LOL
“The reason we have more gun violence than two cherry-picked countries, one of which is actually quite multicultural (especially the urban population) is because we’re multicultural!
Better to compare the US to a developing country, and not talk about the fact that the US gun-related homicide rate and spree killing incidents far outnumber anywhere else in the developed world. Also something about islands.”
- Right and the fact that non ‘military style’ weapons under actually existing state ‘assault gun’ bans, and the previous federal one, are often very little if at all less lethal than ‘military style assault weapons’ (whatever that’s actually supposed to mean, since we all know it doesn’t actually mean the weapons the military uses which are capable of burst and/or full auto fire), will matter to victims of future shootings where the shooters just step around bans on ‘scary looking guns’. Which is very easy, again not in any way hypothetically but under real ‘bans’ in force now in states and the previous federal one.
I’m ambivalent at most about gun control in general, but I think rational people who are really in favor of it need to be…more rational. Learn more what you are talking about in the details, and stop coming up with either ‘feel goods’ or oh so clever double reverse secret tricks that aren’t going to sidestep any opposition, but just make your motives even more suspect to people whose opposition you need to soften at least (we won’t take guns, we’ll impose expensive insurance, ammo taxes etc. have ‘armories’ where the ‘militia’ has to put their guns all the time, etc. nobody opposed is fooled by it, with due allowance for proponents who are themselves fooled 
)
- Especially in view of this basic reality. The reason strict gun control is up to now impossible to pass federally in the US is voters: too many voters, albeit a minority, passionately opposed. Vs. a much smaller number passionately in favor though along with a much larger group generally willing to go along with the ‘correct’ side of culture war issues from the generally left leaning perspective, enough to get as much as a slight majority in favor of ‘more gun control’, if it’s kept vague. But often including poll respondents who don’t even participate in politics let alone have the passion of quasi-single issue voters on maintaining gun rights.
Putting it on ‘the NRA’ is to be fair just Dumb Politics 101 which is not the exclusive province of the left. It’s always preferable in DP-101 to make out organizations not other voters as nefarious (why ‘deplorables’ was a poorly chosen comment even if one thinks it’s true). But it’s one thing to follow that convention, another to really believe you’re up against an organization and ‘its money’ in some vacuum, when you’re really up mainly against other voters who passionately disagree with you.
It does matter when the argument made by anti-gun control folks is that they need the freedom to carry loaded weapons around pretty much all the time and everywhere for defense, but then let slide without comment obvious instances of gun control such as what this church did. Of course, the church is free to pick-and-choose what parts of gun rights it wants to illogically implement/ban.
I want to know why anti-gun control folks are (figuratively) up in arms about not being able to (or potentially being unable to in the future) carry their weapons around freely in other places, but cannot bring themselves to comment on how illogical the church is being regarding its handling of guns (especially since the church trotted out the “guns are for defense” reasoning for why the guns are being a part of their ceremonies in the first place, but are hypocritically leaving the gun owners defenseless within the church premises).
Again, the church is free to be hypocritical. The thing I want to know is if the anti-gun control folks can clearly state whether or not the actions taken by this church (no ammo on premises, zip-ties) make any sense whatsoever given their reasoning on guns being primarily for defense (now that I pointed it out). This is not a “gotcha!” question. I am truly expecting to see simple replies stating that what the church did makes no logical sense. What would be surprising is if I don’t see such replies.
It’s a small small part of the national debate, but gets down to the basic logic about having guns around for defensive purposes.
As soon as someone uses the wrong term about a gun, proponents get to say “Ah! You didn’t say Simon Says!” and stop listening.
Most laws require drawing a line somewhere in the middle of a gray area. Anyone who considers themselves a gun expert, and enjoys tutting at various misapprehensions on CNN, can help draw that line. It should not be this easy to buy a gun that has little purpose outside of killing humans quickly.
Politicians in the US often take a line that seems opposed to the minority of voters because it’s what their donors want. I’m aware it’s a well-known fact that pro-gun guys may vote on this single issue but anti-gun guys won’t, but I’m also curious on the extent to which this has actually been tested.
I can’t say I’ve heard anyone put it *only *on the NRA.
The NRA gets criticized, sure, and so it should: they show callous disregard for the effects of their actions, opposing even the simplest common-sense proposals.
Typo: minority -> majority of voters
Not true. The NRA publicly said that they think bump stocks should be reviewed by the BATFE, and they recognize that they might be a workaround to the longstanding ban on automatic weapons. Believe me, you may think the NRA is too rigid and strident, but many gun owners think they have been too willing to bend.
Well, when we hear TV “news” reporters and commenters talk about “automatic” weapons and “assault rifles”, it is obvious and apparent that they don’t know what the hell they are talking about. We all laugh at Carolyn McCarthy’s video explaining why she wants to ban guns with “the shoulder thing that goes up”. The unfunny part is that she is a US Senator that actually has power to write laws on things she knows nothing about. I take it you feel comfortable letting Senators and Representatives write laws and regulations about things that they are ignorant about, they show no inclination to learn about. Or listen to reporters and pundits spout views on subjects they are ignorant about.
You say that as if it in any way refutes, or even acknowledges what I said, were it not that you quoted me in your post, I’d have thought it was just a random non-sequitur.
First, I did not say that they were anything other than semi-automatic. However, had you ever handled a semi-automatic, you would have found that they fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger, 3-4 rounds per second is not that unreasonable a rate to sustain for short periods of time. The point of what I put into quotes, the “spray and pray” targets, is that you do not need to aim to hit something, which leaves you free to concentrate on pulling the trigger as fast as you can, as it is quantity, not quality that matters in that case.
Second, you must have missed the Las Vegas shooting last year, where he used a modification called a “bump stock” which second amendment absolutists are fighting to keep legal, which does in fact effectively turn them into full auto, which do in fact “spray”.
It is hard to get something passed that both works politically, and doesn’t leave loopholes. Automatic weapons are supposed to be restricted, but legal bump stocks give them that effectiveness while getting around the law. HurricaneDikta was talking about how sig-braces pretty much let you make an SBR, which is restricted.
The response on the second amendment absolutist side is not to help to close those loopholes, but to point out that because they have found these loopholes, the laws that they are getting around with them may as well be rescinded.
The reason that it is hard to get any reasonable gun control measures passed is largely because the second amendment makes legislatures have to tiptoe around not infringing on any rights. Without 2A, then it would be possible to actually craft reasonable laws.
The NRA is part of that equation, though, and it is not good to discount them as stirring up second amendment absolutists on an emotional, rather than logical level, and making it even harder to make any legislation passed.
In terms of legislators, yes I have no problem with them not being able to name different parts of a gun (except obviously if the legislation concerns that actual part).
We don’t hold them to that standard in other areas e.g. if they understand that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect the climate (primarily a warming effect) and increase sea levels, that’s good enough. I don’t care how well they score on climate science terminology.
In terms of reporters and pundits, it doesn’t really matter except giving us all a laugh. Pick any non-politics topic you like; when it comes up on the news anyone familiar with that area will likely be able to find errors. I know it’s a comedy of errors when anything related to software comes up.
But that is exactly what she was discussing - legislation concerning gun parts. She was introducing legislation regarding the “assault weapons ban”, legislation about barrel shrouds. She admitted she doesn’t know what a barrel shroud is, and guessed that it is “the shoulder thing that goes up”, a completely nonsensical answer.
[quote] In terms of reporters and pundits, it doesn't really matter except giving us all a laugh. Pick any non-politics topic you like; when it comes up on the news anyone familiar with that area will likely be able to find errors. I know it's a comedy of errors when anything related to software comes up. [/QUOTE]Exactly right. I am guessing that we all have anecdotes about news reports regarding subjects we are knowledgeable about. But guess where people get their information? And who decides what is printed and put on the air? People who not only know little, but what they think they know is often wrong. But that drives the daily discussions and protests.
Heh, she doesn’t know all the terms for a gun, and all its accessories. She can’t have a useful opinion about gun violence.
No, what drives the daily discussions and protests is the gun violence. That someone got it wrong, that they said that they were shot with a 9mm, when it was actually a .45 is what sidetracks the discussions (which is, IMHO, the entire point of criticizing terminology, rather than addressing the actual issue.)
That, and it provides an opening to assert “That will never work, because reasons”.
And which “folks” might “they” be?
I’m sure if you scour the interwebs, you’ll find some jack-hole making just such a claim. Extrapolating that one person/vocal minority to stand for every gun owner, everywhere, is just plain stupid. If some white guy says “Heil Hitler,” do you think all white people everywhere agree?
FWIW, I and 99.9% of actual, real-life gun owners I’ve dealt with respect property rights, and other people’s decision to not exercise all of their rights. And yes, I’ve actually met the 0.01% who thinks they should be able to carry anywhere, everywhere, 24/7/365.
Again, FWIW, neither I nor the NRA lobby for everyone everywhere to be armed everywhere all-the-time; at most, we believe in allowing people and establishments the freedom of choice on the matter.
Why, that’s mighty white of you. Question: do you support, or otherwise respect, the right of churches and other public establishments to allow open and/or concealed carry on their premises?
:shrugs: Couldn’t say, personally. Speaking strictly for myself, I’m not a huge fan of religion in general, or churches in particular. A contradictory stance on the 2nd Ad. is just about the least illogical thing you’d find in the Christian church, IMO.
See above comment on religion and contradictory ideas/philosophies.
What I can’t figure is why you’re all butt-hurt over a church you probably don’t even attend, in a town you probably don’t even live in.
If they’re not pushing their agenda onto you via a national lobbying campaign, then why do you even care?
He had [47 guns](http:// https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/us/stephen-paddock-47-guns/index.html), most of them recent purchases (within a year of the Vegas shooting). While there is no national database of guns owned or purchased, each purchase required a background check, and with a sudden, rapid increase in pings to the NICS, that could be a red flag for local authorities to have paid Mr. Paddock a visit to ask him what he was up to.
I will grant it is a good question what can be done once someone is identified as purchasing too many guns too quickly.
No, but if you are marching in the same parade…
But you (the NRA and gun rights advocates, I don’t recall your posting history quite well enough) do lobby for people to have the ability to be armed all the time. You may not recommend it, but when people show up at a Chili’s open carrying and the NRA first makes a statement condemning the practice, then corrects themselves that condemning open carry in a Chili’s “was a mistake” and “it shouldn’t have happened.” it completely undercuts your claim.
I respect the property owner’s choice in the matter. It just seems a bit odd that they talk so much about gun culture, about responsibility, about how guns are so great that they get blessing from god, but then don’t want them to be around loaded. If a restaurant owner asks for someone to not bring their gun in, then they are vilified as a hoplophobe, and their property rights are considered secondary to the gun owner’s rights, but when a church shows concern over having loaded weapons, even as they are blessing them, it demonstrates a bit of a cognitive disconnect.
And, as far as why one may care, anyone who brings their AR-15 in to get blessed is probably a single issue gun voter, and this is just showing the hypocrisy of their views.
I dont think it is. People get frustrated, they turn to ciolence. Yes, guns are the easy way, and deadly, but stabbing, bombings oor driving your car into a crowd are also factors.
So, no the “The root cause is NOT the easy availability of guns;” but yes, the easy availability of guns do make mass killinsg easier dan dealier. Just not a “cause” in any way.
Lever action or bolt actions guns can be fired very quickly. A many with a winchester, two revolvers and a Enfield can do just about as much killing.
I concur- possibly lower body counts. But still mass killings and school killings would occur.
They are fine for varmits, like ground squirrels, coyotes, etc.
WTF is a “yote”?
The NRA does not believe in allowing private employers the choice whether to prohibit guns on their private property. They oppose giving landowners the freedom of choice in the matter. They have repeatedly lobbied for laws that prohibit employers from banning guns in their parking lots. For an organization supposedly dedicated to protecting individual liberty, this is overbearing, intrusive, and hypocritical. Are you willing to call them out on this policy?
Their policy provisions are consistently in favor of promoting the sale of guns, individual choice be damned.
Third in your list, as in Mr. Wile E.
For some reason, a lot of people pronounce coyote as “kai-yote” not, “kai-ote-ee”.