I must be hallucinating that last post, since I’ve been repeatedly assured that no one in the world, and certainly no one on this board, wants to confiscate guns, and it’s paranoid and delusional to think that they do.
If you’ve heard people assert that no one in the world wants to ban guns, or that nobody on this board does either, it can only be because your ass-cheeks are muffling your hearing.
I mean, it’s one thing to go around trolling, but at least try to be clever about it.
Yes, I readily admit that there was a shortage of ammunition that predates Newtown. I don’t have a good idea of what has caused this chronic shortage of ammo over the last several YEARS but it has been chronic. The empty ammo shelves is much more recent. You think its just the natural progression of a shortage that coincientally occured at the same time that a lot of anti-gun rhetoric was flying around, I think its the result of the recent anti-gun push confirming the warnings by folks like the NRA (warnings that a lot of people had dismissed as paranoid and partisan).
OK, fine, we can disagree about the cause of the recent ammunition shortage. Can we agree that the reason your friend’s gun suddenly tripled in value was because of the specific rhetoric regading an AWB?
Where did I say all guns? Or how did I imply all guns?
Just a quick question. What weapon is used more often in massacres over the last few decades? Shotguns, assault weapons, or handguns?
So you think the Democrats are better off today than if they had started out pushing for a background check instead of an ineffective AWB?
Not really sure what this has to do with how the Dmocrats squandered an opportunity to make a difference because they were so busy trying to make a statement. But I don’t think this was true in January. There was a lot of hemming and hawing from Republicans in congress. I was pretty sure taht something would make it through the senate but then the resistance to teh AWB translated into resistance to all gun regulation.
Try doing that for an AWB. Try doing that for an AWB on a district by district or state by state basis.
pot calling kettle. You still think the AWB is a good idea?
Yes, as I showed, the empty ammo shelves for certain calibers goes back to November. Do you remember November? Not a lot of anti-gun rhetoric going around. Just the potential re-election of a democrat. Feinstein’s yammerings in January may have aggravated the run-on-ammo which was already in full swing, but anti-gun rhetoric didn’t cause the run. Everything between July and Newtown is 100% self-inflicted.
Fair enough. I think people overreacted given how unlikely it was that an AWB would ever get through the Republican-controlled house, but there was a threat, and some states did indeed pass AWBs, so I’ll concede that the spike in AR-15 prices was caused by external market forces.
We’ve had this discussion on great debates and it seemed pretty clear that the NRA is not an instrumentality of the gun manufacturers any more than NARAL is an instrumentality of abortion clinics. They advocated for rights that are surrounded by controversy.
No, the 2nd amendment isn’t left perfectly intact nor does it have to be. But any infringement on the 2nd amendment must be justifiable in the context of cosntitutional rights. Banning certain types of weapons over a ten year period did NOTHING to reduce gun violence. It turns out that criminals can pull a trigger on a shot gun or handgun just as easily as they can on an assault weapon.
It is not at all clear that an AWB would do any such thing.
which policies do you think would have prevented Aurora or Newtown? I don’t think we need guns in schools or movie theatres but I think a few armed citizens would have done more to prevent those tragedies than preventing the sale of new assault weapons while leaving all the currently existing magazines out there.
Are you new to this debate? You are covering a lot of old ground where your side has been disproven or at least effectively rebutted.
Why did you replace the word confiscate with the word ban? Are you trying to be clever?
No. Either way the charge is stupid. I find it impossible to believe that someone made a claim that “nobody in the world” wants to confiscate guns, or to ban them either. It’s a big fucking world full of people who advocate for all sorts of shit. It would be stupid to speak for all of them like that, and I strongly suspect nobody ever has.
Do you contend otherwise?
Heck, I’d even be surprised if the claim was made that “nobody on the board” ever said they want to confiscate guns. While there’s something less than the teeming millions, there’s still a lot of people here.
Agreed but the shelves weren’t empty in November at least not around here. I had no trouble locating 223 ammo. I might have had to go to a couple of stores to pick it up but frankly 223 ammo started getting scarce in 1994 when they lifted the ban and has been slowly getting worse ever since. But we’re not just talking about .223 (or were we)?
Today when I go to Walmart, I can’t get any 223, 5.56, 9mm, 40 s&w, 45acp, 10 mm, .308, 762x39, almost any revolver round, and you can forget about any of the more exotic stuff like 357 sig or 5.7. Nothing that is fun to shoot at a range is available. This was not the case in November.
I agree that there was a shortage driven hoarding mentality prior to Newtown (we have had other shortages in the past (2008 comes to mind but it wasn’t as bad as this) but it I think it was accelerated by the anti-gun rhetoric.
Yes.
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.
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.
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.
The relationship between the NRA and its Senators has been brought into stark relief, and the NRAs head has been roundly seen as a crazy buffoon.
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.
AWB still enjoys majority support in polling, although not nearly as disproportionately as background checks. You can check for yourself at PollingReport.com.
How it shapes up district by district I don’t know. Such data are usually not readily available.
Sure.
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?
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’m not trying to sound hysterical, but what the fuck.
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.
All I’m saying is that it is easier to pry it from their cold dead hands when they are five years old.
The dad said “It’s a Crickett. It’s a little rifle for a kid. …The little boy’s used to shooting the little gun.”
Here is a link to the Crickett Firearms page called “My First Rifle” http://www.crickett.com/crickett_aboutus.php and another page is titled “Quality Firearms for America’s Youth.”
Well, now, some folks are gonna get shot, more than likely. Yep. But maybe now we can go walk out into the cornfield without getting freaked the fuck out…
So, was Ted Nugent weaned on a derringer?
Not necessarily seeing a problem with a 5-year-old having a .22 per se. Am seeing a problem with him having unsupervised access to it. 5-year-olds are not renowned for their high level of responsibility, what with still being small children and all.
I would not give a potentially deadly firearm to a person who is mastering the ability to cut and paste with scissors, to count, to learn to walk on tiptoe and jump rope, is beginning to learn right from wrong, and still confuses fantasy from reality- all typical developmental tasks of 5 year olds.
Maybe it shoulda had a nipple on it.
That’s my thinking too.
I wouldn’t put a 5-year-old behind a steering wheel, even if I was sitting right next to him. The difference between “you’re doing a great job, Jimmy!” and “shit, we’re all dead!” hinges on a level of self-control that many grown people have a problem with. Let alone a child fresh out of Pull-Ups.
I feel bad for thinking this, but I almost wish the boy had shot the person who’d given him the gun instead of his sister.
Wrong. I have it on good authority that Little Jake is man enough to hunt elephant, lion, and cape buffalo. And that little fucker is bad ass enough to do it with a single shot .22.
I don’t think you appreciate the extent of the supervision I had in mind.