Why the NRA is more monstrous than you think

[radiclib]

First, allow me to admit that this is only my opinion, but I believe it's supported by my own experience of years and decades of not being quite cynical enough to keep up with reality.
Many of us saw Chris Hayes' report about "smart guns", and how there has been a major organized push back against their sales by so-called "gun-rights" activists using outrageous intimidation and death threats. Some of this has been attributed to the existence of a New Jersey law that actually outlaws the sale of "non" smart guns beginning three years after the first sale.
NRA spokesman Larry Pratt was on Chris' show last night, and was asked if the NRA would support the sale of smart guns if the mandate was repealed. He failed so clumsily to answer the question that it was obvious what the answer was. The NRA will never, ever stand for the sale of smart guns under any circumstances. We're left to wonder why.
Personally, I don't wonder at all. The NRA wants more and more gun violence, because it's good for business. It's just that simple, and just that hideously evil. The NRA wants as many Americans to die from bullet wounds as possible, because the more death, the more fear, and the more fear, the better for the bottom line. Smart guns are bad for business.
I can't begin to describe how much I hate these people. God fucking help us.

[Travis_0004]

1. I'll tell you why

They have not yet proven their reliablity yet.

If they are reliable enough, then we should issue one to every police officer in New Jersey. Let them use it for 3 years, and prove its realiable, then get the price below 2,000 and I might think about getting one.

[Logical]

3. I agree, still no reason to insult and threaten the inventor. nt

[nomorenomore08]

9. +1

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Why not let people who want to buy them, buy them?

Or is that just more freedom than the NRA can quite accept?

[Electric Monk]

17. It is pretty ironic, isn't it

(more...)

[Make7]

20. "That one we infringed." ROFL! ( n/t )

[hack89]

25. It is politicians like Ed Markey and S.2068 that are provoking an anti-smart gun backlash

S.2068 calls for grant money, up to $2 million, for companies, individuals, and states, to research technology that would lead to the personalization of firearms. A personalized handgun, according to the bill, is a firearm which: enables only an authorized user of the handgun to fire the handgun; was manufactured in such a manner that the firing restriction described is incorporated into the design of the handgun; is not sold as an accessory; and cannot be readily removed or deactivated.

According to the bill, “Beginning on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun.”

It says later that, “Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may distribute in commerce any handgun that is not a personalized handgun or a retrofitted personalized handgun.”

The law would essentially make it illegal to make or sell a gun that is not personalized, new or old.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2068

If the president and other Dem leaders would promise to never pass such legislation then smart guns wouldn't be an issue.

[XRubicon]

33. That reminds me, I need to make a donation to Markey

Thanks!

[hack89]

35. Have you also sent money to Bloomberg? Nt

[XRubicon]

36. No he doesn't need money.

Markey is my new hero. Anyone who can get gun owners to call gun dealers with death threats is somebody I want to help.

[hack89]

37. Besides, Bloomberg intends to go after incumbent Dems. Nt

[XRubicon]

38. I'm sure that will make your side smile

[hack89]

40. Why? I support Dems pro- gun or not

Everyone of my reps in DC is pro- gun control. The Democratic Party represents no threat to my guns.

[XRubicon]

44. If there is no threat from the Democratic party then why do you react like

There is to every post that is anti gun on this board? Show a little confidence.

[hack89]

45. Just pushing back at the never ending attempts to minimize and smear pro-gun Dems

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

That and I enjoy the give and take - I am not a "me too" poster.

[upaloopa]

27. When did the police officer bull shit

become part of the gunner propaganda?

It is almost like the right wing blast fax thingie. All of a sudden there it is and everyone is using it.
Do any of you have an original thought?

[hack89]

42. If, and I did say if, smart guns are mandated by law

I am assuming you would agree that police should not be exempt. So we will know the technology is mature when the police adopt it. Make sense?

[spanone]

96. wow, i heard that same response on another thread...except it was 10 years...nice nra talking point

[aikoaiko]

2. Larry Pratt is not NRA; he has his own group Gun Owners of America

GOA is a notch more extreme than the NRA.

[Logical]

4. LOL, that is really scary. nt

[sarisataka]

12. I'd say more than a notch...

GOA criticizes the NRA for selling out on gun control. According to them, guns should not be locked but loaded and ready to use.

These are gun nuts

[Logical]

14. Wow, thanks for the info! nt

[spin]

34. Gun Owners of America make the NRA look liberal. ....

Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members.[1] It makes efforts to differentiate itself from the larger National Rifle Association (NRA), and has publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for allegedly compromising on gun rights issues and thereby selling out the gun rights movement.

The GOA has often been in opposition to the NRA in its endorsements and ratings of politicians and candidates. For instance, the GOA was outspoken in its opposition to John McCain's 2008 presidential bid, describing his gun-rights voting record as "abysmal, wretched, and pathetic"[2] and giving him an F- grade on Second Amendment issues since 2004, while the NRA (through its PAC, the NRA-PVF) gave him a C+.[3] The GOA took issue with the NRA over the 2007 NICS Improvement Act.[4]

The GOA has been described by Congressman Ron Paul as "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." This quote from Paul has long been displayed prominently on the home page of the Gun Owners of America website, and Paul was the only 2008 Presidential candidate to receive an A+ grade from Gun Owners of America.[5]

***snip***

Goals

Gun Owners of America is a non-profit organization whose main goal is to preserve and defend the Second Amendment. GOA sees the right to bear arms as a fundamental freedom issue. GOA's stance is to "never compromise" and not to accept the status quo.[7] According to GOA's official website, its board contends that Americans have lost some of their gun rights, and GOA strives to get them back. For the past 30 years GOA has been building a nationwide network of lawyers to aid in challenging gun control legislation in the courts. GOA has been involved in legal proceedings in almost every state in the hopes of maintaining and advancing pro-gun legislation and rights.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America

I believe the GOA is a strictly political organization. To the best of my knowledge the GOA provides no firearms knowledge or training for those interested in the responsible use of firearms for hunting, target shooting or self defense. The NRA does.

[Logical]

43. Good points.....I hate the NRA and they are mostly GOP idiots.....

But they do have some actual gun classes and information.

[spin]

46. I know some of their instructors and they are excellent. (n/t)

[aikoaiko]

5. To address your point...

... gun deaths and many other violent crimes are are lows not seen in 30 - 40 years.

Even still RKBA groups have successfully lobbied for fewer restrictions. The NRA doesn't need more gun violence to be successful.

[Logical]

6. No proof it is because of more people carrying guns. But it is proof....

more guns did not cause more murders.

[aikoaiko]

7. I should have been more clear because I agree with you.

What I mean to convey was that it is not necessary for gun crime to increase in order for the NRA to successfully lobby for fewer restrictions to help sell more guns.

[Logical]

13. Very true. nt

[rustydog]

8. You pretty much hit the nail square on the head

Wayne LaPissant couldn't care less how many innocent people, men, women or children are slaughtered in America.

After the next gun atrocity, LaPissant and his minions will go into hiding...wait a week then declare with adamant certainty the ONLY SOLUTION is MORE GUNZZZZZ!
raise the flag, start the national anthem, show Charlton Heston raising a rifle in clenched fist....Jack off fervently, pass out. reload.

[linuxman]

10. I disagree strongly.

The idea that the NRA opposes "Smart-guns" because of a perceived benefit in increasing gun sales from gun violence is absurd. Let me explain this from a gun owner's perspective. I will not own a smart gun because I find them to be inherently failure prone. Among the many reasons I own a gun is for self defense. I'm not willing to trust something which contains delicate electronics and a battery to operate perfectly when I need it to. I don't buy any firearms designed and marketed within the last ten years for this reason. Maybe after the military and all police demonstrate the effectiveness and reliability of these guns over, say, 10 years, then I'll consider getting one. Which makes more sense? That the NRA is opposed to smart guns because they actively gain from more deaths, or that people don't trust the technology?

[Crepuscular]

11. Not a fan of the NRA

nor do I really care whether they support "smart" guns or not but I'm also not in favor of mandating this type of technology.

Make it available, fine, no problem. If police forces want to adopt it so that a cop can't get shot with is own weapon, that's fine by me also but it's not something that I would be interested in buying. A firearm that could only be operated by one individual removes much of the utility that I seek in a gun. I don't own guns for self defense purposes, I own them to use them, to hunt and to target shoot, both of which activities I frequently participate in with multiple family members and the firearms used are used by multiple people during those sessions. Removing that capability would limit the functionality of what I use firearms for. The fact that there are 200 million "non-smart" guns in circulation also limits the practical impact that such technology would have on any substantive reduction in gun violence.

[hack89]

16. By your standard the NRA is a colossal failure

Considering that gun violence has been steadily falling for 20 years and is at historically low levels. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half.

Did it ever cross your mind to do some actual research before posting your rant?

[krispos42]

18. Oh, lord...

Really? You really think this?


Let me propose an alternative scenario:

Gun owners don't want smart guns as currently designed; the current designs might be serviceable for target practice and casual plinking, but they are not suitable for crisis scenarios for which many guns, particularly but not exclusively handguns, are intended.

And since plinking and target guns don't need to be accessed in a hurry, they are relatively easy to disable and lock away in a safe, and thus personalization isn't really much of a safety benefit.

Smart guns, as currently designed, require too much thought, manipulation, and fine motor skills to activate in a crisis, particularly when added onto the purely mechanical skills required to load and ready a gun. Watches, batteries, and PINs are not something people in a crisis want to add to their burden; imagine trying to enter a PIN on a tiny watch face, in the dark, with your front door being smashed in and people shouting in confusion and anger and fear.

And there is no record of smart-gun use in crisis situations. How well does it work when you're fighting for your life? Are their blind spots? Dead zones? Will a smart gun fire when held in an awkward position? How about if I'm wearing gloves? If my palms are sweaty?

You can't answer that question; neither can I. So, for my crisis gun I will not be buying one. It's that simple.

If they're so great, why aren't cops using them?




But who is mandating "smart guns", anyway?

Quite simply, it's people that either don't know or don't care about this kind of stuff. Their deliberate ignorance is shown in their continuing insistence that bans on "assault weapons" will somehow fight crime and murder, for example.

Now, obviously, the idiots out there that made the giant stink over that one gun store starting to sell smart guns were in the wrong, but they have a point; there are very few smart guns available on the market, they aren't being made by any major brands, and mandating their sale is very ill-advised when the technology is still in it's infancy.

The gun-control forces are fighting to eliminate "gun culture"; Hillary said so just a few days ago and it's been said by other major politicians as well. And that's what it's about... curing the "sickness" or whatever the current talking-point is.

That's why Democrats are, unbelievebly, pushing for laws that actually prevent gun makers from selling guns with protections for the user! Because those protective features are "assault" features. It's a bit flabbergasting.

And your thesis statement up there is flat-out wrong.

The NRA wants more and more gun violence, because it's good for business. It's just that simple, and just that hideously evil. The NRA wants as many Americans to die from bullet wounds as possible, because the more death, the more fear, and the more fear, the better for the bottom line. Smart guns are bad for business.

The culture war that some people, and perhaps you're one of them, feel the need to fight by using the power of the government is far better for the gun business than death and bullet wounds. By making people that own guns feel that gun ownership is inherently a political statement, and by trying to culturally change using the government, you get a far larger reaction than action.

Look at "assault weapons". The term itself is ambiguous and arbitrary (and expandable), but it serves a political purpose by being inflammatory and repressing discussion. Gun owners know this, but non-gun-owners didn't, or didn't care if it was. Trying to ban "assault weapons" actually sold FAR MORE AR-15s and AK-47s than just leaving things alone. Legal, non-assault-weapon AR-15s and AK-47s, by the way; just like the one used at Sandy Hook. And now the AR-15 is one of the best-selling rifles in the country.

Quite frankly, if I was a major shareholder in Smith & Wesson or Ruger, it would be in my best interest to give some money to a gun-control organization!

[upaloopa]

28. Suppose the bad guys had smart guns also

Then not only would you have to get the drop on them first you could pray that their gun is the one to not work!

[Eleanors38]

48. Culture warriors seem to savor the possibility of violence.

[DanTex]

19. Correct. The NRA is perfectly happy with our sky-high homicide rates, and does not want us to get

our rates of gun violence down in line with the rest of the civilized world. More gun violence leads to more fear, which leads to more guns, and the cycle continues.

On edit: you must have hit some kind of nerve here, because you're getting more NRA talking points than usual from the DU right-wing contingent.

[Travis_0004]

23. Our homicade rate is at a 4 decade low.

Its 1/3 what it was in 1991. How is that considered sky high?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/htus8008pr.cfm

[DanTex]

26. We are about 3-4 times higher than other advanced democracies.

Your argument is like saying that Jim Crow was great because it wasn't as bad as slavery. The fact that there was a spike in homicide during the 80s, and a corresponding decline in the 90s doesn't meant that things are good right now.

[Hoyt]

29. How low might it go without a bunch of yahoos promoting guns and impeding

tough gun laws like Australia had the guts to enact in 1996.

[Eleanors38]

49. Ah, Dan. Do you always see RW GOPers...

When it comes to guns?

You just cannot accept -- and MUST not accept -- that millions of pro-2A citizens are in fact progressive Democrats. It violates theological doctrine.

BTW, you Will continue to see more & more on-point, well-articulated arguments about the Second, no matter where folks bent on violating terms of service choose to post stuff like in the OP.

Let's back Wendy & Leticia instead.

[DanTex]

51. I see RWers where there are RWers.

I'm sure there are some actual pro-gun Democrats (though the pattern of "pro-gun progressives" getting banned when they show there true colors makes me doubt that there are many on DU). There are also Dems who oppose gay marriage, and Dems who support tax breaks for oil companies etc.

The fact that there are some Dems who support right-wing positions isn't new or even remarkable.

[Eleanors38]

60. What "RW positions" do you support?

[krispos42]

50. The fear of being the victims of a culture war is what is driving gun sales...

...not so much fear of crime.

It's quite simple. Some people, perhaps you're one of them, seriously dislikes "gun culture" and is vastly uncomfortable with the idea that some people own guns optimized for self-defense. This idea makes you uncomfortable because this means that there are lots and lots of people out there that, as a part of their everyday existence, think about and prepare to kill people. They think about and prepare for this in a methodical way, spending time and money to learn how to do so.

So, you decided that "something has to be done". But what to do? The natural market for guns means that about 40% of the nation is interested in guns and wants to own them. So, then, time to use the bully pulpit and some functionally useless but high-profile gun-control laws to "change the culture".

After the 1993 Assault Weapon Ban became law, it became the greatest driver of sales of semiautomatic rifles, particularly of the AR-15 and AK-47 pattern. Non-assault-weapon versions of AK-47s and AR-15s were created and sold, and as gun owners became more involved in politics and learned more about AR-15s and AK-47s, more and more of them bought them.

Now AR-15s are hugely popular. Hundreds of thousands, maybe even more than a million, are sold a year. Obama became president, and sales skyrocketed because of the Democratic Party's history of wanting to ban certain kinds of guns with certain kinds of accessories to "change the culture".

Democrats are rather gutless on changing our culture in ways that might actually reduce the core reasons of violence and murder. I mean, god fucking forbid we un-privatize prisons, legalize some drugs, get out of those free-trade agreements that have sent our middle class to China and India, break up the corporate monopolies and oligarchies, restore the progressive income tax, and put into place a rational inheritance tax. And universal health insurance would be nice. So would cheap or free college (or trade schools) for people.

Not only will this stuff lower violence (including, ta-da, GUN violence) but it would vastly improve the everyday lives of damn near everybody, and do it from Day One. More small, agile businesses. No more health-related bankruptcies. No more being chained to a job for the health insurance. More people with associates and bachelors degrees. More marketplace competition. Fewer felons, less money spent on prisons and courts and cops, and better democracy.

But the DNC isn't going to take on all those rich lobbies. No siree! So instead they're going to blame hardware, and the features that the hardware has. Yeah, that's really the brave path, isn't it?


There is something fundamentally wrong with our society. Our non-gun homicide rate (about one-third of our total) is as high, about, as other industrialized democratic countries' TOTAL homicide rate. Since it is the height of foolishness to assume that, in the absence of guns, the 2/3rds of murderers annually will simply not kill with alternate means, we can safely assume that even if you achieved a significant reduction in gun-ownership rates we would still have a much higher rate than the countries you want to compare us to.

And your well-intentioned but misguided attempt to "fix" America isn't doing anything but mobilizing gun owners. It's reached the point where merely owning a gun, any kind of gun, is now seen as a political statement. And you keep failing to notice that gun owners get far more involved when non-gun owners try to meddle in their gun safe, than non-gun-owners get. Remember, nobody is trying to force non-gun-owners to own guns, but non-gun-owners are sure as hell trying to make gun owners jump through intrusive legal hoops and piles of paperwork while sharply limiting their options.


And allow me to correct you... the PERCEPTION of VIOLENCE leads to fear, which leads to more preventive measures (of which guns are a component). Our crime rates are at 40 year lows, yet the PERCEPTION of violence is very high, thanks to 24/7 cable news and the various social media providers that can inflate news stories to wildly disproportionate levels while simultaneously inspiring copycats.

[DanTex]

52. Funny, I only see right-wingers talking about "culture war" when it comes to guns.

The Democrats mainly talk about our astronomical levels of gun violence and homicide. It's actually really odd that NRAers simply ignore the 10,000 lives lost to gun homicide and write the whole issue off as a "culture war". Ten thousand is a lot of lives. That's about the same as the total number of US lives lost in 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined. It's surely far more than the number of people we've killed with drone strikes. It's about the same as number of Americans who died every year during Vietnam.

Of course, that number greatly underestimates the total toll on society. There are also suicides, which, of course, the NRA will argue "don't count". And then there are non-fatal injuries, and other externalities caused by neighborhoods living in fear of gun violence. One study estimated the total dollar cost of gun violence at $100B annually. And yet, the NRAers simply dismiss the whole thing as a "culture war". Perplexing.

I must have responded "other causes" NRA talking point a thousand times by now, but since y'all keep ignoring it, here goes again. The US doesn't have a higher rate of violent crime than other advanced Democracies. It's only homicide where we stick out like a sore thumb. That's because other advanced Democracies don't have a gun violence problem. Crimes committed without guns are far less likely to result in someone being killed. Most gun homicides aren't of the pre-meditated variety that would be substituted with something like poisoning. They result from escalation of arguments or other non-homicide crimes. The lethality of the gun is the difference between life and death.

But you know all that because I've said it a thousand times. You choose to ignore the facts, and keep fighting some imaginary "culture war".

[krispos42]

95. Oh, so it was some other Hillary Clinton that spoke four days ago?

Hillary Clinton: Gun Culture 'Way out of Balance'
WASHINGTON May 6, 2014 (AP)
By KEN THOMAS Associated Press
Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation's gun culture has gotten "way out of balance" and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."

The former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said the idea that anyone can have a gun is not in the "best interest of the vast majority of people." But she said that approach does not conflict with the rights of people to own firearms.

<more>

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-raise-money-margolies-campaign-23600038

And I can't shake a stick fast enough to count all the times that "gun culture" was mentioned on DU as a sickness that needed curing.

It's pretty simple, I think. You want European-style guns laws in America. To do that, to get political support for drastic and (presumably) sudden changes in the kinds and quantities of guns in America, you have to gather enough popular support.

So, you try to get the people riled up over gun violence. America needs to change! America can't afford to tolerate "their" gun culture any more! Like pollution, it spreads across the land, affecting not only gun owners but everybody else! And THEY are too stupid and ignorant and gun-loving to listen!


The clearest evidence of this is the assault-weapons ban. The idea is absurd, trying to draw some arbitrary line between "acceptable" semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and between "assault weapon" semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

The official position of the Democratic Party is that gun makers shouldn't be allowed to put consumer-protection features on guns. Can you imagine Democrats outlawing heat shields on ANYTHING else that gets hot?

How about a more-comfortable, more ergonomic grip? Can you imagine Democrats trying to outlaw pistol grips on power drills? Barcode scanners? Paint sprayers? Weed trimmers?

How about a quick-adjustable shoulder stock? Can you imagine Democrats trying to outlaw office chairs that are height-adjustable? Tilting/telescoping steering wheels on cars?

And yet, because these features were first issued (about 70 years ago) on military arms, they want to outlaw them. Because they don't want "military-styled guns" to be sold.


It's stupid. It's trying to change the culture by ginning up an imaginary enemy.


If the Democrats had defined "assault weapon" as "any semiautomatic long gun", then it wouldn't be a culture war; it would be a principled, consistent, and clear definition. But they don't. They continue to define "assault weapon" by a dozen different definitions, and re-defining the definition at their convenience.

Hell, if they had come out and wanted to ban handguns as a class, it would be a principled, consistent, and clear proposal, and would in theory save FAR more lives per year than any definition of "assault weapon".

I must have responded "other causes" NRA talking point a thousand times by now, but since y'all keep ignoring it, here goes again. The US doesn't have a higher rate of violent crime than other advanced Democracies. It's only homicide where we stick out like a sore thumb.

Other countries have different definitions of violent crime, different definitions of felony and misdemeanors, different levels of reporting by citizens, and different methods of gathering data. Murder and manslaughter seem to be pretty consistently defined across nations, but the other stuff? I have reservations.

Still doesn't change the fact that we could not only reduce violence but vastly (and quickly) improve the overall standard living of this country by doing other things. I've listed them before, and you know what? They're all liberal ideas.

Even if you're 100% correct, or even 90% correct, what you are trying to embark on is a very long, slow journey that will result in electoral backlash. Conservative political and economic systems kill far more people than gun violence. 40,000 a year because they were under-insured or uninsured dwarfs the 13,000 firearm-based murders a year. How much of the suicide rate is because of economic ruination by conservative economics? How about the homicide rate? Or all those murder-suicides?

You plan is to essentially remove from society a large portion of the guns. What percentage? Got any idea? It would have to be a lot to dry up the black market. It would have to be a lot to prevent most domestic-partner shootings.

[DanTex]

97. Hmm, doesn't seem to be anything about a "culture war".

I also missed the part about how she wants to culturally persecute rural white people. Maybe you linked to the wrong article.

As far as AWB, I agree, it was toothless. What they should really do is classify all semi-automatics and all handguns as NFA weapons, with the same registration and transfer laws. Can I count you as an ally on that?

As for the rest, the "gun violence isn't really that bad" argument is one of the weakest in the whole NRA playbook. 10,000 gun homicides, by any rational measure, is a huge amount. Think a 9-11 every three or four months. Or, better yet, about the same number of US lives lost per year than during Vietnam.

You know, Vietnam, that was before my time. Was that, like, a big deal? Were people protesting and stuff? Or was it like, meh, more people die of natural causes, no big deal? I assume you were standing alongside Mitt Romney in the pro-war protests waving a banner that said "it's just 10,000 lives per year people, get a grip!".


Yes, let's fix the healthcare system. And let's also address gun violence. Addressing gun violence and fixing the healthcare system aren't mutually exclusive. They are complementary. You do know that public health experts consider gun violence to be an epidemic in this country, right? So much so that the GOP has blocked funding for research into gun violence prevention, and is currently threatening to derail Obama's surgeon general choice because of comments about the toll of gun violence. Weird that none of that seems to bother you as much as the AWB. Wonder why that might be.

[Paladin]

54. Golly---you mean all of this is the gun control side's fault? Imagine my lack of surprise.

You know K42, I've heard that argument hundreds of times before here on DU, and it never, ever sounds convincing. You go on at length about how gutless you think Democrats are (a DU Gun Enthusiast trashing Democrats---again, imagine my lack of surprise); what about the gutless nature of the gun rights movement, which fails to acknowledge the very real excesses of gun usage in this country? When will we hear Wayne LaPierre complain about those "militia" types on the Bundy spread, aiming their assault rifles at government employees carrying out their jobs in a lawful manner? When will the Gun Owners of America issue a notice that groups of people turning up at burger joints with AR-15's slung on their shoulders aren't doing the movement any favors? Hell, when is a DU Gun Enthusiast going to admit the obvious fact that Stand Your Ground laws aren't working out as well as planned, and maybe ought to be reconsidered?

I don't require any answers to the foregoing questions. I just thought they ought to be asked, as an offset to your comments.

[Recursion]

91. Don't you mean "our record low homicide rates make the NRA sad"? (nt)

[DanTex]

94. Again with the "slavery means Jim Crow is great" argument.

As you well know, we have by far the highest homicide rate of any advanced democracy. The fact that homicide rates spiked in the 80s and then came back down makes for a common NRA talking point, but doesn't change the fundamental reality that lack of adequate gun regulation costs us tens of thousands of innocent lives.

[oneofthe99]

21. I would never want to own one for self defense

And I sure as hell wouldn't want it mandated by law I had to and that is the real reason
why the push back on these guns.






Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year, and at the federal level, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) also has introduced a mandate

[951-Riverside]

22. Larry Pratt has nothing to do with the NRA, he has his own rival organization.

Gun Owners of America HATES the NRA and thinks of them as being too "liberal" and "compromising". It is an mega ultra nutty organization, actually I don't think its an organization. Its more like one guy pocketing thousands of donations.

[dilby]

24. My biggest issue with the smart gun is it destroys concealed carry.

The wristband watch gives it away. Obviously it's up to the owner if they want to use this technology but if one does and they are hoping for concealed carry the watch is a dead giveaway.

[Hoyt]

30. It's really not that difficult to spot most yahoos that tote and are

into guns and lethal accessories.

[dilby]

31. Actually you would be surprised.

There are a lot of people who conceal carry, my girlfriend is one and I had no idea that she carried when we first started dating.

[Hoyt]

32. Most women toters are not as callous, bigoted and into guns as men.

Men are generally pretty easy to spot, especially the gun fancying types.

[dilby]

56. I guess, but if I was raped twice and stabbed 17 times I probably would carry like her too.

[Hoyt]

57. Sounds like you carry now and haven't had anything like that happen to you. Women have more reason

to carry than men, and they do it without all the crud that goes with the male gun culture.

Can you find any photos like this of women gun nuts:

[dilby]

59. Actually I don't carry at all, never felt the need for it.

I always have a pocket knife but it's not for protection or anything it's just one of the best tools to always have.

[oneofthe99]

61. Why do you assume none of these men vote Democrat

[Hoyt]

62. Pretty obvious to me. Why do you assume - now that Dixiecrats have folded - that bigoted gun lovers

who are into intimidation, etc., would truly vote for a real Democratic candidate?

[oneofthe99]

64. I can't just look at a person and know how he votes

Just because they have camouflage clothing on and are holding firearms doesn't
tell me which political party they belong to.

[Hoyt]

66. Context means a lot. Kerry isn't "marching" with a racist or waving a flag symbolic of hatred.

I hope you don't have any guns if you are no more perceptive than that.

Hunting game is very different from intimidating people with a gun.

[oneofthe99]

70. You like to judge books by their cover , I don't live my life like that.

[Hoyt]

71. A pistol on a hip is a dead give away in vast majority of cases.

[Paladin]

63. Come on, get real. (nt)

[oneofthe99]

65. Democrats also hunt and wear camo

Six weeks after hunting pheasants with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Chuck Schumer

[Hoyt]

67. Again, shooting game is different from preparing to shoot people.

[SQUEE]

72. project much?

Considering that I and my friends as well as the vast majority of other gun owners don't use weapons to steal and threaten.. I think you do.

Perhaps your xray vision, and ability to read minds could be used to greater effect with the TSA, assuming you could pass the background check....

[Paladin]

69. I hunted for years. I know what honest-to-God hunters look like.

And they don't look like those dipshit militia wannabes appearing in post 57. (Extra credit to the Ted Nugent clone, 3rd from the right.)

By the way, John Kerry was savaged for that goose hunt---by the crowd right here in DU's very own Gun Control/RKBA group (or its DU2 predecessor). Just part of a long-time tradition of DU Gun Enthusiasts trashing Democratic politicians. Look for more of the same odious behavior, with another campaign season upon us.

[Hoyt]

73. +1000000

[NutmegYankee]

75. Why would the pro-hunting side of DU savage Kerry?

Please remember that the anti-hunting/anti-gun side also posts in the Gungeon.

I own firearms, and voted for Kerry in three instances in 2004. Primary, convention, general election.

[Paladin]

81. There's a huge difference between "pro-hunting" and "pro-gun."

The Gun Control/RKBA group has always been pro-gun; hunting isn't that popular. Over the years, I've seen the insulting term "Fudds" applied by Gungeoneers to those who acquire and use traditionally-styled firearms for hunting. The sort of guns that are overwhelmingly favored in Gun Control/RKBA are military-styled rifles, law enforcement street-sweeper shotguns, and semi-auto pistols, i.e., guns which are designed for use against human beings, not game animals. The pro-gun types hate Kerry for his stance on gun control. The same goes for most other Democratic politicians.

I don't think I'm telling you anything you're not aware of already. Like you, I am a long-time gun owner and lifelong Democrat. Any doubts you may have about the animosity of DU's pro-gun segment toward Democratic candidates will be erased in the upcoming election season. It always gets ugly.

[NutmegYankee]

82. There are a lot of distinctions that have to be made.

For instance, what is considered "traditional styled" for hunting was once military style. One would be hard pressed to distinguish a Mauser K98 or Springfield 1903 from a modern hunting rifle. I personally prefer bolt action rifles, because I have a historical interest in them. I've never bought one though as mine are hand-me-downs. One of them is my hunting rifle. The other I'd like to restore as it's showing a lot of signs of age. The only firearm I ever purchased was a replica of a much older firearm, again because of my interest in early 20th century firearms.

You mention "semi-auto" pistols but don't distinguish that they are also the most common pistols used for target shooting competitions. I have two early post-war 1911s that have been upgraded over the years specifically for target shooting. The 1911 is a semi-auto pistol, but is also an antique design that is over 100 years old. I used to do a lot of target shooting competitions, but a debilitating physical injury has limited my ability to do that and I may need surgery to correct the condition.

I'm basically a collector/traditional gun owner. When Conn. passed the gun control law in 2013 to ban assault rifles and restrict magazine sizes in response to Sandy Hook, I wasn't impacted at all. If I chime in and push back at times it's because I see the vilification of gun owners as a danger to me. I have firearms on their 4th generation of family ownership and some of the fanatical views I have seen threaten that family tradition. It's insulting to be treated like I'm a right-winger by some on DU when I'm probably a stronger more active Democrat than them combined.

[Paladin]

84. Take a look at the second photo under post 57.

That's what I'm talking about. Assault rifles, tactical shotguns, confederate flag T-shirts, camo, the requisite facial hair and "Fuck you, come and take it" scowls. It doesn't sound like you're any part of this crowd.

[NutmegYankee]

86. No, I'm definitely not part of that crowd.

[SQUEE]

58. I call BS on another Hoyt Super Power.I'll be in Georgia soon,

You pick the spot, I'll prove you unable to do what you say is so easy?
I'll even buy dinner, give you an oppurtunity to meet a liberal gun owner, actually 3 of them.

[NutmegYankee]

74. He doesn't believe liberal gun owners exist.

The cognitive dissonance is too overwhelming for him to actually meet you.

[Hoyt]

76. I can understand a liberal owning a gun or two; but not toting in public; accumulating, promoting;

practicing to shoot people; cheering the shooting of people; supporting NRA and similar gun organizations as a dues paying member or free-rider; making excuses for gun nuts who intimidate four moms meeting at a restaurant to discuss issues of guns; drooling over guns; claiming guns are not sold without background checks at gun shows; starting threads in Gungeon on best gun to use when people are fleeing a hurricane; the selfishness of gun lovers; refusing to acknowledge the majority of gun owners are right wing bigots; and there's a lot more. The worse thing is the selfishness of gun lovers when they know that coddling their bad habit causes so much harm in our society.

Sorry, that is not liberal, at least on this issue. Otherwise, I love you guys.

[NutmegYankee]

77. LOL! Cognitive Dissonance

Really want to hurt your brain? Believing that gun ownership should be restricted to a select few is a right-wing view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Oh the "I love you guys" bit was just great! Been hearing that from the Christian right for years while they called us names and wished us to burn in hell. Nice finishing touch!

[Hoyt]

78. Nope, thinking one needs a gun in their pants while walking around is right wing IMO.

As is drooling over so-called assault rifles; apologizing for gun fanciers even when they intimidate folks with their gunz, etc.

[NutmegYankee]

79. Gun ownership does not equal walking around with a gun in the pants.

I own six guns, and have never once carried one on my person in public. You have a serious problem separating the two in your mind.

All but one of my firearms were handed down from family, and they will in turn be handed to the next generation. Two of them are now on their 4th generation of family ownership.

[Hoyt]

80. Then, it doesn't sound like you are a Zimmerman type. Many are, however.

Don't cate if you have a few guns at home. When you start practicing on targets that resemble humans, carrying in public, promoting more guns on more places, etc., that's when it becomes society's problem. Too many gun fanciers are in the problem category, and push the envelope.

[MicaelS]

39. Go ahead and make them.

See how many you sell. Since we're constantly told it's only a small minority of "gun nuts" buying all the guns in the US, if they don't sell, then I guess we "gun nuts" don't want them. In other words we would "choose" not to own them. So that is the market in action.

Of course, that isn't the real agenda here. The real agenda is that Gun Prohibitionists want to eventually make ONLY Smart Guns available for sale. All older guns would either have to be retrofitted, or turned in to authorities, or rendered inert or destroyed. And since presumably one of the added "benefits" would be some sort of tracking chip, you could track the movements of all guns, and the people who own them.

As the old saying goes "Don't piss down my back, and tell me it's raining."

[Hoyt]

41. Sounds so frightening. I guess the Bundy Ranch militia is right.

[Eleanors38]

47. Diversify your hate: Pratt heads the GOA...

That kind of gross faux pas is what makes the elitist gun-control outlook so arrogantly ineffective. Keep your monsters in order.

[Laelth]

53. I don't think the NRA is the problem.

I think the NRA is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem--a problem that we deny even exists and a problem that, when expressed and explained, generates a circular firing squad within the Democratic Party. That nameless problem is this (flame-retardant suit on):

The Democratic Party is perceived as being female. The Republican Party is perceived as being male. Many men in America today feel emasculated, oppressed, and weak (whether there's any reality behind that perception is beside the point). Guns are an implicit assertion of male power (the power of strength, death, and destruction). Female power, on the other hand, is creative, life-generating, and nurturing, but guns and masculinity are aligned in the American psyche. To the extent we fight against guns in the Democratic Party, we also fight against men and masculinity, and this dynamic is crushing us with the electorate. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the entire Republican Party of today is, primarily, a backlash against the tremendous gains in power and influence that women have made over the past hundred years. How else can we explain so many people voting against their best interests? How else can we explain the fact that many women who are not millionaires vote for Republicans? (They love the men in their lives, and they see the impact of these social changes on the men that they love.)

This, I think, is the primary barrier to complete Democratic control of government. Whether we can even see this problem (much less address it in a meaningful way) is the paramount challenge for our party at this moment in history (or, if you prefer, herstory).



-Laelth

[spin]

87. That might be a false perception. Many women own and use firearms for hunting, target shooting ...

and self defense. The number that do is rapidly growing. Firearms are now quite popular with female buyers.

Valentine's Day sales of pink pistols and other handguns rise
As women's participation in shooting sports has increased, so have sales at gun shops leading up to February 14.
BY JENNIFER PALMER [e-mail] • Published: February 11, 2012

***snip***

A few years ago, Mike Blackwell, owner of Big Boy's Guns and Ammo in Oklahoma City, started noticing that his store's sales went up in the week before Valentine's Day.

“The Saturday before Valentine's Day is one of our best days of the year,” he said. “The last two years we've set sale records.”

The shop, at 8620 SW 74, carries a variety of handguns geared toward women in colors like pink, red, green and yellow. Also stocked are pink headphones and goggles for women to wear to the range.

Women's participation in target shooting has increased 46.5 percent from 2001 to 2010, according to the latest data available from the National Sporting Goods Association. And their participation in hunting rose 36.6 percent over the same time period.
http://newsok.com/valentines-day-sales-of-pink-pistols-and-other-handguns-rise/article/3647926

You state that " guns are an implicit assertion of male power" but many of the women I have introduced to the shooting sports have told me that they felt that owning a gun was "empowering." No longer were they as afraid of being attacked by a male in their home as they had the ability to defend themselves and their families. Some of the woman I took to the range went on to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Florida. (In passing I found it far easier to teach a woman to shoot a handgun accurately far easier than most men. They listen more carefully and don't feel that they already are experts on shooting because they have watched far too many violent movies and played too many first person shooter games.)

Often people who are strong gun control advocates tend to stereotype gun owners unfairly. It's all too easy to assume that most gun owners are male racist red necks with little education but the truth is far different. While some are, many have college degrees and hold well paying jobs or own their own businesses. If you went to a gun range and asked the shooters about their educational background and occupation, you would probably be amazed that they would represent a broad cross section of our society.

It is true that most gun owners vote Republican but that is hardly surprising as the Democratic Party has supported strong gun control laws for years. Even so, many gun owners are very liberal and support the Democratic Party. (What really bothers me is that I have had numerous political discussions on many different issues with shooters at the range and they often agree with my liberal views but they tell me that they could never vote for a Democrat as all Democrats wish to ban and confiscate guns. Gun owners also are often guilty of stereotyping.)

In passing, would it surprise you that in Florida 22% of those who have valid concealed weapons permits are female?http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7500/118857/cw_holders.pdf

[Heidi]

55. Kick!

[Calista241]

68. How smart?

I just don't see how this smart gun will work. You're introducing an electronic restricting mechanism into a mechanical explosive device.

It seems removing the restricting device would be stupendously easy, and anything less than 100% reliability will be seized upon by the gun lobby. The two devices have nothing to do with each other functionally, and isolating or disabling them from each other would be child's play.

It addition, it's not really that smart, I mean, you have to wear a watch. What if you don't like that kind of watch? What if you have a skin disease that prevents watch wearing? What if someone also steals the watch?

Now if it was implanted RFID tags, that's smart. But good luck passing that.

[spin]

83. I'm a gun owner and strong supporter of the Second Amendment. ...

I see no problem with a manufacturer offering safe gun technology.

Currently it is possible to have a S&W revolver modified so that only the owner can fire it. I considered sending my carry revolver to the firm for the modification.

The Magna-Trigger Conversion

Smart gun technology affords us gun safety add-ons that can help protect others. Are you seriously concerned about the chance of you or others being slain or injured after an assailant grabs your gun from your "safe" holster or from your hand? This happens to many law enforcement officers each year! Of the injured, many are crippled for life.

***snip***

Your MODIFIED Smith & Wesson REVOLVER can help prevent these possibilities. Your special magnetic ring allows you instant firing of your gun, while your assailant (or your child finding your gun) will find it impossible to fire it!

Guns have been modified for police since June, 1976. For convenience, all magnetic rings allow firing of all modified guns. The device slides out for easy gun cleaning, and never requires oiling. Only one moving part is employed. The device is expected to outlast your gun by countless years. The powerful samarium magnets can last for centuries. The tiny stainless steel rings never tarnish, and weigh only five grams (1/5 ounce). You wear the ring on your middle finger for the six-shot guns and on the ring finger for the five-shot guns or the Ruger. Most officers wear a ring on both hands.
http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

It is a damn good idea but unfortunately the modification costs $350.00 and $60.00 for each standard ring.

I would be interested in buying a "safe gun" with proven reliable technology if it was offered for a reasonable price. I do not believe it should be a requirement for all firearms sold but should be an an option.

Obviously if the technology is required and very expensive it might make it very difficult for a member of the lower middle class or the poor to buy a new firearm for self defense. Of course the wealthy upper class will still be able to purchase such firearms but they normally live in fairly safe, crime free areas.

Some probably feel the effort to require safe gun technology is a back door way to put gun manufacturers out of business. They might well have a point.

[NutmegYankee]

85. All of the hate was sparked by New Jersey acting stupidly.

That state passed a law that would force all guns sold to be smart guns within three years of the first one going on the market. So far the only smart gun is a grossly overpriced target pistol. People there were facing a defacto end of all gun sales in the state and an unknown status for all existing firearms. The stupidity of that law boggles the mind. The fanatical response of gun groups is even worse, with the threats being really despicable. The dumb law of one state isn't this woman's (designer of smart gun) fault. I have no issue with smart guns being offered for sale. The problem is some people will no doubt interfere with the free choice in that market and limit the product selection by law. And I'm not sure how that will get resolved.

My specific concern for myself is that I own antique firearms that cannot be converted to use such a technology. What happens to those who collect or own antiques if it is mandated to be back fit? And who pays for it?

[spin]

89. The solution to those who live in states like New Jersey is to vote out politicians who ...

support laws such as requriing all firearms sold to have smart gun technology. Another approach is simply to move to a more gun friendly state like Florida or Texas.

Unfortunately voting against the pols who pushed through the smart gun law would probably mean voting against otherwise good Democrats. Moving might not be a good option. It's kind of like being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Perhaps it might be possible to work within the Democratic Party in your state to attempt to change its views on this law. Make sure to voice your opinion and try to oganize other Democrats who agree with you on this issue. Write letters to the editorial pages of the newpapers in your state. Talk to your representatives. You and others like you may be able to make a difference.

[Paladin]

90. Fixing a clumsy piece of legislation is a much better alternative.....

....than is phoning in death threats to gun dealers who want to sell firearms with safety features. It would be nice to hear about a lot more responsible gun owners taking on these thugs who seem to be acting without restraints---it's not as if Wayne LaPierre is going to be of any help.

[NutmegYankee]

92. We get lost in the fighting bewteen the extremes on both sides.

There is a lot of broad brushing and false dichotomy and people in the middle get ignored. I personally think NJ's law wouldn't survive contact with the courts and think that's the best option for those who disagree.

[Paladin]

93. Agreed. (nt)

[MisterP]

88. and their only solution is “buy more guns so you can shoot back at the people and situations

we've created"