. Indeed, I’ve encountered the view on this very messageboard by at least one pro-gun advocate that white people open-carrying are exercising their Constitutional rights but black people open-carrying need to be “watched closely” (by the white people open-carrying).
I’m not suggesting that this is a majority view by any means but since the only Democratic viewpoint I’ve seen suggesting “guns for some and not for others” was where the “some” were LEOs I’d be interested in hearing more.
They make assault rifles with .22 ammunition? Genuine question.
Finally, pictures of the car. Definitely not a shotgun. Different articles have talked about different things, but the word Mercedes has appeared in nearly all of them. I guess that’s easier to get right than what kind of gun it was.
Apparently, they were married for only five months, back in 2009, and he had filed for divorce after only two months.
And apparently it was 1 a.m. Sunday, confirms that it was on Mother’s Day. Not that I’ve seen anyone more than mention that in one of the first day’s articles. I consider that to be a sign of restraint.
If you believe all the news stories, it was an assault .22 rifle shotgun. So that’s pretty cool.
Bloomberg: black males should not have guns. Here’s a cite, not a neutral source on this issue, but more credible than many I found.
And for example, California’s original ban of open carry was arguably racially motivated. I don’t think any of this is a majority opinion, but at least some have expressed it. And of course, the people who employ armed guards or possess their own firearms/CCW while advocating denying these rights to others.
Under technical terms, assault rifle is a very specific term, and under that, no they don’t make them in .22, as they require an “intermediate” centerfire cartridge. And most of what people call “assault rifles” are not strictly in that category if semi-automatic as 99.99% of those in civilian possession are. A related term is “assault weapon,” which pretty much means however the person claiming it wants it to be defined, in which case they choose from a list of banned features (Magazine size? Stock shape?) But even California exempts certain .22s from classification as assault weapons due to certain features.
The M-16 caliber is 5.56mm or .219 inches. It has, of course a much larger, more powerful cartridge.
An assault rifle is basically a rifle that can fire semi auto or fully automatic and uses a smaller rifle cartridge so that more ammunition can be carried.
Well, the actual bullet is about .224, as the caliber name is an approximation (e.g. the bullets used for .303 caliber are actually larger diameter than .308 caliber). It is a type of ~.22 caliber round, but when people refer to .22, it means .22 LR 99% of the time.
Thanks lurking, I was trying to explain the difference. You fought ignorance better than I.
I support legal gun ownership, but have never owned or wanted a gun.
Regardless of whether the politician in question is a hypocrite, I don’t expect many anti-gun folks to be too embarrassed by this incident. If anything, it may confirm their belief that having a gun around can lead to disaster if its owner gets drunk or crazy.
As **Eonwe ** noted, there are hypocrites on both sides of every controversial issue. That’s nothing new.
Are there liberal politicians who loudly support intergration and affirmative action, but make sure their own kids go to lily-white private schools? Sure.
Are there hawkish politicians who’ve pulled strings to keep their own sons out of the armed forces? Of course.
Are there self-proclaimed environmentalists who live in huge mansions, drive gas-guzzling cars and own private planes? Naturally.
Are there “pro-lifers” who would urge their own daughters to get abortions if they became pregnant? Definitely.
It’s embarrassing when people who share our views are jerks and phonies, but it’s not surprising.
Thanks to carnivorousplant and thelurkinghorror for your answers.
If I’m reading you right, there are assault rifles that can be said to shoot .22s and there are “assault rifles” that can do the same. I’m guessing we won’t hear any specifics on the rifle from any journalist until the trial.
Heh. Could be a market for that. It might not work in real life, but I bet it would work in a video game.
So, it is a shotgun that shoots .22 assault rifles? That sounds awesome. Even more so if the .22 assault rifles are, themselves, shooting. Where can I get one?
This is a close to .22 round fired by an M-16.
This is a .22 round fired by a .22.
The bullet is about the same size, but the cartridges are very different.
More to it than size, or rather diameter. .22lr bullets are soft lead, sometimes thinly electroplated with copper like the rightmost cartridge in your photo. You can deform them with just your fingernails. 5.56mm bullets are, usually, made from a harder lead alloy that is surrounded by a cupronickel jacket. In some military examples, there may be a small steel penetrator as part of the construction. They are substantially heavier and harder than the .22lr projectile.
From the picture of the car, can you guess which kind of bullet was used?
Looks to me that it was likely a .22lr. The cars I have seen shot up with 5.56 had circles of bare metal around the actual bullet hole. Just a somewhat educated guess, though.
