Hmmm. A Business Insider article that provides specific figures and sources…
or some guy named Kable posting his gut feelings on the internet.
You be the judge!
OK and and if you add up all the money reported in your business insider article it’s a lot less than half. Good figuring you got there. Keep trying though. 
If Josh Sugarmann said it, you know it HAS to be true and without bias in any regard…
Maybe I am being stubbornly ignorant but, in what way are these things that result in more deaths (accidental or otherwise) than assault weapons more useful or socially redeeming than assault weapons?
Or is your point that I am somehow missing the point? What IS your point?
Then why does the NRA lead the charge on boycotts of gun manufacturer’s that displease them (see smith & wesson boycott)? Having aligned interests don’t make you their in thrall to the gun industry any mroe than being pro-choice makes you a pawn of planned parenthood.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=did+the+1994+assault+weapons+ban+work
Just look at their annual tax return (form 990 for charitable organizations).
Out of a total revenue of $240 million:
$107 million is from membership dues and program fees.
$12 million in royalties
$18 million in merchandise sales
$23 million in advertising and other miscellaneous revenue
$13 in additional donations from related organizations
$59 million in other donations
$20 million sale of securities
Considering that the NRA values its relationships with gun manufacturers enough to boycott one of the biggest ones (smith & wesson) when they step out of line, I don’t think your theory holds water.
The NRA led a boycott against Smith and Wesson because they broke ranks with the rest of the gun manufacturers. They made an agreement with the Clinton administration to engage in practices to improve safety.
This supports rather than refutes the argument. They smacked down one manufacturer in support of all the others. Boycotting Smith and Wesson for pledging to enhance safety doesn’t support the individual gun owner. It protects the industry.
Much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Hentor on this one. No idea why this digression is meaningful to the debate, but the NRA boycotted S&W for essentially breaking ranks with the other gun manufactures. From here:
The S&W agreement to implement safety measures into their guns didn’t hurt the gun industry, it hurt the NRA’s warped notion of freedom.
I don’t see where the other gun manufacturers were pushing the NRA to punish another gun manufacturer, I don’t see how the NRA is doing the bidding of the gun manufacturers in there. They punished Smith & Wesson (the largest US gun manufacturer) without any regard to the desires of the other gun manufacturers or the effect the boycott would have on S&W funding to the NRA. They were not acting as a disciplining tool for the gun manufacturers they were acting to discipline a gun manufacturer that broke with NRA orthodoxy. If anything, the gun manufacturers are captives of the NRA (or at least the NRA’s notions of gun rights) and not the other way around.
It is meaningful to the debate because the claim seems to be that pro-gun individuals are really just pawns of the gun manufacturers that control them through the NRA, or something like that. He is basically dismissing the pro-gun side by saying that we’re all brainwashed.
Yeah just the anti-gunners making up their math as they go along. More of the same.
t wasn’t my point, the point that even a legal owned gun doesn’t stop a person from the gun being used to kill some one unless the owner is held responsible, and Mrs. Lanza paid the price. It surely didn’t protect her or her family nor the other 25.
These guys are about as logical about guns as pro-lifers are about abortion.
Too many arguments on the gun control side of the debate basically lead you to the conclusion that we should just get rid of all guns everywhere. Even if you assumed that this would be a desirable outcome, you have the problem of implementation. You could get law abiding citizens to turn in their guns but unfortunately you can ONLY get the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and unless you can do something about the guns held by criminals, you are basically asking the law abiding citizen to disarm themselves while the criminals remain armed.
My experience with the LA riots makes me think that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing and our focus should be on removing criminal access to guns. Thats why I support licensing and registration. Criminal access to guns would be limited to guns they can steal (which can get kind of risky), guns they can smuggle smuggle into the country (wouldn’t it be ironic if Mexico became the major source of guns used in crime) or home made guns (really only feasible for a larger criminal enterprise, and frankly you would probably be better off selling pot legally in Colorado).
On the subject of gun grabbing lies, I have noticed that the descriptor for assault weapons have shifted from “military style assault weapons” to “rapid fire assault weapons”
Apparently saying “military style” isn’t scary enough, probably because people are focusing on the word style rather than the word military as a result of the fact that assault weapons are just semi automatic weapons with cosmetic differences.
But “rapid fire” reintroduces the notion that assault weapons are like machine guns. maybe not exactly like machine guns but somehow deadlier than regular guns.
What gets me is that a lot of gun rights advocates are willing to disown and even mock Wayne LaPierre and some of the more extreme gun nuts in public but there are very few gun rights advocates saying that Feinstein and company are just nucking futz (at least on this issue, I think Feinstein is very rational on other issues (but there are probably areas where Wayne is rational, maybe the charcoal vs gas grill debate).
Eh, just a name. I say ‘assault weapons’ because most of us have an idea of what it is. So what if its not an operational definition? Only the truly pedantic will even bother to ask for it to be defined. Its easy to tell who’s serious in a gun debate and who’s not. The ones who are not yell about semantics, the rest of us know what we’re talking about well enough for most situations
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
I say ‘assault weapons’ because most of us have an idea of what it is.
[/QUOTE]
You say it because it’s a meme you’ve had repeated enough that it sticks in. The folks who created the meme did so because it was a nice talking point, and it sounds scary. What I hear when folks use it is ‘a semi-automatic rifle no different than any other semi-automatic rifle, but that looks scary to liberals and could be used by gun-grabbers as a wedge to chip away a little more at gun ownership’.
I feel exactly the same way, though in the opposite direction.
You do realize which side of the argument made up the term, don’t you?
You do realize which side of the argument is trying to pass legislation based on that definition, don’t you?
You do realize who is using that term to try and scare people, don’t you?
Assault weapons as a phrase is at least as deceptive as the phrase death tax. It is a politically engineered word meant to elicit the most negative reaction possible. And the gun rights side of the deabte isn’t the one taht made it up. Considering all the deception and preying on ignorance, you would think that Republicans are running the gun control side of the debate.
Yeah, sort of the young earth creationists of the left.
You’re joking, right? If it’s not about operational definitions what is it about? The Assault Weapons Ban was/is based ENTIRELY on semantics. If that is the measure of how serious one is about the debate you just outed gun-control people as clowns.
I an not against gun ownership; I just believe an owner should be responsible about how and where it’s guns are used.
Edited to agree. Everyone should be responsible in securing their stuff.
Are you talking about strict liability, or does a gun owner have to do something negligent? What is negligence with regards to owning guns? Getting killed by your own?
In my opinion if a person owns a gun of any kind, that owner should know where it is at all times, and who has the ability to get at it. The owner should make sure that when it is not in use no one should be able to get access to it except him/her self. If permission is given the owner should also know the intent of the user. Had Mrs Lanza and others who followed all the laws, passed every background check, should have the guns kept so that no one( they don’t give permission to) could get the gun. Just as the little 4 year old who shot his 6 year old sibling( According to the news) would not have been able to get to a gun.
A gun is something that should not be kept where another can get at it without permission of the owner,( just like any poison etc.). My husband has always had hunting rifles, but I demanded that he kept them apart and the ammunition where only he could get at it.