Let me start by saying I’m not suggesting or advocating shooting anyone. Even the president of the NRA.
Suppose the head of the NRA was assassinated with a gun.
How might the NRA attempt to “spin” this?
Would it cause any changes within the organization?
What would the prevailing public response be?
I’m guessing a lot would depend on circumstances such as the type of gun, who, why, etc. One interesting scenario would be if the shooter used one of the assault-type weapons that some states have attempted to ban. Or if it was a legal gun and the shooter was licensed, it might even strengthen the NRA’s position on licensing by demonstrating the it doesn’t really work (ie, the license didn’t prevent the shooting).
How else could this play out? Again, I hope nothing of the sort happens to anyone. This is a hypothetical question.
Bob Goldthwait had a funny joke about the NRA (paraphrased, of course):
“I’d like to break into the home of the president of the NRA, take one of his guns, put it in my mouth, and, right before pulling the trigger, say, “Explain this””
I seriously doubt it would change much of anything. Besides, of course, the presidency of the NRA.
When strong gun control advocate and columnist William Raspberry shot a teenage prowler with his unregistered pistol, it all blew over rather quickly. As with that incident, I don’t think that the proposed scenario would change many minds of either those involved in the debate, or of the less involved populace.
Please define “assault rifle” specifically. Mostly I have seen the term applied to semi-automatic weapons designed to look “military” as opposed to the fully automatic assault weapons, which are strictly regulated as being machine guns.
Personally I think the “assault rifles” look dumb, and I can’t see a reason to own one, but there are a lot of other products whose designs I dislike.
Oh, and to answer the OP, it all depends on the circumstances of the shooting. I know of no responsible gun owner who would advocate letting a murderer go free, they mostly seem to feel that the murder should be punished, rather than outlawing the particular weapon, since outlawing things that criminals use to hurt other people would require removing all bricks, kitchen knives, and baseball bats from American homes.
Heck if I know. I don’t own any. I carry a real M16 on duty as a soldier and have no desire to own a “black rifle”.
In Texas, hunting is TRES expensive so I sold my hunting rifles. I’m down to one target rifle.
I think a lot of people assume that all gun owners are rednecks who collect AK-47s and stockpile ammo; that we are all of a “hive mind”. This is not true. I’m a gun owner who thinks that Ashcroft can be an a-hole. I also get tired of the God and Guns connection. I’m an atheist. I have guns without God
:eek:
I simply enjoy the challenge of shooting a small group at 1,000 yards.
Why does it matter? What if I just want to sit in my house and clean it and cackle evilly? As long as I’m not hurting anyone else, it’s none of your damned business.
Of course, if you want to go down this road, I hope you don’t have a car that can go faster than the speed limit, because what’s the purpose of that? I hope you don’t approve of motorcycles, which are far more dangerous than cars and not as practical. I hope you don’t approve of all sorts of other activities that can endanger people, and which are done just for the pure love of the activity. For example, the Society for Creative Anachronism stages mock battles and their members often collect weapons which are every bit as deadly as they were when wars were fought with them.
I don’t see why collecting guns is any stranger than collecting coins or old bottles. Guns can be appreciated for what they are - fine pieces of engineering that can make big noises, and can throw projectiles accurately enough for humans to use them to test their own skill firing at targets, or in mock combat like IPSC pistol shooting.
I agree with furt, why not ‘speculate’ on what would happen if prominent members of the gun-control movement were found to be doing things they say are bad, such as ‘if’ Dianne Feinstein were found to have a California concealed carry permit, or ‘if’ Ted Kennedy’s bodyguards packed machine guns.
For the original questions? Anti-gun media outlets would have fun spinning it in all of their favorite ways, CNN would be especially interesting to watch since they’ve already shown that they’re willing to back reporters who pass outright lies as facts. The various victim disarmament groups would, as they always do, dance in the blood of the victims of a crime and claim with no basis in fact that their current favorite infringement on people’s rights would have prevented the tragedy.
“Semiautomatic assault rifle” as defined by law is an artificial construct that has to do with cosmetics rather than function. You can have a semiautomatic Browning BAR that looks like a traditional hunting rifle or an semiautomatic version of the FN-FAL that looks “military” but they both shoot the same way, use the same type of ammunition and either can be used for hunting. Most states prohibit machine guns for hunting even when used in semi-automatic mode. Ironically the legal definition makes a machine gun specifically not an assault weapon which is at odds with the traditional military definition.
Hunting and defense are not the only legitimate use of firearms. There is organized competition for civilians shooting virtually every type of firearm imaginable from 19th century old west style pistols, rifles and shotguns to modern full automatic submachineguns.
I’m not keen to defend Sarah Brady but the so-called straw purchase she made was misreported. She purchased a hunting rifle for her son which is not illegal under Deleware law as her son was not prohibited from owning firearms and she did fill out the correct paperwork and notify the dealer the purchase was for her son. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/653721/posts
Oh, and if Heston were shot, then the NRA would be in real trouble because Wayne LaPierre is an extermist, a poor spokesman, and worst of all has a serial killer name.
Not at all. They’d mourn, shrug, possibly mention that it was sad that the victim wasn’t carrying a gun at the time or wasn’t able to use it to defend himself, and then appoint a new president.
There’d be a new president.
Some bleeding-heart liberals would probably shout their mouths off about how the NRA might see how evil guns are now that one of their own was a victim, yada-yada-yada, totally missing the point.
And this is from a card-carrying bleeding-heart liberal who is strongly in favor of gun control.