Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like

[Bone]

@BigT

You are the one saying that any deviation must be irrational, since you believe that any attempt to have gun control means that people want to take away your guns. No one in the U.S. wants to take away guns entirely, and, if they did, it would be unconstitutional. There is no rational fear that your guns will be taken away completely.

Couple points here:
[ul]
[li]Can you elaborate on what you mean by ‘any deviation’? In context what I said was “The problem arises when the first group assumes their assessment is the rational one, not just for themselves - but for everyone else as well. They think that any deviation from their own must be irrational. Then they try to use the force of law to impose that on everyone else.” I am specifically talking about those that wish to apply their own risk assessment upon others and do not accept that other people can come to different conclusions. You’re using the same phrase but in a different fashion so I’m not clear what point you’re trying to make.[/li][li]There are several folks on this board alone, nevermind the US as a whole that wants to ban guns. Perhaps not all guns entirely (though there are those as well), but some subset. AWB is a ban on (some) guns. The NJ law would ban (some - a whole hell of a lot) guns.[/li][li]While I am not making an argument against a complete and total ban and confiscation because I don’t believe that to be currently on the table, it’s fairly obvious there are folks who would support such an action. IOW, saying there is no fear of a complete ban is accurate, and not an argument that I am advancing.[/li][/ul]

The idea that any possible regulation means that guns will inevitably is the problem. You are fighting against a made up argument rather than what is actually being argued.

I assume you meant to say ‘guns will inevitably be banned’ above - let me know if you meant something else. Any regulation emboldens additional regulation. The specific regulation we are talking about here is in fact a ban on a large class of guns. It’s far from made up. In addition to the specific NJ law, there are laws across the country that attempt to restrict or ban guns in some way. In certain jurisdictions, these laws are clearly incremental steps to restrict further and further the ability to purchase certain classes of guns. Depending on the specific jurisdiction, the notion of banning guns is far from made up.

This is basic logical fallacies. It’s ad hominem, since you are attacking the character of the opposition as if it is relevant, and it’s a strawman since you are arguing a position that has not been made. Whether gun control advocates are being honest in their intentions has no bearing on whether smart guns should be supported or not.

The intention of gun control advocates is entirely relevant. I’m not sure why you believe otherwise. To say that a ban on guns is the goal is not disparaging - it’s factual. That the intention is to ban guns is entirely on point - neither an ad hominem nor a strawman. NJ’s law bans (some) guns. Arguing against gun bans and consequently any law that would create such a ban is exactly the point. Strawman it is not.

The compromise may or not be a good one, but any argument based on the idea that all gun control advocates want to ban guns is invalid. We have gun control advocates on this very board that actually own and use guns. And the New Jersey law in question does not ban guns. That idea is not even on the table.

Perhaps you missed it, but you are wrong. The NJ law bans (many) guns. After the smartgun law is triggered, any semi auto handgun that does not have that tech would be banned from dealer sale. The exact idea of banning guns is what is on the table.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bone

Perhaps you missed it, but you are wrong. The NJ law bans (many) guns. After the smartgun law is triggered, any semi auto handgun that does not have that tech would be banned from dealer sale. The exact idea of banning guns is what is on the table.

There are laws that regulate how a car may be sold and owned; street-worthiness, the use of license plates, of seatbelt laws in some states, cell phone use in some states, and the like. Would it be correct to say that such laws “ban cars”?

[Bone]

To the extent that such laws prohibit the sale of large groups of cars of certain characteristics - yes. For example in certain states cars must pass various emission standards. Cars that cannot pass are unable to be registered and therefore cannot drive on public roads.

Cars must pass certain safety tests like damage maximums in certain crash tests. Cars that cannot pass these tests are banned or prohibited from being sold. If this standard was made near impossible to satisfy then that would essentially be a ban.

This is not to say that cars are analagous to guns. It is however possible to enact regulation so onerous as to function as a ban. This applies to any product.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Measure_for_Measure

But you’re discussing conclusions and I’m talking about methodology.

I’m saying that they may have picked their conclusions before they did the analysis.

It makes a difference if you study an issue with rigor and engage with the solid arguments of your opponents. As opposed to repeating stuff that’s been refuted over and over (speaking generally - I don’t have gun nuts in mind here) or taking a superficial take like, “Correlation isn’t causality” (and here I do).

So if you don’t have gun nuts in mind here, what DO you have in mind? What are we repeating that has been refuted over and over again?

But it’s not sufficient given the numbers of gun deaths and accidents: gun safety should be evaluated on an empirical level rather than just trusting received folklore from 40 years ago.

And in what way has anyone been standiong in the way of studiy of gun safety methods?

The only stuff I have seen the NRA get in the way of were studies by doctors that argued against guns generally not studies on how to safely own and operate guns. If the DoJ (or the DoD for that matter) wanted to do a study on how best to own and operate guns, I don’t think anyone would squack.

Narrow-casting is a viable business model. If you want to attract big donors it’s an excellent business model. The NRA has over 70 members on their board of directors: in case you weren’t aware, that’s a perposterously high number. But as a reward for your benefactors? Ca-ching! You should know the answer to this question, given your interest in the subject. As it is, it’s my impression that most gun enthusiasts have a crippled epistemology: they believe they know a great deal about self defense when in fact they know remarkably little.

I know how many directors they have and it is a preposterously high number. I don’t really know what they do.

Its MY impression that most gun control advocates believe they know a lot about guns and gun violence when in fact they know remarkably little.

That’s a problem if I’m correct right? Right? IF I’m correct. I mean ignorance is curable, but when it’s compounded by delusion it’s tougher to break.

Well, its a big if but IF you are correct then,… sure, its a problem. MY impression of gun nuts is that they like guns. I have not noticed this belief that they know a “great deal” about self defense.

But how can you have a serious discussion about self-defense when you limit yourself to one technique?

Who is doing that? Guns are ONE element, I don’t know anyone that considers it the ONLY element of security. I’m going to guess that gun owners have deadlocks on their doors and alarm system as frequently as the average citizen. I’m going to guess that the average gun nut will run away from a gun fight rather than run towards it.

But it’s even worse than that. Gun enthusiasts tend to turn their noses up at cell phones or flight: they are actively opposed to a broad based self defense approach.

Where do you see that? Every gun nut I know owns a cell phone and I suspect most of them would run away from gunfire rather than run towards it.

@BigT

No one in the U.S. wants to take away guns entirely, …

There are half a dozen people in this thread.

There is no rational fear that your guns will be taken away completely.

Just as there is no rational fear that we will ever ban abortions completely and yet there are pro-choice groups and rabidly pro-choice advocates.

This is basic logical fallacies. It’s ad hominem, since you are attacking the character of the opposition as if it is relevant, and it’s a strawman since you are arguing a position that has not been made. Whether gun control advocates are being honest in their intentions has no bearing on whether smart guns should be supported or not.

Its not ad hominem or straw man. Its slippery slope. The concern is that no matter what regulations are passed, the gun control advocates will never be satisfied until we have banned guns entirely. The most vocal proponents of gun control do in fact seem to be in favor of getting rid of guns entirely and every new regulation is quickly followed by suggestions for even further regulation.

Personally, I favor federal regulation thorugh licensing adn registration. I don’t think that we ever confiscate guns at the federal level or repeal the second amendment. I doubt we ban anything at the federal level anytime soon.

But I can understand the concern that gun control advocates will keep pushing and pushing until they get rid of guns entirely.

The compromise may or not be a good one, but any argument based on the idea that all gun control advocates want to ban guns is invalid.

Not all, but the most vocal ones do.

We have gun control advocates on this very board that actually own and use guns. And the New Jersey law in question does not ban guns. That idea is not even on the table.

The New Jersey law doesn’t just ban guns, it bans virtually all guns.

Why are you so afraid that a constitutional amendment will be repealed?

I think i see a disconnect. When Bone talks about a gun ban, he is talking about a ban that bans ANY gun. When you talk about a gun ban, you seem to be talking about a ban that bans ALL guns.

[Bone]

One of the reasons the NRA has so many board members with rotating election periods is to prevent takeover of the organization by hostile interests. It is effective and done on purpose.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bone

One of the reasons the NRA has so many board members with rotating election periods is to prevent takeover of the organization by hostile interests. It is effective and done on purpose.

Well, they oughta know, they used that tactic to take over the NRA in the 1970’s

Staggered elections can only do so much and frankly you only need a dozen or two board members to do that. If Bloomberg had spent $50 million buying 200,000 NRA memberships, he could change the composition of the board over time.

IIRC, the average NRA election is voted on by 200,000 members, the most ideologically extreme members. Most of them run unopposed. If Bloomberg funded 200,000 members and they started voting, then one of two things would happen. More members would vote and you would get a more moderate voting base or they wouldn’t and the Bloomberg voters would be able to elect more moderate members (anti-gun candidates would probably get the more moderate NRA memebrs to come out and vote for the extreme guy). I don’t know if the average NRa member likes the NRA’s association with people like Ted Nugent or Grover Norquist but if they were running against Dianne Feinstein, they would mail in their ballots to vote against her, they might not mail in their ballots to vote against someone like Ben Shapiro.

[Bone]

Perhaps this would be possible but it would be apparent what was happening. The staggering allows these folks to be removed before they gain a foothold.

Bloomberg is resourceful - if he thought it could be done I am guessing he would have already. Once discovered the tactic could be combatted. Add more board members, remove other members, change voting rules, etc. It would also prompt more voting by members who don’t otherwise vote.

He should try though. It would be ironic to try and fail and at the same time he’d be massively funding the NRA.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bone

Perhaps this would be possible but it would be apparent what was happening. The staggering allows these folks to be removed before they gain a foothold.

Bloomberg is resourceful - if he thought it could be done I am guessing he would have already. Once discovered the tactic could be combatted. Add more board members, remove other members, change voting rules, etc. It would also prompt more voting by members who don’t otherwise vote.

He should try though. It would be ironic to try and fail and at the same time he’d be massively funding the NRA.

There are limits to what you can do with your board. If the net result was to get more members to vote, I think that would be a good thing. When you have the NRA obstructing legislation that 75% of the membership approves of then I think that more participation would have a moderating effect on the NRA ( I can understand objecting in the wake of the AWB but they STILL object to universal background checks). And considering that most NRA money seems to go towards increasing NRA membership, I don’t see the problem (well Bloomberg might think it was a problem) The wider the membership the more moderate the organization (or something like that).

[Knowed_Out]

@enipla

The NJ legislation that prevents any but smart guns to be sold when ONE unproven design gets available is very short sighted and speaks volumes about how little the people that drafted it know about guns, their legitimate uses and gun owners. To force that on the millions of very, very safe gun owners is going to get backlash. I don’t agree with that backlash, and think that those that did should be proscecuted. I also think that those that make laws should learn a little bit about what they are trying to legislate. See the AWB ban.

I haven’t looked at the NJ law, but the CA law restricts concealable firearms. That’s mainly pistols and Uzis. Rifles and up aren’t included.

As for the AWB ban, it was found to have insignificant effect on crimes. The ban was enacted in 1994 and expired ten years later. It has yet to be renewed.

So for the gun nuts, this is both pro and con: it justifies their claims that these types of restrictions and regulations don’t really have any affect on the crime rate in the long run. However, it disproves their assertion that restrictions will lead to total bans on firearms. Usually, these restrictions apply only to handguns, and not for long. Rifles and the like are largely unaffected.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Knowed_Out

So for the gun nuts, this is both pro and con: it justifies their claims that these types of restrictions and regulations don’t really have any affect on the crime rate in the long run. However, it disproves their assertion that restrictions will lead to total bans on firearms. Usually, these restrictions apply only to handguns, and not for long. Rifles and the like are largely unaffected.

Except, as gun nuts will also tell you, the AWB had so many loopholes and blind spots and was so focused on cosmetic features that essentially it didn’t really ban anything. So, how can one conclude that banning these weapons does or doe not affect crime when in reality they were never functionally banned?

[Bone]

@Knowed_Out

I haven’t looked at the NJ law, but the CA law restricts concealable firearms. That’s mainly pistols and Uzis. Rifles and up aren’t included.

Your link doesn’t work - you need to specify an actual bill or law in the link.

In any case, it’s not really informative to group pistols and Uzis together for the purposes of CA law. Uzis are banned by name. This has nothing at all to do with their features, properties, or any characteristic beyond the brand and model. Pistols on the other hand are subject to entirely different rules. Some are prohibited and some are not.

CA law doesn’t so much restrict concealable firearms - but it does have laws that apply to firearms which are concealable on one’s person which are typically handguns. Rifles, and more specifically long guns are subject to their own rules as well. And in that subset certain rules only apply to center fire rifles and not rimfire. Because firearm law is so convoluted, especially in CA - it is critical to be precise when talking about the particulars.

However, it disproves their assertion that restrictions will lead to total bans on firearms. Usually, these restrictions apply only to handguns, and not for long. Rifles and the like are largely unaffected.

Long guns are subject to a whole host of restrictions. Not sure what you’re talking about here. For example, if you want to see if your rifle is an assault weapon and you are a felon, you can refer to this flowchart. Simple right? Yes, your rifle can be fine, but then you can add a telescoping stock so different size people can use the rifle (husband/wife) and then you’ve committed a felony.

[Bone]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Except, as gun nuts will also tell you, the AWB had so many loopholes and blind spots and was so focused on cosmetic features that essentially it didn’t really ban anything. So, how can one conclude that banning these weapons does or doe not affect crime when in reality they were never functionally banned?

We can conclude that banning assault weapons in the fashion they were banned had no effect. You know, the same way (but stricter) that was proposed after Newtown by Feinstein. But instead of 2 cosmetic features being necessary to trigger the ban, the new and improved version applied with only 1 cosmetic feature.

Are you suggesting a different kind of ban that you think would have a different result? What would that look like and what result would you predict?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m saying that they may have picked their conclusions before they did the analysis.

I’m saying they didn’t have to.

To take another example, the Center for Defense Information is/was widely used as a source for solid data on the military. Their views, however, were routinely derided. You can have solid research and an opinion.

So if you don’t have gun nuts in mind here, what DO you have in mind? What are we repeating that has been refuted over and over again?

I don’t have gun advocates in mind in this case. I had the sort of thing discussed in this book: it’s off topic.

And in what way has anyone been standing in the way of study of gun safety methods?

Well there’s the CDC case. And I’m saying that gun advocates have good reason to advocate for solid research, so they can make better decisions. Just this morning a guy shot his roommate dead when a criminal broke in and asked for his wallet. It seems to me that situation could have been handled better.

Where do you see that? Every gun nut I know owns a cell phone and I suspect most of them would run away from gunfire rather than run towards it.

When I noted that NRA propaganda made no reference to the changing self defense potential of the cell phone revolution, Bricker replied that I clearly don’t understand 2nd amendment advocates too well. They are self reliant, you see. I couldn’t find the cite on google though.

[Knowed_Out]

@Bone

Your link doesn’t work - you need to specify an actual bill or law in the link.

It was SB 374. I was hoping the “Today’s Law As Amended” tab would cement the link, but no. You pretty much summed up the deets anyway.

Long guns are subject to a whole host of restrictions. Not sure what you’re talking about here. For example, if you want to see if your rifle is an assault weapon and you are a felon, you can refer to this flowchart. Simple right? Yes, your rifle can be fine, but then you can add a telescoping stock so different size people can use the rifle (husband/wife) and then you’ve committed a felony.

I was attempting to summarize that rifles and long guns don’t have the same restrictions as handguns. At least none as daunting as “smart guns or no guns.” Just because some types of firearms face restrictions doesn’t mean that all firearms will. There are soooo many ways of getting around restrictions, I wonder how gun advocates jump to the idea that “no guns will be sold ever” from a proposed restriction rendered nutless from countless committee revisions.