Oh, and about that whole shtick about how gun manufacturers don’t make guns to look scary, or anything like that, those are utterly practical decisions made for entirely pragmatic reasons?
So, let me get this straight, here. My suggestion that they are made to look that way to appeal to the fantasy Rambo that lurks inside the minds of the testosterone impaired…that is nonsense? No such thing, never happens? All those guys at gun shows, they are all paragons of strict reason, then, unaffected by the same sort of male folly that urges us to buy cars with more engine than we will ever need?
Truly, this is an extraordinary suggestion, and I confess, I had no idea! Is it inhaling cordite that does it, erases all that atavistic instinct from the male persona? All that foolishness we get up to that cause the soft guys charged with our care and feeding to roll theirs wonderingly?
They are all immune to such folly, then? None of them, presented with two weapons that perform roughly the same, would be moved to select the gun that looks more like something a tough guy would carry? And no manufacturer of guns ever considers that selling point when they design the Damned Thing?
Well, OK, then, I guess that certainly settles that!
So, there’s this lawmaker in Idaho, right? And he applies for, and receives, a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Then the sheriff discovers he had a conviction for rape, and didn’t disclose it on his application, and so the sheriff revokes the permit. The lawmaker cries “Foul” for several reasons, including but limited to “but I wasn’t guilty, I only pled guilty”.
That’s OK, it Just Doesn’t Matter.
“A 1990 law makes Idaho the only state in which legislators are exempt from gun permit requirements, an anomaly that rankles some lawmakers.” (from Wonkette)
So why doesn’t the DOJ conduct such studies? Oh wait, they did you just don’t like the results.
:dubious::rolleyes:
There are definitely accessories out there that are sold for the express puspose of making a gun look tacticool just like some people put airdams and spoilers on their Honda CRX. But go over to AR15.com and when people ask about accessory A vs accessory B, weight is usually a much greater concern than how scary something looks.
I don’t know what sort of point you are trying to make. you keep bringing up this point about guns being intentionally made to look scary or something. So what? Does that mean we should regulate or ban guns that simply LOOK scary? Oh wait, we did THAT too (see AWB) and it had NO EFFECT on gun violence. So what’s your point, that some people buy guns that look scary BECAUSE they look scary? OK so what? Some people buy knives that look scary BECAUSE they
look scary.
Thats not to say that aesthetics don’t come into play but I’m still trying to figure out what features scare you. I’ve heard people point to quad rails and say they find those things scary, is that the part that scares you? What part of the gun do you find most scary?
[QUOTE=luci]
Buying a scary looking gun makes the mark feel safer, tougher.
[/QUOTE]
People buy things for cosmetic reasons.
[QUOTE=DA]
Can you tell me the features taht you think look scary? Because, with very limited exceptions the gunowners I know are reluctant to add unecessary weight to a gun for purely cosmetic reasons.
[/QUOTE]
No they don’t!
[QUOTE=luci]
Oh, and about that whole shtick about how gun manufacturers don’t make guns to look scary, or anything like that, those are utterly practical decisions made for entirely pragmatic reasons?
[/QUOTE]
Yes they do!
[QUOTE=DA]
So what’s your point, that some people buy guns that look scary BECAUSE they look scary? OK so what?
[/QUOTE]
OK they do, but who cares!
Well done, sir. You’ve, um… won?
Not about me, as much as you might wish otherwise. I don’t have any. Not going to get any. Do not want. My perception is that the people who make money from the manufacture and sale of weapons are eager to sell more. Tres duh. To do that, it is important to make people believe that they need guns, that they are at risk, that fear is a reasonable and rational reaction to their circumstances.
And fear is destructive, it rots the mind. The more afraid you are, the less likely you are to make reasonable and appropriate decisions. This is a Bad Thing.
One of the chief propaganda points of the Fear Lobby is the alleged defensive use, and some of the numbers offered are patently absurd. I think a definitive study of the question would be very difficult to design. But I cannot help but notice which group of people is most resistant to such a study being conducted. In my time walking to and fro upon the Earth, I have noticed that people who are most resistant to an effort to find the truth are those people who profit most from avoiding it. YMMV.
Your insinuation that I am some sort of nervous Nellie who might faint dead away at the sight of a scary black fun changes nothing, I am but one, and we are many.
There are two thoughts here I’d like to address. One is the notion that objecting to research by one government entity while leaving another government entity alone to do as much research as it wants means that they don’t want research done. Reasonable or not, the reason they objected to the research by the CDC is because they thought it was biased and treated guns like a disease.
The other is the notion that gun owners are the victims of industry propaganda to make them afraid that they don’t have enough guns to protect themselves. It has been noted before that there are fewer gun owners but each gun owner owns a lot more guns and frankly I don’t know anyone with an AR15 who doesn’t also own at least one other gun. What do you think I imagined that my tenth gun would do for me that my first gun would not? The only gun related items I have bought were some Magpul magazines when Feinstein started talking about banning high capacity mags, it as totlaly irrational, Feinstein didn’t have the votes and I already have more Pmags than I will wear out in my lifetime.
I MIGHT have bought my first gun out of safety concerns. Is THAT what you are talking about? That these gun manufacturers are trying to scare first time gun buyers into buying scary looking $600 AR15s when they could just as easily be selling them $600 handguns.
So, how is it that this is about you? If you are a reasonable sort of person who owns a gun, does that mean the stereotypical “gun nut” doesn’t exist? Because you are not subject to any twisted and atavistic feelings about weapons, that means nobody is?
And this:
That makes sense to you? You see a legitimate complaint there, someone’s dignity is offended? Being insulted by being compared to cholera or smallpox? Because what, the CDC study method is named “epidemiology”? I can believe somebody is dumb enough to buy that, just can’t believe its you.
Of all the lame ass insinuations of bias I have ever heard, that one takes the cake. Now, if you looks me right in the monitor with a straight face and tell me that makes sense to you, I’ll probably believe that you do. But it will be quite a stretch.
Well, it would be nice if you could point to some significant number of people who own AR 15s who are buying them out of gun industry generated fear. Instead, the most effective use of fear to drive AR15 sales has been the fear generated by Feinstein’s threats of an AWB. The gun industry didn’t create that fear, Feinstein and company did.
Because they never seem to take the benefits of guns in society into account. There is only a downside to guns in society as far as these people are concerned.
Like I said, reasonable or not…
I think the NRA is as misguided about this as they were about resisting litigation a la Heller. I think biased studies only serve to reveal the bias of the authors of the study. I think that the facts line up better for the pro gun side than the anti-gun side especially regarding bans of small subsets of “scary looking” firearms.
However, I can see why the NRA would resist the efforts of what they consider to be biased research. And the research certainly seems to have an agenda beyond just fact finding. For example, authors blur cause and effect to say things like “In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.” Or do you really think these guys are impartial fact finders?
Personally, I would be interested in a better study on defensive gun use. I would be interested in a study on the effects that the trend towards “shall issue” carry rules have had on gun violence and crime. I would be interested in a better understanding of how guns get into the hands of criminals so we can try to identify choke points where we can impose some better policing without unduly infringing on the rights of average Joes.
I concur, I think hyperbole may have met it’s match. I said nothing of the sort and to claim they were depicted as an assassin is quite insane. They were depicted as irresponsible gun advocates, and that is exactly what they were.
the right to keep and bear arms does not need people like this, brandishing weapons, ever for group photo, in this matter. In my humble opinion, we can win the debate for the right to keep arms without marginalizing horrific massacres or intimidating our opponents. There is a just argument to be made about responsible gun ownership. The Constitution is a Social Contract. Social Contracts require responsible members to uphold.
Well, it’s the possible the printer was going to print out a confirmation of successful enrollment in the ACA at some point, so it clearly needed killin’…
You obviously didn’t read the story. The printer was an innocent bystander when the gun owner neglligently fired his weapon and killed the printer. The printer wasn’t “after” anyone and trying to pin some of the blame on the printer is a pretty blatant case of blaming the victim.
Where do I claim YOU portrayed these guys as assassins OR SOMETHING, I was saying that the picture portrayed the gun nuts as assassins OR SOMETHING. The photo made the gun nuts look menacing in a situation where they clearly were not. The folks who published the photo admitted as much.
Its not the way I would choose to further the cause of gun rights but normalization as a form of societal exposure therapy to treat the irrational fear that people have about guns doesn’t seem irresponsible. Its not brandishing. Why do you think what they are doing is irresponsible?
We don’t have to do ANYTHING to win the debate, we have already won. The debate is effectively over for the foreseeable future. I doubt the senate will pass a gun measure anytime soon (and good luck with the house). I doubt Hillary Clinton will take a strong anti-gun position in 2016.
Who has been marginalizing the massacres, how are the gun grabbers being intimidated?
WAIT!!! Do you think the smiling gun nuts in the pictures with the kids are an example of intimidation? Do you think that people who object to using a massacre to pass assault weapons bans are trivializing the massacre?
I suspect that you are a gun owner that is just as horrified by these massacres as everyone else and you feel a little guilty about the massacres as if you somehow contributed to them by owning a gun or supporting gun rights. Don’t fall for it bro. Those massacres are in no way the fault of people who support gun rights.
Sure there are some gun nuts that have strong opinions on the subject but they are no more at fault for Columbine or Newtown as they are for gang violence and drug violence and you seem to be buying into the notion that gun nuts are somehow partially responsible for what happened. Don’t fall for it bro.
You never know, the printer could have been a tyrant.
I believe the NRA calls that accidental self-defense. A gun is only carried for self-defense and no other possible purpose, right? So if it is discharged accidentally, it must be accidental self-defense. QED
And you’ll notice that no tyrants took over America that day. Well done, brave Warrior in the Battle for Freedom who fled the scene like a coward.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Because they never seem to take the benefits of guns in society into account.
[/QUOTE]
“Bwahahahahaha” has laughing fit* “OMG - ‘benefits to society from gun’, he said!!!” *wipes tears from eyes while doubled over with laughter. “Oh man, that’s hiliarous, my sides hurt…oh god…”.
:smack: You obviously are unable to detect swooshing or irony. It might have been a poor joke; but that you couldn’t even tell it was a joke makes me wonder if you should be allowed to carry a lethal weapon.
Speaking of which, do you really think there’s any danger that the Kenyan crypto-Illuminatist Islamic baby killers (or whoever it is you’re so afraid of) are going to confiscate your legitimate weapons in the near future?? In America??? :smack:
“Gun grabbers” are trying to make it slightly harder for teenagers, criminals and mentally disturbed to acquire weapons. That you “legitimate gun owners” can’t even understand that much makes you seem like ignorant doofuses to me.
Seriously though, “Obama is the eevuls” aside, what most pro-gun people object to is the implicit delegitimization of firearms that most gun control proposals adopt: that of course there should be as few (civilian) guns as possible. It’s a question of how the debate is framed. It’s similar to how early-20th century temperance crusaders demonized alcohol.
No of course not. He couldn’t do it if he tried (and boy did he try). And he’s not crypto-Illuminati, he is crypto-Islamic. Illumianti is pretty crypto to begin with. So he’s a Kenyan, crypto-islamic, baby killing, illuminati. Its obvious that he is illuminati because only the illuminati thinks far enough ahead to publish birth announcements in Hawaii for a child born in Kenya with the expecation that they will make him POTUS one day.
No they’re not. Their centerpeice legislation was the asault weapons ban, the background checks at gun shows was a meaningless fig leaf to hide the utter failure of gun control (and they wouldn’t even let the gun grabbers have that). It doesn’t have any measurable effect on gun violence, the immediate source of guns used in crimes is rarely a gun show.
Your ignorance is showing but your in good company, most gun grabbers are ignorant about guns.
How often do you think guns are used defensively every year? Or doesn’t that count?
