# At The Demonstartion Against The NRA. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805 "2018-04-20T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/121 "2018-04-22T15:00:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The LV shooter was by no means a amatuer. And there are a number of shootists that can get around those numbers. > > But yes, it is easier to fire lots of rounds with a semi auto. No one is claiming otherwise. However, that does not equal more deadly. [This guy seems to disagree.](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-leaves-3-dead-4-wounded-gunman-sought.html) He not only used a semi-automatic rifle, rather than a revolver, but his shooting was stopped when he had to reload, and was charged by a patron and had the weapon wrestled away from him. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/122 "2018-04-22T15:23:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it doesn’t assume that. While no human system of judicial interpretation is going to be scientifically precise, the system **Chronos** advocates makes the constitution irrelevant. If a law is determined to be good and just, it stays. If it is not deemed to be good and just, it goes. In that case, why do you need a constitution? In fact, the proposal is that the “good and just” evaluation is to be used on the constitution itself. Justices do not give the constitution any deference at all unless the part in question is deemed “good and just”. If not, it is treated as if it wasn’t there at all. Electoral College? Not good and just, so out it goes! > > Now, theoretically, there is nothing to prevent a SCOTUS justice from doing that today, but one would expect that such a justice would be impeached and removed from office. And if a nominee advocated for that system during the confirmation process, he or she would never be confirmed. Fair enough. A justice does not have the authority to simply ignore a specific law. But the devil is always in the details. _Liberal_ and _Conservative_ court justices interpret the same laws in substantively different ways. Sure, simply ignoring laws would/should get a judge into hot water. But courts do exercise certain flexibility in interpretation of the law and it’s not by chance that they tend to do so based on their political or moral inclinations. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/123 "2018-04-22T15:53:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Your system comes down to just that: what you want, and what you decide is moral, is the only possible correct outcome. Right? Look out, **Chronos**! This could be a trap! _Reductio ad absurdum delenda est!_ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/124 "2018-04-22T16:25:38Z")
Yeah, I don’t see **Chronos** saying that his method produces “the only possible correct outcome”. I believe he is saying it produces the best outcome, but not the only correct outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/125 "2018-04-22T16:38:10Z")
> [@LoneRhino](#): > > It’s a right wing version of an anchor baby. Except anchor babies are yet another right wing fantasy I’m just lost in a right wing fantasy . . . ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/126 "2018-04-22T16:38:49Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > An enquiring mind would like to know: if the Second Amendment to your Constitution is so central to its value, or even quasi-sacred, on the grounds that ordinary people might need to protect themselves with arms against an over-mighty government - what is it that’s so faulty about the rest of your Constitution that it could make such a government likely (or even possible)? It isn’t the Constitution that is the problem on that score. It’s the right wing assholes who scream about their freedom while passing laws to oppress their fellow citizens. They want the right to overthrow any government that opposes them, even if it is a legitimately elected government of their political opposition. They threaten to do so regularly. They de-legitimize the government on a regular basis to try to make themselves superior to it, not subject to it, claiming that they are the moral, cultural (and legal) center of our nation. Oh, and Benefactor Member. I used to be one for about 20 years. They had some program in the 1980’s where you could get it for something like a $500 contribution. I resigned several years ago and admittedly, about 10 years too late for my own comfort. The NRA board is made up of traitors, frauds, liars and criminals. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/127 "2018-04-22T16:53:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No that’s the Commies you’re thinking of. Yeah, but the Commies are funding the NRA. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/128 "2018-04-22T16:56:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > See post #95. It would not only allow, but encourage judges to ignore the plain text of the document and eliminate the very need of a constitution in the first place. > > The constitution says: The government can do X. A judge thinks X is not good and just, so ignore it. > > The constitution says the government cannot do Y. A judge thinks Y is good and just, so allow the government to do it. Or, the constitution is a bit vague and poorly worded about X, or does not directly address X as X is something that did not exist at the time. Some people think that that means that X is prohibited, and some people feel that that means that X is permitted. A judge that thinks that X is good and just may favor the interpretation that permits X, even though there are those who disagree, and feel that their interpretation is the more correct one. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/129 "2018-04-22T17:05:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If a law is determined to be good and just, it stays. If it is not deemed to be good and just, it goes. In that case, why do you need a constitution? > > … > > Now, theoretically, there is nothing to prevent a SCOTUS justice from doing that today, but one would expect that such a justice would be impeached and removed from office. And if a nominee advocated for that system during the confirmation process, he or she would never be confirmed. The supreme court never explicitly claims a part of the constitution is bad so it must go but they get there in practice. Consider how thoroughly the [4th amendment has been gutted.](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/opinion/another-hit-to-the-fourth-amendment.html) Consider how many times the 9th amendment has been used as the primary basis of a supreme court ruling (hint: zero). And as has already been noted Scalia effectively re-wrote the 2nd amendment by getting rid of the militia part and adding a self defense part. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/130 "2018-04-22T19:07:00Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > It’s not new, but again, there have been many, many more assaults with assault rifles and handguns because it’s just easier to achieve a mass slaughter that way… Altho indeed, in mass shootings semi-auto rifles have been the most common, they are used in almost no murders. No USA mass shootings have been committed with “assault rifles” which are select-fire and military only. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/131 "2018-04-22T19:08:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > [This guy seems to disagree.](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-leaves-3-dead-4-wounded-gunman-sought.html) > > He not only used a semi-automatic rifle, rather than a revolver, but his shooting was stopped when he had to reload, and was charged by a patron and had the weapon wrestled away from him. Disagrees in what way? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/132 "2018-04-22T19:32:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Disagrees in what way? He had a desire to kill a bunch of people. He did not take your advice of using a revolver and learning to be a trick shot. Instead, he used a semi-automatic rifle, because he recognized that being able to fire more bullets, with better accuracy and range, does make it more deadly. I’m just still trying to get my head around your claim that being able to fire more bullets more accurately over a shorter period of time doesn’t make a gun more deadly, so I am showing you examples of actual people who actually decided to go out and kill as many people as possible, and it does seem as though choosy mass killers choose semi-automatic rifles. Fortunately for being able to come up with examples, but a bit less fortunately for the people who are killed and maimed, the lack of any obstacle to prevent anyone who wants one from getting their hands on just about any gun they want, means that we can look at uite a number of mass shooters, and determine what their very favoritest gun was. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/133 "2018-04-22T19:55:45Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > He had a desire to kill a bunch of people. He did not take your advice of using a revolver and learning to be a trick shot. > > Instead, he used a semi-automatic rifle, because he recognized that being able to fire more bullets, with better accuracy and range, does make it more deadly. > > I’m just still trying to get my head around your claim that being able to fire more bullets more accurately over a shorter period of time doesn’t make a gun more deadly, so I am showing you examples of actual people who actually decided to go out and kill as many people as possible, and it does seem as though choosy mass killers choose semi-automatic rifles. > . Well, since I said “_But yes, it is easier to fire lots of rounds with a semi auto. No one is claiming otherwise. However, that does not equal more deadly._” There is no disagreement. A semi-auto does have a greater rate of fire. The idea is to fire rapidly and ACCURATELY. It’s not a coincidence that sniper rifles are mostly bolt action. Semi-auto or select fire is useful in Military for suppression fire, not so much for killing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/134 "2018-04-22T20:08:57Z")
None of that makes it sound like a good, or even useful, self-defense weapon; rather, its function is to kill people in a hurry before \*they \*can defend themselves against _you_. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/135 "2018-04-22T20:12:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Altho indeed, in mass shootings semi-auto rifles have been the most common, they are used in almost no murders. No USA mass shootings have been committed with “assault rifles” which are select-fire and military only. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, since I said “_But yes, it is easier to fire lots of rounds with a semi auto. No one is claiming otherwise. However, that does not equal more deadly._” There is no disagreement. A semi-auto does have a greater rate of fire. > > The idea is to fire rapidly and ACCURATELY. It’s not a coincidence that sniper rifles are mostly bolt action. Semi-auto or select fire is useful in Military for suppression fire, not so much for killing. What is it that you believe is being accomplished with this pedantry? Is anyone in this thread asking for advice on how to kill the most people in a more efficient manner? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/136 "2018-04-22T20:17:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, since I said “_But yes, it is easier to fire lots of rounds with a semi auto. No one is claiming otherwise. **However, that does not equal more deadly.** _” There is no disagreement. A semi-auto does have a greater rate of fire. My bold and underline. There is disagreement. > [@](#): > > The idea is to fire rapidly and ACCURATELY. It’s not a coincidence that sniper rifles are mostly bolt action. Semi-auto or select fire is useful in Military for suppression fire, not so much for killing. Bolt action is useful for very long range. We are talking about stuff in the 20-40 feet range here. It is a bit longer than is really accurate with a handgun, but not nearly what you need a bolt action for. Your claim is that a revolver is just as deadly as a semi-auto rifle. Not sure what reason you have for now throwing in other military equipment in, but I will note that snipers are usually supposed to take out a single target at a distance, not indiscriminately kill, as a mass shooter is like to do. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/137 "2018-04-22T20:23:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Your claim is that a revolver is just as deadly as a semi-auto rifle. I made no such claim, in fact the opposite. What I said is that a revolver can fire almost as fast as a semi-auto, which I proved. And certainly a revolver can be used to "rapidly commit mass murder:. But indeed, a semi-auto does fire faster for most users, and for a mass shooting \*can \*be more deadly. Smapti : _Or, say, a revolver that holds six shots and can’t be used to rapidly commit mass murder?_ My response: _It is to laff. With speedloaders, you can fire a revolver just about as fast as a semi-auto._ ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/138 "2018-04-22T21:05:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I made no such claim, in fact the opposite. What I said is that a revolver can fire almost as fast as a semi-auto, which I proved. And certainly a revolver can be used to "rapidly commit mass murder:. But indeed, a semi-auto does fire faster for most users, and for a mass shooting \*can \*be more deadly. Your words: > [@](#): > > However, that does not equal more deadly. > [@](#): > > Smapti : _Or, say, a revolver that holds six shots and can’t be used to rapidly commit mass murder?_ > > My response: > > _It is to laff. With speedloaders, you can fire a revolver just about as fast as a semi-auto._ Smapti says that a revolver is not as useful for mass murder, and you “laff”, with the claim that you can fire it “just about as fast”, which we have determined is not much better than half that of a semi-auto, and that by a person with the claim of the fastest shot in the world. Even if the rate of fire were anywhere close to equal, there are other benefits a semi-auto rifle have over a revolver when it comes to killing lots of people in a short order of time, but you “laff”, rather than address those. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2018, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/139 "2018-04-22T21:56:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Bricker** : > > And if the judges disagree with you, then they’re immoral and if they agree with you, they’re moral. Of course not. I’m wrong sometimes, too, being a mere fallible human and all. Of course, don’t ask me for examples, because if I knew on what specific points I was wrong, I’d change my view on those points. But I’m confident that points on which I am wrong exist. And I would much rather have a judge who attempts to do what is right, even if he sometimes fails, than a judge who boasts of not caring what is right. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/140 "2018-04-23T00:05:07Z")
> [@rob0225](#): > > They are not assault rifles. AR = ArmaLite Rifle. > > London surpassed New York in homicides committed and they restrict handgun ownership. Oh, okay, semantics. Yeah anyway, guns. Guns are easier to use than craft brew bombs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=8)