Quantcast

Why I am against the NRA

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
None. But I know plenty of shooters who get that serious about shooting.
That's my point.

I know plenty of coffee drinkers who fit the above description, because I'm halfway there myself and I associate with those maniacs.

Just because I know a lot of them, doesn't make them representative of coffee drinkers.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Did you also learn to make arguments based on single cases and emotional tirades? Because really as you once again fail to understand, this is a complicated issue. So what should we do?? billy who ever the heck got shot, lets turn in ALL our guns so no one will get shot anymore. Riddle me this, every "law abiding" citizen in the country now turns in their guns, and in a stroke of kidwoo brilliance you some how convince every armed criminal to now give up their guns without you yourself getting shot by one of them.
I'd gotten in the habit of just scrolling past your posts but you seem to mean it (and hey you even called me 'sir' :D). Nowhere have I ever said that confiscating guns overnight will solve anything. Let me stop you right there and clarify that I know that won't solve anything overnight. The point you missed in my last post and that Sanjuro does get, because he's brought it up himself, is that the cultural glorification of large, powerful, multi-round firearms is a problem, one of the biggest ones. The NRA has taken their rhetoric so far that to be 'in the middle,' you have to give creedence to an absurd argument: namely that ready availability of these things is essential to your rights as an american. That's insane. And it completely ignores the reality that a side effect of this is that you make an argument for complete morons to be able to kill people for no reason whatsoever whenever they flip out. People flipping out should squirm, not have extremely easy access to lethal weapons that really serve no purpose to daily life.

So what to do: OBVIOUSLY it's a clusterfvck at this point. But to do nothing solves nothing. To focus exclusively on background checks and mental health issues is a cop out. Sane people are sane, until they're not. And besides, getting someone else to buy a weapon and just having them on the market still happens. Sure, paying better attention to these things should help but honestly tell me this: What purpose does ANY military style issue firearm serve in public society? You're not going to defend yourself from the government with it so screaming 2nd amendment is also a cop out. Why do these guns even need to be sold? Can you honestly give me any better argument than "I want it and I'm an american so I deserve to have it?" There are all kinds of things I want that are illegal. But living in a world with other people and accepting the benefits of that, it's worth a few sacrifices......especially when all we're talking about is not being able to feel teh awesome, nut tingling, manly feel of shooting ****.

I have no delusions of anything meaningful happening in my lifetime. It's too big at this point. But lots of very well run countries don't have this problem......because they don't have half the population making NRA style arguments because they think it's 'fair and reasonable'. Arguing for ready availability of this shlt to general society is neither. Countries that have figured this out fair a hell of a lot better in this regard. Not perfect, but certainly better. Better enough that emulating them shouldn't be viewed as absurd.

But for fvcks sake......START SOMEWHERE. That somewhere in my mind is largely to stop glorifying this crap as some sort of inalienable right, chanting that you're a good citizen for owning something so ridiculous. That inalienable right just got one more person killed, and when we get right down to it for what? Because for every one of these douchebags, there are countless others who will never kill someone? So what! What do we get as a society from those 'responsible gun owners' owning their own arsenal? Their own mental security? How often does that scenario in their heads that justified those purchases really play out? How often has some other likely scenario played out where someone gets killed who WASN'T posing a threat? A 16 year old kid here (yes in tahoe) got shot in the back years ago for stealing a six pack from a store. So what's his life worth? About 8 bucks apparently.

The cliff notes of all this are pretty simple: Stop the culture. Stop it before/concurrently/in addition to addressing the tools themselves. Making the absurdity of someone owning a mac 10 known as exactly what it is......completely ridiculous.... would be a really good start. That has very little to do with confiscating things. But it would be great if 50 years down the road, showing your neighbor your sick AR-15 doesn't get you arrested, but gets you a scowl from everyone you show it to and the very reasonable question "what the hell have you got that thing for?" Because quite honestly, there aren't a whole lot of good answers to that question. But we're in a situation now where some freak like this in Washington could be showing his and his family's arsenal a week ago and no one blinks an eye......because hey it's normal to have all that shlt as a good freedom loving american. That's nuts.

Make sense?
 
Last edited:

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Alright Kevin, calling you out here on this one few things here

1) you ignored every single point that I, alone made except for one, see as much as you would like it to be true, ignoring facts in a complicated issue in order to prove your argument, makes your argument incomplete, and often times incorrect, you pick and choose a few knee jerk reactions while ignoring real facts in order to develop an opinion. It makes you look dumber than me sir.

2) Do you know any one who is a hobbyist shooter?? You clearly do not, of the group of guys me and my dad shoot with, there is a dentist going to the olympics, chemists, engineers, doctors, and lawyers. In fact, I can't think of a singe one who DIDN'T go to college. It really isn't a bunch of merica loving white trash.
Fixed.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
The cliff notes of all this are pretty simple: Stop the culture. Stop it before/concurrently/in addition to addressing the tools themselves. Making the absurdity of someone owning a mac 10 known as exactly what it is......completely ridiculous.... would be a really good start. That has very little to do with confiscating things. But it would be great if 50 years down the road, showing your neighbor your sick AR-15 doesn't get you arrested, but gets you a scowl from everyone you show it to and the very reasonable question "what the hell have you got that thing for?" Because quite honestly, there aren't a whole lot of good answers to that question. But we're in a situation now where some freak like this in Washington could be showing his and his family's arsenal a week ago and no one blinks an eye......because hey it's normal to have all that shlt as a good freedom loving american. That's nuts.

Make sense?
One reason why I particularly enjoy debating about guns is that I think the issues are quite clear thanks to the 2nd Amendment. Compare it to abortion or gay marriage for murkiness.

But you opened the door to a whole another issue: our perception of guns.

There was only one person in my neighborhood in New York City who own guns (or at least, admitted it). My father, a welfare fraud investigator, did not own a gun even though his job qualified him to get a carry permit.

Frankly, being part of the bicycle industry was my first exposure to guns. I remember a day in the bike shop in New Orleans when all the mechanics pulled out their handguns to show off. I said if someone came into the shop to rob us, the first thing I would do was lay on the ground to duck from the crossfire.

And funny enough, despite being robbed at gunpoint and fighting off an intruder inside my home, I never got a gun while I lived in New Orleans. Never even considered it.

So how do we institute a change in our perception about guns? Well, you could go Tipper Gore on TV & movies. Frankly, complaining about violence in our media sounds like whining to me, mostly because talking about it doesn't seem to do anything.

Really, the only way to change is to improve our economy to the point where economic inequalities no longer exist, then we can focus on mental aberrations instead of stopping the drug trade and robberies.

This is also where the NRA is not going to be helpful. High crime actually helps their cause because it justifies gun ownership.

But the other thing to consider is there anything inherently wrong with gun ownership? Is every gun owner a potential murderer? You know the answer to that one.

Should ban certain kinds of guns? Sure. I don't see much sporting purpose to a AK-47 and I certainly do not want someone to protect me with one. But I have shopped for one.
 
Last edited:

?????

Turbo Monkey
Jun 20, 2005
1,678
2
San Francisco
The cliff notes of all this are pretty simple: Stop the culture.
Easy Peasy

I would start with all of the first person shooter video games. I don't exactly buy into the idea that video games negatively impact kids, but why are all of the top selling video games now first person shooters? What's so fun about running around a virtual battlefield shooting people?

I don't think anyone needs to own an assault rifle or other automatic machine gun because if you are using the 2nd amendment to justify your gun ownership to defend yourself from the country... an assault rifle isn't going to do much against a 21st century US Military attack. I also don't think many people are really going to use their assault rifle for self defense... or maybe I'm just a sissy. Saying that you have the gun for self defense and that you would shoot someone to defend yourself is easy to do, but actually looking at the person and pulling the trigger knowing that there is a good chance you're going to kill that person, that's deep. I'm not ready to end someone's life. So in that situation, I'd probably pull the gun out, think too long about the seriousness of what I was about to do, and then get shot while deciding not to shoot the other guy. I'd rather run and or hide and call the police.

And if I can own an assault rifle, why can't I own an RPG?
 
Last edited:

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
So how do we institute a change in our perception about guns? Well, you could go Tipper Gore on TV & movies. Frankly, complaining about violence in our media sounds like whining to me, mostly because talking about it doesn't seem to do anything.
I'm not even talking about movies and TV. I quit relying on hollywood for good taste long ago. It would help though. I'm talking about shaming the NRA, pointing out their absurdity, getting people to quit sending them money, and reducing interest in their message to the point that they disappear into obscurity. But sure as shlt get them out of lobbying.

Really, the only way to change is to improve our economy to the point where economic inequalities no longer exist, then we can focus on mental aberrations instead of stopping the drug trade and robberies.
There's a lot to this. I doubt many people in sweden or finland feel the need to keep an arsenal around that has nothing practical to it (I'm not talking about hunting mooshoo). Life is pretty good and the upward mobility of places like that gives people something to actually do with their lives rather than come up with beck style fictitious bullshlt that threatens their existence.



But the other thing to consider is there anything inherently wrong with gun ownership? Is every gun owner a potential murderer? You know the answer to that one.
Of course not, they're inanimate objects. But to use that as a justification is putting the blinders on. You KNOW what can be done with them, and you KNOW what functional purpose they serve.....not much.
And the few instances where they do serve a functional purpose is not in any what shape or form what I'm talking about. Hell I requested a .38 at work because I keep seeing mountain lions in an area where I spend quite a bit of time. At most it'll be a noise maker. But that's not the same thing as personally owning 50 firearms because it's my god given right as a freedom lover.
 

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
40,494
9,525
Ok, great.

How many coffee drinkers do you know that roast their own coffee beans, make their own blends of green beans, have pretty much every brew method under the sun available, and keep logs of the espresso shots they pull along with boiler pressures and the weather that day?
zealotry without the killing.....
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
I'd gotten in the habit of just scrolling past your posts but you seem to mean it (and hey you even called me 'sir' :D). Nowhere have I ever said that confiscating guns overnight will solve anything. Let me stop you right there and clarify that I know that won't solve anything overnight. The point you missed in my last post and that Sanjuro does get, because he's brought it up himself, is that the cultural glorification of large, powerful, multi-round firearms is a problem, one of the biggest ones. The NRA has taken their rhetoric so far that to be 'in the middle,' you have to give creedence to an absurd argument: namely that ready availability of these things is essential to your rights as an american. That's insane. And it completely ignores the reality that a side effect of this is that you make an argument for complete morons to be able to kill people for no reason whatsoever whenever they flip out. People flipping out should squirm, not have extremely easy access to lethal weapons that really serve no purpose to daily life.

So what to do: OBVIOUSLY it's a clusterfvck at this point. But to do nothing solves nothing. To focus exclusively on background checks and mental health issues is a cop out. Sane people are sane, until they're not. And besides, getting someone else to buy a weapon and just having them on the market still happens. Sure, paying better attention to these things should help but honestly tell me this: What purpose does ANY military style issue firearm serve in public society? You're not going to defend yourself from the government with it so screaming 2nd amendment is also a cop out. Why do these guns even need to be sold? Can you honestly give me any better argument than "I want it and I'm an american so I deserve to have it?" There are all kinds of things I want that are illegal. But living in a world with other people and accepting the benefits of that, it's worth a few sacrifices......especially when all we're talking about is not being able to feel teh awesome, nut tingling, manly feel of shooting ****.

I have no delusions of anything meaningful happening in my lifetime. It's too big at this point. But lots of very well run countries don't have this problem......because they don't have half the population making NRA style arguments because they think it's 'fair and reasonable'. Arguing for ready availability of this shlt to general society is neither. Countries that have figured this out fair a hell of a lot better in this regard. Not perfect, but certainly better. Better enough that emulating them shouldn't be viewed as absurd.

But for fvcks sake......START SOMEWHERE. That somewhere in my mind is largely to stop glorifying this crap as some sort of inalienable right, chanting that you're a good citizen for owning something so ridiculous. That inalienable right just got one more person killed, and when we get right down to it for what? Because for every one of these douchebags, there are countless others who will never kill someone? So what! What do we get as a society from those 'responsible gun owners' owning their own arsenal? Their own mental security? How often does that scenario in their heads that justified those purchases really play out? How often has some other likely scenario played out where someone gets killed who WASN'T posing a threat? A 16 year old kid here (yes in tahoe) got shot in the back years ago for stealing a six pack from a store. So what's his life worth? About 8 bucks apparently.

The cliff notes of all this are pretty simple: Stop the culture. Stop it before/concurrently/in addition to addressing the tools themselves. Making the absurdity of someone owning a mac 10 known as exactly what it is......completely ridiculous.... would be a really good start. That has very little to do with confiscating things. But it would be great if 50 years down the road, showing your neighbor your sick AR-15 doesn't get you arrested, but gets you a scowl from everyone you show it to and the very reasonable question "what the hell have you got that thing for?" Because quite honestly, there aren't a whole lot of good answers to that question. But we're in a situation now where some freak like this in Washington could be showing his and his family's arsenal a week ago and no one blinks an eye......because hey it's normal to have all that shlt as a good freedom loving american. That's nuts.

Make sense?
Agreed, people need to have more respect and understanding for guns, and we need to get off the whole "sick AR dude" mentality. As well if some one is going off the chain that hard, they are going to go for a knife if they can, or a car, or what ever they can get quickly. We also as a culture need to place more value on human life as a whole.

I would also add another dimension to the culture thing. Who for the most part is involved in gun violence? The answer would be poor people in the hood. I think we can all agree that is the source of most shooting. I would argue that if we as a society actually put some real investment into the education system in poverty stricken areas like that, we would see less violence. If poor kids had a real opportunity to get into good schools (yes it happens, but look at the GPA required to get into a UC from a rich school Vs a school in east oakland) we might find that these kids would actually choose an education because working a 9-5 and making a decent living is in many ways a hell of allot easier than being a gang banger on the block. If not easier, more lets say, survivable.

Guns are the means of violence, not the cause, we need to address the cause
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
Easy Peasy

I would start with all of the first person shooter video games. I don't exactly buy into the idea that video games negatively impact kids, but why are all of the top selling video games now first person shooters? What's so fun about running around a virtual battlefield shooting people?

I don't think anyone needs to own an assault rifle or other automatic machine gun because if you are using the 2nd amendment to justify your gun ownership to defend yourself from the country... an assault rifle isn't going to do much against a 21st century US Military attack. I also don't think many people are really going to use their assault rifle for self defense... or maybe I'm just a sissy. Saying that you have the gun for self defense and that you would shoot someone to defend yourself is easy to do, but actually looking at the person and pulling the trigger knowing that there is a good chance you're going to kill that person, that's deep. I'm not ready to end someone's life. So in that situation, I'd probably pull the gun out, think too long about the seriousness of what I was about to do, and then get shot while deciding not to shoot the other guy. I'd rather run and or hide and call the police.

And if I can own an assault rifle, why can't I own an RPG?
You can own an assault rifle AND an RPG. The intent of the second amendment was also to protect ourselves from a government that had over stepped it's bounds. As Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
Ok, great.

How many coffee drinkers do you know that roast their own coffee beans, make their own blends of green beans, have pretty much every brew method under the sun available, and keep logs of the espresso shots they pull along with boiler pressures and the weather that day?
Well seeing as how every one drinks coffee on the daily and shooting doesn't typically play a part in people day to day lives, I would say it's an unfair comparison.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Well seeing as how every one drinks coffee on the daily and shooting doesn't typically play a part in people day to day lives, I would say it's an unfair comparison.
And I was having such high hopes for you...

The frequency of use isn't the point of the analogy, at all. Has nothing to do with it, actually.
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
But if it was up to the NRA, you could buy guns at the corner store. You are trying to drum up some fake debate about gun control.
I find the proximity of those two sentences comical. You are using ridiculous characterizations of the NRA to justify/sustain your "fake debate on gun control".

You are heaping this blame on the NRA as if it is the only thing standing in the way of the new, gun hostile legal environment you envision. Really????

Do you think felons should own guns? How about teenagers purchasing guns on their own? Armor piercing bullets?
Is the NRA pushing to have felon disablement of firearm rights removed?

"Teenagers" means what to you?

What is the definition of the "armor piercing bullets" that the NRA wishes to remain available for sale to the general public?

What the NRA opposes is redefining terms and couching statements to deceive. Your statements here are great examples of the practice along with "assault clips", "fingerprint resistant" and "Black Talon Cop-Killer bullets".

Like I said, (sorry, you said), a fake debate on gun control . . .

I'll post some more rebuttals; if anyone here wants to have a real debate on gun control your replies are welcome.
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
But they've done the exact opposite of that.....to the degree that their stance is that of frothing retards screaming 'all gunz, all the time, always!!!!'
Uhhhh, citation please?

Really, the only person acting like a frothing retard devoid of reasoned thought is you.

They've lowered the level of debate into absolute idiocy and helped guarantee that people who literally should not have weapons have easy access to them.
The NRA's position is only based on the Constitution and the fundamental intertwined principles of conferred powers and retained rights. All the NRA asks is where in the Constitution is the authority to act in the manner the legislature desires. That is the only arena for this discussion to take place.

One of the people shot in this mess is a good friend of a coworker

http://www.rgj.com/article/20111005/NEWS01/111005001/Carson-City-IHOP-shooter-fired-about-60-rounds-from-fully-automatic-rifle

There's no reason that assault rifles and their offspring need to be available to these assholes. But because of the NRA, they are and by golly they're gonna keep it that way.
Weapons like the one used in your example (in unaltered form) are available because the federal government was never given the power to ban them. The NRA, as far as I know, is not capable of time travel and were not around in the 1700's to influence the framers. The NRA advocates for principles that predate the NRA's establishment (1871) by at least 200 years and those principles form the foundation for the Constitution.

"but I'm meerikkan I WANT it!!"

Please.

Grow up.
If that's the level of sophistication of your arguments then you should consider taking your own advice.

You're not defending yourself from the fvcking redcoats with that crap.
Immaterial because no authority exists for anyone to condition or qualify the right to arms to any particular use.
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
from my research on wiki, it looks like there are several rifle variants for armor piercing rounds.
But what constitutes "armor piercing ammunition" in a true discussion of terminal ballistic performance against, you know, like, "armor" and what constitutes "armor piercing ammunition" in current "reasonable gun control" advocacy are entirely different things.

The NRA opposes legislation restricting the latter "armor piercing ammunition" because it would ban the sale of nearly all center-fire rifle ammunition (i.e., Grandpop's deer rifle) because they are all capable of defeating the soft body "armor" worn by law enforcement.

Well, both you and the NRA are wrong about the "slippery slope", considering laws like the National Firearms Act of 1938 did not result in another major federal gun law until 30 years later, and even the Assault Weapons Ban was repealed.
It is obvious you haven't a clue what the slippery slope is. The slippery slope is nothing more than ever evolving, liberty defeating leftist reaction to the unintended consequences of stupid laws. Here's how it works:

Cheap imported handguns, "Saturday Night Specials", are deemed the weapon of choice of criminals.

Restrictions are put on cheap imported low melt point handguns (usually unreliable, inaccurate 5 or 6 shot revolvers).

Criminals turn to reliable, accurate, high powered, high capacity semi-auto pistols.

Reliable, accurate, high powered, high capacity semi-auto pistols are deemed the weapon of choice for criminals

The Brady Act restricted semi-auto pistol magazines to 10 rounds.

Since manufacturers no longer had to incorporate double stack 15 round mags they could make guns smaller and fill the emerging demand for concealed carry guns as the liberalizing of CCW sweeps the states.

Compact, too easily concealed, reliable, accurate, high powered semi-auto handguns are deemed the weapon of choice for criminals.

Restrictions are pushed to restrict compact, too easily concealed, high powered semi-auto handguns . . .

For now such endeavors are back burnered but now you see how it works. Of course if the next step of laws could be passed or even a handgun ban could be enacted criminals would then turn to sawed-off rifles and shotguns . . .

In general, gun control is seen as a siren song . . .

More laws we do not need, become more laws that don't stop crime, which becomes further evidence that more laws are needed.
 
Last edited:

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
So what obvious piece of information is missing?

That would be the number of permit holders in North Carolina.

North Carolina's Department of Justice tells us that 228,072 concealed handgun permits have been issued. In the five years studied by the NY Times there was an average of two murders/manslaughters committed by permit holders per year.

Being conservative in our estimates that's a rate of one murder per 100,000 permit holders.

North Carolina's statewide murder rate in 2010 was 3.34 per 100,000; over three times higher than the rate supposedly committed by NC permit holders.

The nationwide murder rate in 2010 was 4.8 per 100,000; almost five times higher than North Carolina permit holders supposedly committed.

How about a place where nobody can get a permit to carry? The 2010 murder rate in Chicago was about 16 per 100,000 (435 murders in a population of 2.7 million.

Disarmed Chicagoans murder at a rate 16 times the rate of NC permit to carry holders?

I love it when gun control advocates massage data and couch statements and then what they say proves the opposite! I don't want to sound callus but I'm not alarmed by NC permit holder's crime numbers.
 
Last edited:

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
I find the proximity of those two sentences comical. You are using ridiculous characterizations of the NRA to justify/sustain your "fake debate on gun control".

You are heaping this blame on the NRA as if it is the only thing standing in the way of the new, gun hostile legal environment you envision. Really????



Is the NRA pushing to have felon disablement of firearm rights removed?

"Teenagers" means what to you?

What is the definition of the "armor piercing bullets" that the NRA wishes to remain available for sale to the general public?

What the NRA opposes is redefining terms and couching statements to deceive. Your statements here are great examples of the practice along with "assault clips", "fingerprint resistant" and "Black Talon Cop-Killer bullets".

Like I said, (sorry, you said), a fake debate on gun control . . .

I'll post some more rebuttals; if anyone here wants to have a real debate on gun control your replies are welcome.
Thank you.

BTW, I never wrote the NRA is for felons purchasing guns. I was asking another RM member if he thought it was ok as a hypothetical.

But on that note, what is the NRA doing to prevent felons from acquiring guns? Are they for background checks during private sales? My friend was working an Ohio gun show and after his shop turned down a guy with a domestic violence conviction, 30 minutes later he was walking around with a piece.

How about multiple handgun purchasing, like when someone buys six $250 handguns at one time? Maybe he just wants to arm himself, his wife, and their four kids; not sell them on a DC street for 200% profit.

Please point out statistics that prove otherwise. Oh yeah, the NRA actively blocks all studies concerning guns, which is content of my original post.

P.S. I actually know kidwoo in real life. Imagine the kind of rhetoric I am going to use to a stranger to argue my point.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
P.P.S. I have lived in two of the strongest gun control cities, NY and SF. I also know what the difference is between a Glock 17 and 19, an AK-47 and AK-74, the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994.

In the last 30 days, I've fired 9mm, 12 gauge, and 5.56mm rounds.

I hope you plan on schooling me about guns. Won't this be fun.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
But what constitutes "armor piercing ammunition" in a true discussion of terminal ballistic performance against, you know, like, "armor" and what constitutes "armor piercing ammunition" in current "reasonable gun control" advocacy are entirely different things.

The NRA opposes legislation restricting the latter "armor piercing ammunition" because it would ban the sale of nearly all center-fire rifle ammunition (i.e., Grandpop's deer rifle) because they are all capable of defeating the soft body "armor" worn by law enforcement.

It is obvious you haven't a clue what the slippery slope is. The slippery slope is nothing more than ever evolving, liberty defeating leftist reaction to the unintended consequences of stupid laws. Here's how it works:

Cheap imported handguns, "Saturday Night Specials", are deemed the weapon of choice of criminals.

Restrictions are put on cheap imported low melt point handguns (usually unreliable, inaccurate 5 or 6 shot revolvers).

Criminals turn to reliable, accurate, high powered, high capacity semi-auto pistols.

Reliable, accurate, high powered, high capacity semi-auto pistols are deemed the weapon of choice for criminals

The Brady Act restricted semi-auto pistol magazines to 10 rounds.

Since manufacturers no longer had to incorporate double stack 15 round mags
they could make guns smaller and fill the emerging demand for concealed carry guns as the liberalizing of CCW sweeps the states.

Compact, too easily concealed, reliable, accurate, high powered semi-auto handguns are deemed the weapon of choice for criminals.

Restrictions are pushed to restrict compact, too easily concealed, high powered semi-auto handguns . . .

For now such endeavors are back burnered but now you see how it works. Of course if the next step of laws could be passed or even a handgun ban could be enacted criminals would then turn to sawed-off rifles and shotguns . . .

In general, gun control is seen as a siren song . . .

More laws we do not need, become more laws that don't stop crime, which becomes further evidence that more laws are needed.
Could you point out your case studies where criminals are using Kimbers and Desert Eagles instead of Ravens and Lorcins? And when is sawed off shotguns and rifles worse than handguns?

And what's this about double stack magazines are banned? I better report Brownells for selling this:



But let's have some more fun.

I'm going to use my favorite argument for strong gun control: New York City

Maybe it would be a great idea for Constanza and Elaine to be packing guns. Makes fighting over a parking spot or muffins so much more entertaining.

Or maybe we should let New Yorkers carry more guns? Because that's what changed the murder rate from 2000+ per year between 1990-1993 to under 500 in 2009, more guns?

I like to think it had to do with reducing the crack epidemic, hiring more police, Giuliani's leadership, and, the 1993 Virginia 30-day handgun law, limiting purchasers from buying more than 1 handgun per month unless you were a CCW holder.
 
Last edited:

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
So what obvious piece of information is missing?

That would be the number of permit holders in North Carolina.

North Carolina's Department of Justice tells us that 228,072 concealed handgun permits have been issued. In the five years studied by the NY Times there was an average of two murders/manslaughters committed by permit holders per year.

Being conservative in our estimates that's a rate of one murder per 100,000 permit holders.

North Carolina's statewide murder rate in 2010 was 3.34 per 100,000; over three times higher than the rate supposedly committed by NC permit holders.

The nationwide murder rate in 2010 was 4.8 per 100,000; almost five times higher than North Carolina permit holders supposedly committed.

How about a place where nobody can get a permit to carry? The 2010 murder rate in Chicago was about 16 per 100,000 (435 murders in a population of 2.7 million.

Disarmed Chicagoans murder at a rate 16 times the rate of NC permit to carry holders?

I love it when gun control advocates massage data and couch statements and then what they say proves the opposite! I don't want to sound callus but I'm not alarmed by NC permit holder's crime numbers.
Oh, that's funny you decided to argue against the NY Times article about North Carolina CCW holders. Because I think that article is totally skewed against guns (which I knew it would be because it is published by the New York Times), and you are using the same statistics I use to criticize that article.

Keep trying...
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
BTW, I never wrote the NRA is for felons purchasing guns. I was asking another RM member if he thought it was ok as a hypothetical.
OK then, it was lumped in with issues that the NRA has positions on so I thought you knew something I didn't.

But on that note, what is the NRA doing to prevent felons from acquiring guns?
More than the ACLU is doing to combat child pornography while defending the 1st Amendment. As civil rights organizations the general actions of criminals abusing the right secured by the Constitution is not something they get involved in remedying . . .

Are they for background checks during private sales?
No.

My friend was working an Ohio gun show and after his shop turned down a guy with a domestic violence conviction, 30 minutes later he was walking around with a piece.
I would lobby your state legislature to enact private sale background check legislation. If it can happen in my state of Pennsylvania it can happen anywhere.

How about multiple handgun purchasing,
Every multiple purchase is reported separately to ATF who in turn notifies local law enforcement. Many local jurisdictions (even large ones like my hometown of Philadelphia) have asked ATF to suspend those reports because they don't do anything with them and the federally mandated destruction of those records costs money and time.

Straw purchasing is a problem for which all the tools necessary to stop it are already on the books. Problem is it necessitates investigatory manhours and resources that $$$$ strapped police can't expend. So, legislatures are lobbied to enact BS "One Gun a Month" laws that impact everyone and certainly fail strict scrutiny.

Oh yeah, the NRA actively blocks all studies concerning guns, which is content of my original post.
Taxpayer funded studies that have an agenda? Yeah.

There are plenty privately funded ones from the Joyce Foundation and various anti-gun academic institutions to cite.
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
P.P.S. I have lived in two of the strongest gun control cities, NY and SF. I also know what the difference is between a Glock 17 and 19, an AK-47 and AK-74, the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994.

In the last 30 days, I've fired 9mm, 12 gauge, and 5.56mm rounds.

I hope you plan on schooling me about guns. Won't this be fun.
I have no interest in having a boat tail vs flat base discussion here. . . I thought this tread was about gun control and the NRA's unreasonable objections to reasonable enactments.

I don't care what your experience is with guns except to say that I find "I'm a gun owner so my gun control advocacy is OK" arguments as ridiculous as a religious right pro-lifer saying that he treasures the life of the unborn except for the Black ones . . .
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
I have no interest in having a boat tail vs flat base discussion here. . . I thought this tread was about gun control and the NRA's unreasonable objections to reasonable enactments.

I don't care what your experience is with guns except to say that I find "I'm a gun owner so my gun control advocacy is OK" arguments as objectionable as a religious right pro-lifer saying that he treasures the life of the unborn except for the Black ones . . .
I was just hoping you would continue my education about guns and continue to correct me about calibers, laws, crime rates, society...

Hey, what do you think of the Weaver Stance?
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Oh great another intellectual who can't think past "but the constitoooshun says so!"


Real deep.


edit: wait so you seriously fish around google searches looking for forum discussions on this?


Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe that. You do WORK for the NRA right? There might be some dignity in that if you at least get some money out of it.


How's the mountain biking in militiastan these days?
 
Last edited:

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
Could you point out your case studies where criminals are using Kimbers and Desert Eagles instead of Ravens and Lorcins? And when is sawed off shotguns and rifles worse than handguns?
How'bout you offer your justification for the Brady Act's 10 round magazine restriction?

With your vast knowledge of guns you don't think sawed-off shotguns and rifles would leave shooting victims with more devastating wounds than handguns?

And what's this about double stack magazines are banned?
Where did I say that?

Brady mandated that handguns sold to the gen-pop could not hold more than 10 rounds . . . Thus gun manufacturers were not forced to make guns sized for large cap mags and the compact combat pistol entered the market years before it would have otherwise.

the 1993 Virginia 30-day handgun law, limiting purchasers from buying more than 1 handgun per month unless you were a CCW holder.
And then South Carolina, the first state in the nation to enact OGAM repealed it because no positive effect was noted in the 36 years the law was in force. Hmmmmm . . .

Oh, that's funny you decided to argue against the NY Times article about North Carolina CCW holders. Because I think that article is totally skewed against guns (which I knew it would be because it is published by the New York Times), and you are using the same statistics I use to criticize that article.

Keep trying...
Wasn't my reply to kidwoo? Where is your reply citing the same statistics attacking the NYT article?

I was just hoping you would continue my education about guns and continue to correct me about calibers, laws, crime rates, society...
You claim great knowledge but spend a great deal of time whirling about squeaking irrelevancies in a fake debate on gun control.
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
Oh great another intellectual who can't think past "but the constitoooshun says so!"
Well, I know enough to never claim the Constitution is the origin of rights and that we possess rights because it says we do.

Real deep.
I fear that your swimmies are inadequate for a true discussion of these matters.

edit: wait so you seriously fish around google searches looking for forum discussions on this?
I'll give you some history . . . I have enjoyed on-line debate since 1993 and my favorite topic is gun rights and the Constitution. I cut my teeth on USENET in talk.politics.guns and then moved to web based forums as the web evolved.

Back then gun rights advocates were on the losing side; "collective right" lower federal court holdings were the law of the land and arguing the 2nd amendment was an uphill battle to say the least. It was easy to find reasoned debates based in the law argued with vigor from anti-gunners then . . . Because it was the easy side to argue.

Fast forward to the debate forums post Heller and McDonald and finding anti-gunners to engage in reasoned debate is difficult to say the least.

So yes, I have Goggle Alerts set up for "Second Amendment" and I get an email at a little past 6 PM every night with the latest discussions (usually 18 - 25). Most of them are gun boards; I don't even bother preaching to the choir. I like adversarial engagements so I check in on boards like this or news boards and read the threads and when I find either an intellectually stimulating discussion or just a hilariously absurd bunch of goofballs sometimes I register and engage the members.

You guys fall into the second category. It really is sad that the level of discourse and the quality of debate has so eroded but leftist ignorance is a painful condition and when it is reinforced in an echo chamber such as this it just corrodes the brain. I pity you guys. You really are an empty, angry shell of the rabid anti's of the 90's

Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe that. You do WORK for the NRA right? There might be some dignity in that if you at least get some money out of it.
No, I just enjoy the repartee of good, energetic but intelligent debate.

How's the mountain biking in militiastan these days?
That's the funny part, I usually don't even bother to look at the general focus of the board (actually LOOK at it) and sometimes I find myself in some, well let's just say "interesting" company. I'll just say that furry fetishists are pretty disturbing!

At 52 and chubby I'm not doing any aggressive biking.

I do surf fish like a maniac, fishing over 100 days a year.

New Jersey Striped bass.

43anon_sm.jpg
 

AngryMetalsmith

Business is good, thanks for asking
Jun 4, 2006
21,076
9,780
I have no idea where I am
No, I just enjoy the repartee of good, energetic but intelligent debate.



That's the funny part, I usually don't even bother to look at the general focus of the board (actually LOOK at it) and sometimes I find myself in some, well let's just say "interesting" company. I'll just say that furry fetishists are pretty disturbing!

At 52 and chubby I'm not doing any aggressive biking.

I do surf fish like a maniac, fishing over 100 days a year.

New Jersey Striped bass.

View attachment 109341
:think:
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Regardless of your concern for my sperm vigor chubby white guy who's spent time on fetishist boards, let's further your thoughts on this:

Well, I know enough to never claim the Constitution is the origin of rights and that we possess rights because it says we do.


Will you fight for my right to stone a woman who is unclean? Will you help me smite my slaves who have proven unworthy? How about punishing those who work on the sabbath? I mean they got it coming!

Also: what would jesus carry? AR-15 or something with more traditional styling like a good ole fashioned american colt? (just an opinion question on that one, but it would obviously be something american made).
 

Abatis

Chimp
Jan 2, 2012
11
0
Regardless of your concern for my sperm vigor
"Swimmies" was referring to the little inflatable rings parents put on little kid's arms when they venture in water too 'deep' for them . . .


Originally posted by Abatis

Originally Posted by kidwoo
Real deep.

I fear that your swimmies are inadequate for a true discussion of these matters.

chubby white guy who's spent time on fetishist boards
It was genuinely creepy, I got out as quick as I could.

I will say those perverts had a better grasp on the legal debate than you guys.

let's further your thoughts on this:

Will you fight for my right to stone a woman who is unclean? Will you help me smite my slaves who have proven unworthy? How about punishing those who work on the sabbath? I mean they got it coming!
Well, judging by that I can see why you are so screwed up. Those sure are strange follow-ups to what I stated.

Also: what would jesus carry? AR-15 or something with more traditional styling like a good ole fashioned american colt? (just an opinion question on that one, but it would obviously be something american made).
Again with nonsense.

What's with the interjection of religious themes / overtones into the discussion? Do you really think religious rules / customs have anything to do with the Constitution? For your sake I hope you are just trying to be cute creating strawmen to fight conjured from your prejudices about what you think a supporter of the Constitution thinks. Too bad for you it's so blatantly ignorant and demonstrative of immaturity of thought.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
So yes, I have Goggle Alerts set up for "Second Amendment" and I get an email at a little past 6 PM every night with the latest discussions (usually 18 - 25). Most of them are gun boards; I don't even bother preaching to the choir. I like adversarial engagements so I check in on boards like this or news boards and read the threads and when I find either an intellectually stimulating discussion or just a hilariously absurd bunch of goofballs sometimes I register and engage the members.
So every night you settle down with your computer and look through the list of google returns to find people to argue about guns with? That's your evening's entertainment, as opposed to relaxing with friends or family, or catching up with loved ones, or just snuggling down on the couch watching TV with someone? Heck, even on here we're a group of friends who banter about and get involved in thoughtful conversations. But to have to go find complete strangers to argue arcane aspects of our legal system just because you have nothing better to do?

That's the most depressing thing I've heard all year...