Price for gun rights is paid in PA.

The BBQ Pit
41

If we want to lay blame anywhere, let’s not put it on an organization that we have no clue if this guy was a member of. An organization which has not been advertising on a daily basis about any sort of imminent ban, has not even had shrill spokespeople on Fox (let alone any rational news outlets) proclaiming that the evil Obamabots were coming to take the nation’s Glocks and Magnums.

There are at least three gun shops in the Pittsburgh area that I saw that have or had signage up after the election encouraging people to buy their guns now. They all implied or outright stated that there was an imminent threat, not just regarding what are commonly known as “assault weapons” or any other disputed sorts of guns, but to basic gun ownership rights.

There is no evidence that this is true in any way, shape or form.

These stores, however, fearmongered and fomented what could be called “gun nuttery” for nothing more than making the almighty dollar. They put the message that guns “might” (nudge nudge wink wink) be taken away, not that some types of guns would no longer be available, not that there might be more stringent limits on sales or eligibility for ownership, but that there was a looming and significant threat that once the Obama presidency began, private gun ownership would be severely curtailed.

There was an immediate, unnuanced, daily, local paranoia being stirred up about guns.

The primary blame lay with the nutbar himself, Richard Poplawski. But before we get anywhere near any national lobbying organizations, let’s start with the folks right here in Poplawski’s backyard who were telling him lies without a care in the world except making a profit.

42

Why is no one willing to answer the questions being asked, and instead tries to change the direction of the debate?

Anyone?

I showed you mine, Dave…

43

Your willingness to defend a logically inconsistent double standard is astounding.

44

I shortened the quote and added a link in order to bring the OP into compliance with our fair use policy.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

45

That’s what you have? Really?

Please, in detail, explain to me how this is, at all, logically inconsistent. And then answer the questions you were asked, and stop trying to change the subject.

I will be spending some time this evening writing an explanation why your hypothetical is much, much different than mine, because I have a sneaking suspicion that you have no intention of responding to this.

I trust that in the meantime everyone here doesn’t let poor Dave derail the debate.

46

I personally consider the Republican party to be the party of traitors and fools. Yet even I don’t blame them for this.

This was one moron out to kill some cops. As part of this nutcases punishment I propose an extra tax of $1 a round on ammunition in the state of PA in the nutcase’s name. So when someone bought some ammunition they’d face a higher fee. anyone who wishes to complain will be given the number to a phone in the nutcase’s cell so they can personally “thank” him.
Funds raised from the tax would first be put toward ensuring the families of fallen officers are provided for then what ever is left is put toward improving the state’s mental health services to hopefully catch the next nutcase before he kills.

47

Really? Hemenway? Again?

:rolleyes:

48

Is it possible to point out that inflammatory language might push some of the more unstable over the edge without the “bust a few heads” hyperbole?

It was exactly the reason for the shooting in the Tennessee church.

It wouldn’t hurt if right wing media types kept their frothing rants to a level that did not instigate violence. Any talk about Obama taking away their guns is a lie. But it doesn’t stop them. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a country where entertainers with millions of listeners get fired or publically corrected if they insist on telling bald faced lies with no other purpose than to inflame their listeners.

It does seem like a repeat of the Clinton era. Remember the black helocopters? Remember all the right wing types becoming increasingly unhinged about government over reach? Then the OK City bombing gave everyone pause.

49

I defer to your superior debating talents. Please permit me the honor of oratorical seppuku.

50

First off…I don’t see that as providing any evidence that he went on the shooting spree BECAUSE he was bothered by Obama’s position on guns. It seems as though he went on the shooting spree because he was pissed off about losing his job, and he was crazy.

Do people here really think that the NRA actually advocates going on shooting sprees? If not, how are they to blame for what he did? This is the same as how they blamed Marilyn Manson for Columbine. Sure, the guys at Columbine liked Manson, but so do thousands of other people that don’t commit acts of violence.

Secondly, as to the “arsenal” part - no, an “AK” and a few handguns does not constitute an arsenal. What he had was almost certainly NOT a real AK-47, which costs as much as 10,000 dollars and requires NFA registration and tax stamp. (I don’t think there’s a single recorded instance of a registered NFA (National Firearms Act - in other words, a full-auto or select fire weapon) being used in a crime. What he had was probably an AK clone that can fire semiautomatically only. OK, so he had that, and a few pistols. How is this an arsenal?

Is it an arsenal to have three pistols and a hunting rifle, but no “AK?” Is it an arsenal to have one AK and one pistol? What is it that makes it the arsenal? The number of guns? How many do you have to have for it to be an arsenal? 3? 4? Does an “AK” count for three guns or something, so that an “AK” and one pistol is the same as four pistols or three pistols and one rifle?

Most of the discussion here seems to be from people who don’t know anything about guns, probably have gotten all of their knowledge about them from action movies like HEAT, and yet hate them anyway, as a knee jerk reaction. And they also seem to have very little understanding of what the NRA does, and what its positions are. And while I don’t think that “Obama is going to take away all our guns,” he DID in fact explicitly state that he wanted to renew the “assault weapons” ban - so how can you really be so surprised that shooters got paranoid about it? After all, the man said it himself that he wanted to ban a HUGE and very popular class of weapons, with all sorts of applications The AR-15 is the most versatile rifle in the world, and is used for every kind of shooting that there is, including hunting - and it’s not an “assault rifle” because it is semi-automatic only, although I don’t expect those with complete and abject ignorance of how firearms work to understand that distinction. They’ll still just think “oooh big scary evil gun, bad bad bad.” That’s the kind of logic that most anti-gun sentiment appears to be based on.

Some posters like Diogenes have anti gun stances but at least they’re articulate about why they feel that way. But this seems to be the exception and not the rule.

51

And I would love to see the reaction if the killer in question was a Muslim and he walked into a store yelling “Allah Akbar” and shooting people. Would the left wing posters on this board be calling for the national Muslim community and the national Muslim organizations to “take responsibility” for this? Would they suggest that the headquarters of the National Islamic Council put a “hall of fame” of all the Muslims that have committed horrible crimes? Would they say that Islam fosters a culture of violence and killing?

No, they would say, “this was the work of one deranged individual. It didn’t have anything to do with his religion. The religion of Islam shouldn’t be blamed because of the acts of this one lunatic.”

And they would be right. Some terrorists commit terror in the name of Islam, but for every one of them, there are many more Muslims who are just normal Americans trying to live a normal life. They don’t deserve to be tarred for the actions of a few terrorists.

Why doesn’t this also apply to gun owners and NRA members?

Or is there, I don’t know, a double standard at work here?

52

What a pussy. His hand wasn’t even cold and dead when they took his guns.

53

Well sure it is. It just wouldn’t be as much fun, and last I checked bombast hadn’t been ruled illegal.

My neighbor, who has been flying his flag upside down since the election, just put up a second flag, this time in his back yard. It too is upside down. I am beginning to get a little concerned about what the local talk radio is doing to his head. There’s gay people living across the street, so I probably won’t be the first target. Still maybe I should consider buying a gun for my own protection. Or maybe the talk radio “entertainers” should cool their damned jets a little bit.

54

You are wise.

Feel free to try the real thing.

55

That OP made me retarded.

56

Kimmy_Gibbler:

Even if it were a fact that high gun ownership rate = high crime rate (which is disputable), I would *still *be against banning guns. I would rather have the crime rate stay *exactly *where it is than give up my right to keep and bear arms.

In other words, given a choice between:

  1. High crime rate & keeping my guns.
  2. Low crime rate and giving up my guns.

I would choose #1.

57

How much responsibility does Obama have for actually saying he supports stealing people’s guns (as long as they possess certain cosmetic features that do not actually make them more dangerous in civillian hands)? You do realise that he and Biden have expressed support for such a law on their own website, right?

58

Don’t forget recent comments by AG Holder, Sec State Hillary Clinton, Feinstein and John Kerry. Nah, it’s just more NRA fear mongering.

59

Frankly, I’m concerned that no-one in the thread has mentioned target shooting (it’s an Olympic Sport, for smeg’s sake!) or historic collecting as “reasons to own a gun”.

People wishing to own guns aren’t all redneck survivalists, maladjusted bitter loners, unbalanced emo kids, or people wishing to compensate for “inadequacies (nudge nudge)”.

There will always be unbalanced nutters with access to weapons (and in response to a question asked earlier in the thread, I’m pretty sure there’s been at least one case here in Australia of someone with a crossbow shooting multiple people; it’s actually more difficult to legally get a crossbow in Australia than it is to get a double-barrelled shotgun now), and there’s basically nothing we can do about that anymore. The toothpaste is out of the tube, the horse has not only bolted but it’s worked out how to open the barn doors at neighbouring farms and let its friends out as well, and the hoplophobes out there are just going to have to accept we live in a world in which firearms exist and are fairly readily available.

You don’t like guns? Fine, that’s your choice. But don’t demonise law-abiding gun owners because of it.

FWIW, I’m aware of only one confirmed use of a registered automatic weapon in a crime (post-1934) in the US, and that was a police officer who used a Mac-10 to kill an informant in 1988. Even the use of illegal full-auto weapons in crime is staggeringly rare in the US; the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997 is one of the few (if not the only) high-profile criminal uses of an actual assault rifle (and not a sub-machine gun), and even that was over a decade ago.

In short, people who know nothing about guns like to demonise assault rifles and machine-guns, but the statistics just aren’t there to back up their assertations.

Also, technically, an arsenal is a place that manufactures and repairs as well as stores them; it’s not just a storage facility. So someone with a lot of guns (and “four” is not a lot of guns, no matter what sort they are) should be said to have an armoury, not an arsenal. But that’s me arguing against people who don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t care anyway, so I’ll leave it at that…

60

What does it mean for “gun advocates” to “have some responsibility”? It seems to me that all it means is that you get to feel justified for being mad at them. You already want to be mad at them, why does it make you feel better to feel that you are justified in doing so? J

ust be secure enough in your own beliefs and be mad at them, don’t try to say that your emotion is objectively justifiable for some reason, it makes you sound stupid.