# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 107
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2121 "2013-05-02T23:53:45Z")
Another [entry](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57582618-504083/houston-airport-shooting-cops-say-man-fires-shots-with-assault-rifle-shoots-self-at-bush-intercontinental-airport/) for the Stupid File - two shots in the air and one into yourself. Move along now, nothing to see, just another responsible AR-15 owner improving the gene pool (don’t need the shallow end anyway). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2122 "2013-05-03T00:33:33Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I remember him: > > “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you shoot them.” 😃 Sorry. Just had to say nicely done! ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2123 "2013-05-03T02:36:10Z")
This almost deserves it’s own thread: > **[Rifle used by Ky. boy in sister's death made for kids](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/)** > > Coroner calls shooting "just one of those crazy accidents," says parents are devastated. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2124 "2013-05-03T02:59:00Z")
> [@White SIFL](#): > > This almost deserves it’s own thread: > > [USA TODAY](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/) > [@](#): > > … > the parents had left the rifle in a corner next to the boy’s BB gun and didn’t realize that it still had a shell in it. Was the bb gun loaded too? Although not lethal, it can cause serious injuries. It would be beneficial if guns had a very visible indicator that they were loaded. Many of the stories presented are of guns going off when the owner thought it was empty. If you could look at a gun and obviously know it was loaded, there would be less of these types of occurrences. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2125 "2013-05-03T04:43:21Z")
> [@White SIFL](#): > > This almost deserves it’s own thread: > > [USA TODAY](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/) I take issue with this part > [@](#): > > “just one of those crazy accidents,” No, it wasn’t an accident. Market guns to kids, give guns to kids, allow guns to be stored loaded, allow loaded gun to be stored in an accessible place, and allow kids to be in the vicinity of the gun unsupervised. That’s not an accident. It’s fucking negligent. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2126 "2013-05-03T04:49:36Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > In terms of actual product, they are in the same place they would be. There is no way that the Senate would have voted for any change on background checks. None. More than one person would likely have filibustered it. The NRA doesn’t want it; the NRA-beholden Senators would do as they are bid. I don’t think so. Its like you don’t remember what the mood was like in january. It wasn’t that long ago. The country was shocked by the NRA’s response to Newtown, do you remember that? Most gun owners I know was somewhere between unimpressed and disgusted, people were ready to send the NRA into the corner facing the wall. Then Obama and Feinstein came out with the push for another ineffective AWB and suddenly the NRA looked prescient. You did that to yourselves. > [@](#): > > However, the Democrats are politically better off. They have fought for something that 90% of the American people want, and several Republicans are now dramatically weaker, politically, as a result. Jeff Flake suggested that since his vote, he is now “lower than pond scum.” Kelly Ayotte is getting hammered, and her support has been damaged. Yeah, they fought for background checks after blowing it on an AWB. Its like pushing for a ban on all abortions and then failing on a bill for partial birth abortions. The way a lot of people see it is that you’ve already tipped your hand and they no longer saw any advantage to being reasonable with you. We’ll see how this affects the next election. I support the second amendment but I don’t value it quite enough to want the Republicans back in control again, they are a much more imminent threat to our democracy than gun confiscation but I am afraid that we might lost the senate and lose seats in the house. > [@](#): > > A Fox News Poll (4/20-22/13) found that 61% of respondents said they would be LESS LIKELY to support a candidate who voted against expanding background checks, versus 23% who said they would be more likely. If most of that 61% is in places like California and Massachusetts then it is pretty irrelevant isn’t it? How many of those 61% are from states with senators that voted against the background check? Like I said, we’ll see how the next election goes. I hope you are right and this was a good political move for the Democrats, I just don’t see how it could be. > [@](#): > > The relationship between the NRA and its Senators has bleen brought into stark relief, and the NRAs head has been roundly seen as a crazy buffoon. Thats the way you would see it. For others, the NRA suddenly gained some credibility when the anti-gun folks pushed for an AWB, people had started to wave the NRA off as irrelevant when the gun issue seemed settled and Wayne LaPierre’s rantings about Obama’s secret agenda to take our guns in the second term seemed like a desperate attempt to remain relevant (they also started to take a significantly more generally partisan position on things like taxes and unions). > [@](#): > > So, yeah, they are better off politically, and no worse off than they would have been in terms of making actual change. I think it’s clear that your opinion on this matter is at odds with any sort of empirical evaluation of the matter. What empirical evaluation? Right now you have NOTHING. In January it looked like you could have had something if you didn’t chase pipe dreams of an AWB. This has happened before you know. LBJ tried to pass licensing and registration after the assassination of RFK and MLK and he could have gotten it if a senator from Maryland didn’t decide this was not a time for half measures and decided to swing for the fences and ended up getting tied up in committee for months until the moment had passed and LBJ ended up with much less than he could have gotten earlier on. LBJ heaped scorn on the NRA for blocking licensing and registration but a lot of people recognized that this senator from Maryland had overplayed LBJs hand for him. That is what I think Feinstein did. > [@](#): > > AWB still enjoys majority support in polling, although not nearly as disproportionately as background checks. You can check for yourself at [PollingReport.com](http://PollingReport.com). I doubt that’s true on a state by state basis. IOW, there are more states where an AWB does not have a majority than states that do have a majority. The anti-gun folks have just burned up a lot of their credibility. Looking at polling [report.com](http://report.com) I see that the most recent poll says more people trust Republicans than Obama on guns by 3%, back in January, Obama had an 8% advantage on the issue. here is the most recent polling question on an AWB: “Do you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons – including some rifles, pistols, and shotguns – that have detachable magazines, allowing them to rapidly fire a high number of rounds?” That doesn’t strike me as a particularly neutral way to phrase the question. > [@](#): > > How it shapes up district by district I don’t know. Such data are usually not readily available. Sure. I don’t know district by district either but I bet it shapes up very differently on a state by state basis. > [@steronz](#): > > And what proposed legislation would have prohibited the sale, purchase, possession, or ownership of any of those calibers? > > What proposed legislation would have prohibited the sale, purchase, possession, or ownership of weapons capable of firing 40 s&w, 45acp, 10mm, .308, .357, or any handgun ammunition? None but the anti-gun rhetoric made the natives very restless. > [@](#): > > The reality is that once the .223 disappeared, and similar rifle ammunition started to dry up, gun owners panicked and started to buy _whatever they could get their hands on_. The driving force of this panic wasn’t ammunition bans, or handgun bans, because neither of those things was being discussed. It was the fact that gun owners were _staring at partially empty shelves_. They were competing with each other. It was an entirely internal market force. > > That the market was acting irrationally is irrelevant. If I tell you that the gyro truck down the street is leaving in 5 minutes and you run down and buy up all the gyros, that’s an external market force. If I tell you that I’m going to my car to get something, and you incorrectly assume that I’m actually going to run down the street and buy up all the gyros before you get a chance to, so you run down there first and clean the poor gyro guy out, that’s not an external market force. That’s you being irrational. I guess we disagree. I think that the anti-gun rhetoric aggravated the situation, rational or not I think there is a causal link. How do you explain the premium on virtually ALL firearms During this period. Glock 19s were selling for a significant premium. Ruger 10/22 rifles were selling for double MSRP. Mossberg 500 shotguns were selling for almost double their regular price. Hell, even S&W 686 and ruger gp100 revolvers were commanding a premium. None of these things were the target of legislation as far as I can tell. But they all went up in the months following Newtown and prices returned to near normal levels after it became clear that any sort of ban was off the table. > [@monstro](#): > > I’m not trying to sound hysterical, but [what the fuck](http://news.yahoo.com/5-old-boy-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-161229579.html). > > There are deadly weapons made for children? Is this for real? > > Five-year-old kids still can’t even wipe themselves good. And someone thought it was wise to buy one his own gun? I’m not understanding this at all. > > If Americans can’t even agree that small children don’t have a right to bear arms, there’s no hope we’ll ever get effective gun control legislation. 5 is probably too early for a slingshot, bow or bb gun, never mind a 22 rifle. I don’t think I started shooting a 22 until I was about 10 and that was at a sleepover boy scout camp, the guns where shot from the prone position, and they were chained into a cradle so they could only possibly point downrange. Kneel fire and stand fire didn’t come until after I got my merit badge. > [@CannyDan](#): > > The ‘Defense of Liberty’ meme, in all of its variations, remains as idiotic as it was when given its own thread. Talk about single issue fanaticism! > > Does it seem rational for a citizen, …C’mon. Or does “armed civil disobedience” have another meaning? > > And the avowal to violently resist such a law (regulation, whatever) is as irrational as the underlying belief that an actual confiscatory law could be passed in the United States in the 21st century. As I’ve said before, they are generally full of shit. One blowhard in Tennessee blew up on youtube saying some shit and the state of Tennessee revoked his license and told him to turn in his guns, and he turned them in. He appealed the revocation and got his license back after swearing he was just letting off some steam and he wouldn’t really go on a rampage if they passed a law banning guns. > [@](#): > > Yes there are people who would like to see it. I am not one of them, but I recognize that they exist. Remember though, we’re talking about an action by a government entity, subject to all the usual formalities required to effect such a change as banning, or requiring the surrender, of some class or description of weapon. By definition, this means the measure would need wide popular support, at least a plurality if not a majority. It would require action by a legislative body, signature by an executive, and survival of multiple court challenges. Given the existence of the 2nd Amendment, it is likely that even this would not be enough, but a super majority to overturn or negate the 2nd. Really, all silly ‘slippery slope’ assertions to the contrary, it just ain’t gonna happen. A belief that this is possible, even likely, is irrational. It happened in California but thats about it. I don’t see how it can possibly happen at a national level short of a sea change in our relationship with guns. > [@CannyDan](#): > > I think for most situations I’d agree with you. But this time maybe not so much. > > I don’t think they’re really afraid someone will take their special guns away. To harbor that fear would require a degree of irrationality that – I hope – even most conservatives do not share. I think fear is operative in relation to all the other changes they see around them. There’s a black man in the White House For a lot of these guys you could have stopped right there. > [@](#): > > Hispanics are no longer a trivial minority And they’re not lazy anymore, they’re taking jobs that Americans would otherwise gladly do. WTF happened? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2127 "2013-05-03T10:11:24Z")
DA, which of the Senators who opposed a background check would have supported it back in January? Which of the ones that promised to filibuster it was would not have? It would have had to be all of them. You’re simply out there on this issue. When it comes to guns, you very clearly think from a deep fantasy perspective. Fear is very powerful. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2128 "2013-05-03T15:54:34Z")
> [@White SIFL](#): > > This almost deserves it’s own thread: > > [USA TODAY](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/02/boy-shoots-sister-my-first-rifle/2128573/) Pssh, like a background check would have stopped that. What would they have gotten him on, stealing juice? Though this brings up a great idea. Let the gun nuts have their guns. In fact, give them all free guns for their kids. Then stand back and let nature do its thing. Eventually they’ll all just shoot each other to death ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2129 "2013-05-03T16:02:02Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Though this brings up a great idea. Let the gun nuts have their guns. In fact, give them all free guns for their kids. Then stand back and let nature do its thing. Eventually they’ll all just shoot each other to death Once upon a time I would have thought that this was hyperbole. Sadly, those days are gone. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2130 "2013-05-03T17:03:16Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Though this brings up a great idea. Let the gun nuts have their guns. In fact, give them all free guns for their kids. Then stand back and let nature do its thing. Eventually they’ll all just shoot each other to death You’ve been saying some really moronic shit lately. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2131 "2013-05-04T05:23:52Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > You’ve been saying some really moronic shit lately. Are you offended that someone is articulating a plan that seems to be working or just general objection to the anti-gun thing? Because if its the former, its working. I feel for the kid, but that shit was brought upon entirely by his parents who chose to have a gun near children. And in other topics, we have people complaining about how pediatricians ask if guns are in the house. Didn’t Florida pass a law making it illegal to ask that? Put all that moronic shit together and you have a group of people too stupid to realize they’re future Darwin award winners. And when we try to help them, they fight back, call us names, and claim we’re like Hitler. So take your offense, put it into a shotgun, and wrap your mouth around it. These gun nuts deserve what they get ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2132 "2013-05-04T12:05:29Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Though this brings up a great idea. Let the gun nuts have their guns. In fact, give them all free guns for their kids. Then stand back and let nature do its thing. Eventually they’ll all just shoot each other to death A certain amount of Darwinian selection takes place. Then what’s left are gun owners who responsibly instruct their children with firearms; like, you know, millions of gun-owning parents in rural areas. Plus, free guns! ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2133 "2013-05-04T21:18:47Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > A certain amount of Darwinian selection takes place. Then what’s left are gun owners who responsibly instruct their children with firearms; like, you know, millions of gun-owning parents in rural areas. > > Plus, free guns! And the great part is, they are ALL responsible gun owning parents! Until they’re not. And then then they are not! And all those responsible gun owning parents do not need to do anything to change. Because they are responsible! It’s airtight! ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2134 "2013-05-04T21:36:43Z")
The problem with the “Darwinian” solution is that gun types take out plenty of other people too. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2135 "2013-05-05T01:20:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > DA, which of the Senators who opposed a background check would have supported it back in January? Which of the ones that promised to filibuster it was would not have? It would have had to be all of them. > > You’re simply out there on this issue. When it comes to guns, you very clearly think from a deep fantasy perspective. > > Fear is very powerful. It sounds like you are saying that all gun control is simply doomed from the start. It sounds like you are saying that the mood of the country has nothing to do with how senators vote. I think a Manchin/Toomey bill back in January would have gotten a huge majority of the votes. There was some talk that the NRA might not be scoring the vote. You missed by 5 votes. Just going through the nay votes in alphetical order, these seem like they could have been possible, even likely yes votes for the weak tea background check bill that was Manchin/Toomey. Ayotte Baucus Begich Grassley Heitkamp Heller Portman Pryor Rubio I don’t see why you think that fear would be driving my opinion that the Manchin Toomey bill would have sailed through the senate in January. Do you just like saying that phrase or something? I fear the unjustified infringements of any of our civil rights. Is that what you are talking about? > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > And the great part is, they are ALL responsible gun owning parents! > > Until they’re not. And then then they are not! > > And all those responsible gun owning parents do not need to do anything to change. Because they are responsible! > > It’s airtight! How many accidental shootings do you think occur every year? How parents do you think keep guns in the home? > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The problem with the “Darwinian” solution is that gun types take out plenty of other people too. By gun types do you mean law abiding gun owners or criminals? Because the rate of gun violence by law abiding gun owners is somewhat lower that than the rate of gun violence by those who are not allowed to have guns. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2013, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2136 "2013-05-05T07:30:10Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > So take your offense, put it into a shotgun, and wrap your mouth around it. [Moderating] Wishing harm on other posters is a violation of board rules. Please avoid doing this in the future. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2137 "2013-05-06T11:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Almost 900 people are RSVPed for a July 4th march on Washington, D.C. where protesters plan to carry loaded rifles. In D.C., openly carrying guns is against the law. But the organizer of the event, libertarian radio host Adam Kokesh, says the march is an act of “civil disobedience” that attempts to prove gun advocates’ point in the “SUBTLEST way possible.” [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/?mobile=nc](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/?mobile=nc) Guess the host of the show isn’t going to put himself on the line unless he can get 10k people signed up to do this. > [@](#): > > We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. I feel so left out. Where is all this tyranny going on? It is boring as all get out around here. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2138 "2013-05-06T12:41:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It sounds like you are saying that all gun control is simply doomed from the start. It sounds like you are saying that the mood of the country has nothing to do with how senators vote. At the moment, that is correct. The NRA dictates what enough senators will do that they can effectively block whatever gun bills they want. The mood of the country is strongly in favor of universal background checks. The support for that is stronger than for any other single thing I have ever seen. What else gets 90% support among Americans. I suspect that baseball, hotdogs and apple pie would not generate the consistency of support that background checks do. > [@](#): > > I think a Manchin/Toomey bill back in January would have gotten a huge majority of the votes. There was some talk that the NRA might not be scoring the vote. Again, your thinking on the issue of guns has been shown to be suspect in nearly every possible way. You’ll excuse me, I hope, if I don’t buy into the truthiness that your gut is selling on this matter. > [@](#): > > You missed by 5 votes. I did? I thought you supported background checks too. > [@](#): > > Just going through the nay votes in alphetical order, these seem like they could have been possible, even likely yes votes for the weak tea background check bill that was Manchin/Toomey. > > Ayotte > Baucus > Begich > Grassley > Heitkamp > Heller > Portman > Pryor > Rubio You’ve provided no evidence whatsoever that five of those people at any time in the past few months would have voted any differently than they did, and you’ve provided no evidence that the staunch opponents would not have filibustered as they did. > [@](#): > > I don’t see why you think that fear would be driving my opinion that the Manchin Toomey bill would have sailed through the senate in January. The most parsimonious prediction would be that these senators would act exactly as they have in the past and exactly as they did. You keep making assertions without providing any reason whatsoever that these, or indeed any, senators would have voted in a way that was different than their previous stance on the topic or from how they actually voted. If you cannot present anything more than your bullshit, based on nothing but my gut, assertion, there’s little point in continuing to say it. > [@](#): > > Do you just like saying that phrase or something? I fear the unjustified infringements of any of our civil rights. Is that what you are talking about? No, it’s the congenital gut churning fear that people like you have prior to getting their guns. It’s just like any other compulsive behavior - the more that it helps reduce your natural level of anxiety, the more difficult it will be to part with. Checking, counting, repeated washing, rhythmic tapping, organizing… all of these things are fortified through a process of negative reinforcement. The same is true for guns. > [@](#): > > How many accidental shootings do you think occur every year? How parents do you think keep guns in the home? Here’s a message from GunFAIL XVI: “The child’s father, Willie Alley, says he always keeps his gun locked away. Now, he has a message for all parents who own a gun and have children in their home. “Think twice about buying guns, I have,” said Alley. Alley says he never imagined his .38 caliber gun would get anywhere close to his two sons.” > **[GunFAIL XVI](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/04/1205265/-GunFAIL-XVI)** > > This week's compilation includes three God-given-but-somehow-forgotten guns, four accidents while cleaning loaded guns (which nobody ever does, though I've now found 102 who've done it so far this ... ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2139 "2013-05-06T12:43:02Z")
> [@Enkel](#): > > [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/?mobile=nc](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/05/1965191/open-carry-washington-march/?mobile=nc) > > Guess the host of the show isn’t going to put himself on the line unless he can get 10k people signed up to do this. I don’t follow. What gun advocates’ point is it that they think they are going to prove? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/2140 "2013-05-06T15:18:17Z")
> [@Enkel](#): > > Where is all this tyranny going on? Near as I can tell it takes the form of providing health insurance to people with preexisting conditions. Armed revolution is the only possible response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=106) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=108)