# Rational man fires a .45 into football coach's chest. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 8, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400 "2005-04-08T15:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/81 "2005-04-11T16:56:10Z")
> [@Waterman](#): > > As I read the headline I didn’t immediately think “Texas”. No I thought “NRA” when seeing reference to a AK-47 assault rifle in the hands of a man with a history of violent temper and the aforementioned road rage. But God Bless his constitutional right to have an assault rifle!! Fuck you. ---
**Author:** ![Slacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Slacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slacker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/82 "2005-04-11T17:36:45Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Fuck you. The NRA supports efforts to ban the sale of assault rifles now? Have they ever supported anything even remotely related to reducing access to some kind of firearm, no matter how reasonable the limitation might be? Until they do it seems to me that they (and apparently by association, you) will have to endure assumptions like **Waterman’s**. ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/83 "2005-04-11T17:39:18Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > Just some friendly, and free, advice. It probably isn’t a good idea to call a ‘gun totin’, violent, fanatic’, whiney. Not all who carry guns are fanatic, violent, knee jerk reactionists. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/84 "2005-04-11T17:41:18Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > Not all who carry guns are fanatic, violent, knee jerk reactionists. No, but you only need to piss off one of them. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/85 "2005-04-11T19:11:07Z")
> [@Slacker](#): > > The NRA supports efforts to ban the sale of assault rifles now? Have they ever supported anything even remotely related to reducing access to some kind of firearm, no matter how reasonable the limitation might be? > > Until they do it seems to me that they (and apparently by association, you) will have to endure assumptions like **Waterman’s**. The NRA supports keeping firearms **of all types** out of the hands of crazy, violent fucks. The perpetrator here has a history of being such. That’s the only comment about the NRA which has any validity in the incident under discussion. And just in case the facts of the story have eluded you, that crazy, violent fucker shot the football coach with a goddamned handgun. Assualt weapons (whatever they are) simply are not germane to this conversation. I see no reason I _have_ to endure asinine and ill-informed assumptions by anyone. You may now join Waterman in fucking the hell off. You guys gotta problem with the NRA, take to a thread where the NRA is part of the topic at hand and I’ll show exactly the kind of legislation they support. Frankly, I think you, and about a hundred other people here, could use the education. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/86 "2005-04-11T19:17:36Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > The NRA supports keeping firearms **of all types** out of the hands of crazy, violent fucks. The perpetrator here has a history of being such. That’s the only comment about the NRA which has any validity in the incident under discussion. And just in case the facts of the story have eluded you, that crazy, violent fucker shot the football coach with a goddamned handgun. Assualt weapons (whatever they are) simply are not germane to this conversation. I see no reason I _have_ to endure asinine and ill-informed assumptions by anyone. > > You may now join Waterman in fucking the hell off. You guys gotta problem with the NRA, take to a thread where the NRA is part of the topic at hand and I’ll show exactly the kind of legislation they support. Frankly, I think you, and about a hundred other people here, could use the education. You mean like when they support things like this: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - Dozens of terror suspects on U.S. watch lists got government approval to buy guns legally in the United States last year, according to a congressional investigation released on Tuesday. > > The Government Accountability Office report said people associated with terrorist groups had taken advantage of loopholes in U.S. gun laws that do not automatically bar a person belonging to such a group from buying a gun. > > FBI Director Robert Mueller said changes to the law might be needed in order to limit weapons access to people on a watchlist but who do not have disqualifying factors that would stop them from being allowed to have a gun. > > He said the FBI kept track of people on the list but still granted approval to buy a weapon. “When we are alerted to the fact that a person on the watchlist is going to be allowed to have the weapon, then we don’t let it go. We follow up on it,” Mueller said during testimony to a Congressional committee. > > People in the United States who buy guns from dealers have to have a background check before being allowed to purchase the weapon. Their names are checked to see whether they have disqualifying factors such as felony convictions or mental illness, or are illegal immigrants. > > Of these people on terror lists trying to buy guns, the report said 35 sales were allowed to go ahead because the background checks found no disqualifying information. > > Authorities got an additional 14 gun applications from terrorism suspects in the four months after the study ended and all but two were cleared to proceed, the report said. > > Gun control advocates argue that current gun laws favor gun owners’ privacy rights lobbied by the powerful National Rifle Association, or NRA, and give suspected terrorists an opportunity to evade scrutiny while obtaining weapons. > > NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre disagreed with both groups and said he believed current procedures were sufficient. “I don’t think any more legislation is needed,” said LaPierre. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/87 "2005-04-11T19:29:29Z")
When it says NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre disagrees with **both** groups, isn’t it saying he disagrees with the FBI for granting members of terrorists groups access to the weapons? That’s how I read it. Do you read it otherwise? It suggests to me the NRA feels that the FBI/Congress should make gun access to members of those groups illegal, not to simply add additional laws that would prevent access to law abiding citizens or make further intrusions into their privacy. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/88 "2005-04-11T19:34:21Z")
What I note from your posted quotation, is that it is gun control groups telling us which measures the NRA supports and what the effects of those measures are. I see no reason to take their assertions as fact in this matter. [quote] _Gun control advocates argue_ that current gun laws favor gun owners’ privacy rights lobbied by the powerful National Rifle Association, or NRA, and give suspected terrorists an opportunity to evade scrutiny while obtaining weapons. Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a link to that article so I can comment on it in full? I hesitate to say more without full information. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/89 "2005-04-11T19:39:29Z")
Ya know what, **stpauler** , never mind. Don’t bother with that link - at least in this thread. As I said before, discussion of NRA supported legislation has not one single goddamned thing to do with the topic at hand, except for the very limited facet which I pointed out earlier. You wanna discuss the aspects of the NRA, go start a thread - either here, or in GD (GD being my preference, but I’m willing to have a damned free-for-all here in the Pit, too) - and I’ll respond. I’m done talking about the NRA in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/90 "2005-04-11T19:40:27Z")
Rereading it I’m not sure letting gun control advocates suggest what the NRA’s motives are is going to make for a rational discussion. Upon preview, what **UB** said. Gonna need more. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/91 "2005-04-11T19:42:31Z")
> [@lieu](#): > > When it says NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre disagrees with **both** groups, isn’t it saying he disagrees with the FBI for granting members of terrorists groups access to the weapons? That’s how I read it. Do you read it otherwise? Yeah, here’s a more [clear source:](http://news.orb6.com/stories/nm/20050309/security_firearms_dc.php) > [@](#): > > “We have been trying to warn the public that the policies of the current administration and some of the legislation passed by Congress is going completely 180 degrees in the wrong direction when it comes to preventing terrorists from arming themselves,” said Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. > > Americans for Gun Safety said the report highlighted problems with the background checks system. “The system is broken. Records go missing all the time,” said John Lacey, a spokesman for the gun control group. > > NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre disagreed with both groups and said he believed current procedures were sufficient. “I don’t think any more legislation is needed,” said LaPierre. I’m taking it that the NRA VP disagrees with the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety as opposed to disagreeing with the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@Guy\_Incognito\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guy_Incognito_1)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/92 "2005-04-11T19:44:23Z")
> [@lieu](#): > > When it says NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre disagrees with **both** groups, isn’t it saying he disagrees with the FBI for granting members of terrorists groups access to the weapons? That’s how I read it. Do you read it otherwise? > > It suggests to me the NRA feels that the FBI/Congress should make gun access to members of those groups illegal, not to simply add additional laws that would prevent access to law abiding citizens or make further intrusions into their privacy. I read the article as indicating that Wayne LaPierre disagrees with both FBI Director Mueller’s assessment that the laws need to be changed, and the gun control advocates’ assessment that the current legal framework allows terrorists to evade gun-control laws. Of course La Pierre is going to disagree with the thought of allowing members of terrorist groups to have guns - everyone who isn’t a terrorist disagrees with that - it’s just that he feels the current laws are adequate. I’ll take Mueller’s assessment of the current adequacy of our gun control laws over LaPierre’s any day of the week. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/93 "2005-04-11T19:54:04Z")
FWIW, I did some searching and found that this actually brought up in GD already. (Although, there were no links to the news stories about this.) [In which a loophole is found in gun control laws](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=306072) ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/94 "2005-04-11T19:56:51Z")
Interesting. I’d enjoy seeing a discussion of this as well, even though as a general rule I’ve done my best to avoid NRA threads in the past. You should take **UncleBeer** up on his suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/95 "2005-04-11T20:02:27Z")
**Stpauler** , that was sent before seeing your link. Kindly excuse my damn slow connection. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/96 "2005-04-11T21:49:43Z")
> [@lieu](#): > > To the rest, Friday sucked on 8 levels and sorry if I was touchy. A bad day indeed. As this may have been lost in the manic NRA hijack, thanks for posting it **lieu**. I understand those days quite well myself. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400/97 "2005-04-12T08:53:14Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > Just some friendly, and free, advice. It probably isn’t a good idea to call a ‘gun totin’, violent, fanatic’, whiney. That’s okay. I can distract then with shiny objects, or just saying “Look over there! A gay marriage!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rational-man-fires-a-45-into-football-coachs-chest/298400.md?page=4)