Gun-control backers: Where are you?

[virginia mountainman]

Great Read from the Chicago Tribune!!!! Props, to Mr Zorn, for looking into the "TRUTH" about so-called Assault Weapons!!

Props, for pointing out how the typically weak and mealymouthed Anti-Civil rights side really is!

Here is a few nice excerpts from his column.

And each time it has struck me how tiny, uninspired and vague the response has been from those who favor new laws to try to keep guns out of the hand of evildoers.

While the gun-rights folks weigh in quickly and forcefully with links to studies and detailed arguments, the gun-ban folks are mostly quiet. The suggestions seem to be mostly on the order of Police Supt. Jody Weis' call in today's paper to ban AK-47 rifles, which, as I have argued before, is beside the point, at best.

And he continues on, He ACTUALLY TOOK TIME TO LEARN, about so called "assault weapons", he writes in FACT, and not bullshit, like the vast majority of papers

They fire medium- or small-caliber bullets at average velocities, according to firearms experts I interviewed. The military forefathers of what we call assault weapons-the continual-fire machine guns that have been all but banned here for many decades-were designed to wound as much as kill the enemy, on the theory that a wounded soldier is a greater burden on an army than a dead one.

The deadliest legal firearm is far and away the common shotgun.

The assumption that assault weapons spray gunfire at a much more rapid rate than other kinds of guns is also false. They fire one bullet per squeeze of the trigger and can fire as fast as the shooter can squeeze-this is true of every semiautomatic weapon, including most ordinary handguns and the most common type of revolver.

ATF spokesman Jack Killorin said semiautomatic guns can fire slightly faster than revolvers; American Shooting Sports Council lobbyist Richard Feldman said competition speed records are set with revolvers, not semiautomatics. Either way, the difference is not great.

Like a breath of fresh air, dispelling all the Republican Sara Brady bat-shit.

But cosmetics aside, these guns have little to no unique potential for mayhem, and there is no reason to believe bad guys won't move on to different firearms if a ban is enacted.

Still, do these weapons have any other purpose than violent assault, as the very name implies as their opponents insist? Proponents say yes: They are rugged, accurate, good for hunting small game and pest animals, and in some cases well suited for self-defense.

And, of course, they are great for grandstanding.
div]

HAMMER, hit nail on the head...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/gun-control-bac.html#more

[rwheeler31]

1. No one cares. Enough people are dying.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Yea, just like 1994, no one cares....

[benEzra]

22. Not from small-caliber RIFLES, though. Only 4 out of 487 murders involved ANY type of rifle.

No one cares. Enough people are dying.

Not from small-caliber RIFLES, though...which is, of course, the point. Only 4 out of 487 murders in Illinois in 2006 involved ANY type of rifle.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006
Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

Total murders...............................487.....100.00%
Handguns....................................380......78.00%
Edged weapons................................46.......9.45%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35.......7.19%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................14.......2.87%
Shotguns......................................6.......1.23%
Rifles........................................4.......0.82%
Firearms (type unknown).......................2.......0.41%

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Yet outlawing the most popular civilian rifles in America has been the gun-control lobby's Priority One for a decade and a half.

Why?

The answer to that question tells you a lot about the gun-control lobby itself, IMO.

[Turbo Teg]

40. all the more reason to arm yourself.

[iverglas]

3. hack hack hack

First, I should reintroduce myself. I've never had anything to say in support of or against the particular public policy in issue here, to speak of.

I just am never-endingly amused by the spin thrown by those who really really really want somebody to believe that the rationale for and intended purpose of the measure is so much not what it so obviously has been ...


http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/assaultweaponreport.pdf

CONSUMERS SUPPORT RENEWING AND STRENGTHENING
THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN <2004>

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they “strongly favored” or “somewhat favored” renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-two percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 47 percent who strongly favor its renewal. Just over 50 percent of gun owners support renewing the ban, while two thirds of non-gun owners do.

... Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. They incorporate military-style characteristics specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings. These design characteristics make it easy for a shooter to simply point? as opposed to carefully aim? the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with bullets. Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms.

But the chorus here will keep telling us that because these things are less accurate than actual hunting weapons, no sensible criminal would want one. Like criminals give a flying fuck about accuracy ...

[bossy22]

4. wha???

"I've never had anything to say in support of or against the particular public policy in issue here, to speak of."
true- but you make it painstakingly obvious that you support such legislation


"Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. They incorporate military-style characteristics specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings. These design characteristics make it easy for a shooter to simply point? as opposed to carefully aim? the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with bullets. Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms."

the statement is farthest from the truth- if assault eapons were a discrete class of firearms they wouldnt be different in every peice of legislation.

maybe you have some link that could tell me why in NJ an M1 Carbine is an Assault weapon, but in CA it is not according to their assault weapon law? Why is a Mini-14 not an assault weapon in NJ but it is in CA? Why is an AR-15 not an assault weapon in the federal law but according to CA it is.

"Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms."
except criminals don't really use them

"But the chorus here will keep telling us that because these things are less accurate than actual hunting weapons, no sensible criminal would want one. Like criminals give a flying fuck about accuracy ..."

I'd be wary of the kool-aid if i were you. No one here has said such that thing. Guns termed to be assault weapons can be more accurate (AR-15, M14) and less accurate (AK-47) than "hunting weapons"

[iverglas]

6. wha?????

true- but you make it painstakingly obvious that you support such legislation

Really?

As part of a package, sure. By itself, it's a waste of time and energy.

Howzat?

Leaving aside that I don't "support" or otherwise anything that's a matter of domestic policy not domestic to me, unless it affects me or is, like, an egregious human rights violation ...


the statement is farthest from the truth- if assault eapons were a discrete class of firearms they wouldnt be different in every peice of legislation.

Yeah, now if you can stop spinning long enough to notice that I was actually citing and agreeing with a particular assertion in that paragraph:

Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals

except criminals don't really use them

I know, I know! They keep them around to hang over the mantle at their hunting lodges.


No one here has said such that thing.

Oh look. It's proof by blatant assertion of something that is false. What will we see next??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Let's see if we can get a straight answer.

You wrote, "Yeah, now if you can stop spinning long enough to notice that I was actually citing and agreeing with a particular assertion in that paragraph:

Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals"




I thought the handguns were especially attractive to criminals. But since assault weapons are then surely there are statistics somewhere to show how deadly they are and how criminals use them often to commit crimes. Do you have any stats to back up the assertions above?

David

[iverglas]

14. I like pink

No, I like blue.

No, I like pink.

We all know that I can't possibly like pink AND blue.

[benEzra]

25. Apparently the overall design characteristics are sufficiently bamboozling to criminals...

that, at least in Illinois, they almost never use them...

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006
Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

Total murders...............................487.....100.00%
Handguns....................................380......78.00%
Edged weapons................................46.......9.45%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35.......7.19%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................14.......2.87%
Shotguns......................................6.......1.23%
Rifles........................................4.......0.82%
Firearms (type unknown).......................2.......0.41%

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

And before you dust off the old saw about criminals using rifles for every evil purpose on the planet while stubbornly refusing to shoot anybody with them, some obligatory trace data...

Table 4: Top Ten Long Guns by Type and Caliber/Gauge
by Age Group of Possessor

Long Gun Type and Caliber - All Ages

Shotgun 12 GA...........6,854...............35.5%
Rifle .22...............4,076...............21.1%
Rifle 7.62mm............1,729................9.0%
Shotgun 20 GA...........1,277................6.6%
Rifle .30-30..............616................3.2%
Shotgun .410 GA...........615................3.2%
Rifle .223................599................3.1%
Rifle 9mm.................412................2.1%
Rifle .30-06..............410................2.1%
Shotgun 16 GA.............409................2.1%
Top Ten Long Guns......16,997...............88.0%
All Long Guns..........19,311..............100.0%

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/generalfindings

.223 and 9mm would be mostly what the gun control lobby would call "assault weapons"; 7.62mm is a mix of hunting weapons, traditionally styled target weapons, and "assault weapons." .22, on the other hand, is the rimfire caliber popular for squirrel hunting and indoor target shooting.

Those supposedly criminal-magnet features don't appear to be working, or at least not on criminals. They might have something to do with the rifles' remarkable NON-criminal popularity, though...

[Longtooth]

42. Very interesting numbers there.

Thank you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Well that's a straight answer.

I'm partial to red myself.

David

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

7. btw

http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=833703

just because the majority of americans support something doesnt make it right

[iverglas]

8. well damnation

just because the majority of americans support something doesnt make it right

I mean, the casual reader might think I'd said it did, mightn't s/he??

And wouldn't that just be a shame ...

[bossy22]

9. playing stupid again

no thats whats most readers would take away from what you posted...unless you posted just for the sake of posting

your post is just a waste of cyberspace

[iverglas]

18. it's a wonderment

-- I mean, I'm sure it's a wonderment to you -- but you see, there are these things called "facts" ...

Some of us -- damnably few of us, if one were to go by this place -- find facts interesting.

The facts reported in the item that I quoted in my post were ... well, doggone it -- facts.

Facts actually exist whether I like them or not -- and whether you like them or not.

The fact that the sky is blue does not imply that we should go for a picnic, and anyone who accuses me of suggesting we should go for a picnic simply because I accurately reported that the sky was blue will look like (a) a moron, (b) a teller of false tales, or (c) both. I think (c) would be possible, even though there could presumably be evidence only of (a) *or* (b) in that particular instance.

So what I quoted was some facts. Like 'em, lump 'em or eat 'em for breakfast. I really don't give a crap, y'know?


typo typo typo

[benEzra]

37. I didn't see any facts...

-- I mean, I'm sure it's a wonderment to you -- but you see, there are these things called "facts" ...

Some of us -- damnably few of us, if one were to go by this place -- find facts interesting.

The facts reported in the item that I quoted in my post were ... well, doggone it -- facts.

Facts actually exist whether I like them or not -- and whether you like them or not.

I didn't see any facts; I saw a couple of assertions by an advocacy group with a history of making rather wacky statements on the "assault weapon" issue, at least one of which you were kind enough to quote.

To wit:

Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they “strongly favored” or “somewhat favored” renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-two percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 47 percent who strongly favor its renewal. Just over 50 percent of gun owners support renewing the ban, while two thirds of non-gun owners do.

Without letting us know the survey question that was asked, and the survey's other questions that would have distinguished between support for the existing NFA and support for an AWB, this is an assertion, not a fact. You, of all people, know the difference.

The second "fact" you cite is a rather wacky assertion with no support, and I am glad you were so kind as to quote it:

Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. They incorporate military-style characteristics specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings. These design characteristics make it easy for a shooter to simply point---as opposed to carefully aim---the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with bullets. Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms.

That paragraph caricatures itself. Never mind the fact that it begs the question no less than five times in the space of three sentences, the silly hyperbole with which it does so is laughable.

[iverglas]

46. got a pointer finger?

Without letting us know the survey question that was asked

There was a link. You click it. You read. Facts.



I reproduced a passage from a report on a survey that was conducted. I included two paragraphs: one to provide the context for what I was pointing out, and one containing the statement I was pointing out.

The statement I was pointing out was:

Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals

I made this plain by boldfacing that statement, and by prefacing it and following it with these statements of my own:

I just am never-endingly amused by the spin thrown by those who really really really want somebody to believe that the rationale for and intended purpose of the measure is so much not what it so obviously has been ...

But the chorus here will keep telling us that because these things are less accurate than actual hunting weapons, no sensible criminal would want one. Like criminals give a flying fuck about accuracy ...

The response to what I quoted and said was:

just because the majority of americans support something doesnt make it right

Now, since I had not suggested that the fact that a majority of anyone supporting anything made it right -- and since that was not even an issue under discussion -- this response was non-responsive.

The only explanations I could see for it were:
(a) the poster had lost the train of thought and wandered off in some direction totally tangential to the subject under discussion that had caught his/her fancy, much as my schizophrenic clients often did;
(b) the poster was attempting to convey the idea to some audience that I had asserted that majority vote was an appropriate way of determining whether something is "right".

If (a) was the case, I was helpless to address the problem.
If (b) was the case, I could set the record straight by pointing out that I had neither said nor implied any such thing.


The second "fact" you cite is a rather wacky assertion with no support

And yet, I didn't claim that this was a fact.

I responded to an insinuation that I had said or implied that MAJORITY VOTE DETERMINES WHAT IS RIGHT -- a plain reference to the FIRST paragraph I quoted and ONLY the first paragraph, because ONLY the first paragraph said anything about numbers of people doing anything -- by pointing out that I had not said or implied any such thing. My reference to "facts" was plainly a reference to the SURVEY RESULTS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Can you really not follow the thread of a conversation at all yourself?

I can just imagine having a conversation with you. I start it off, and then you join in at the end:

Me:
The weather channel says no rain until next week. I'm hungry.

Anon:
Just because the weather channel says no rain doesn't make dry weather a good thing.

Me:
It's a fact that the weather channel said no rain until next week.
I didn't say that was good or bad, or that the weather channel saying it makes it good.

benEzra:
What do you mean, it's a fact that you're hungry?
That's not a fact, that's an opinion.
And it's wrong anyway, you just had lunch half an hour ago.

THE FACT is that a certain sample of people responded in certain ways to certain questions on a survey.

THE OPINION with which I agree is that certain design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals.

Try having a nice black coffee and see whether it helps.

[benEzra]

50. "Especially attractive to criminals," eh?

Funny, then, that by and large, criminals don't use them. Between handguns and long guns, handguns are overwhelmingly preferred by criminals due to their portability; of long guns, shotguns are involved in more crimes than handguns (due presumably to the fact that, unlike most rifles, most shotguns function perfectly when cut down to a concealable length); and of rifles, .22 rimfires are more commonly misused than your "assault weapons."

The "especially attractive to criminals" bit is not a "fact"; it is an a priori assumption made by those who wish to ban them, as a justification for banning them. Problem is, that assumption is not only false, it is demonstrably false.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006
Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

State: Illinois

Total murders...............................487.....100.00%
Handguns....................................380......78.00%
Edged weapons................................46.......9.45%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35.......7.19%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................14.......2.87%
Shotguns......................................6.......1.23%
Rifles........................................4.......0.82%
Firearms (type unknown).......................2.......0.41%

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html


Table 4: Top Ten Long Guns by Type and Caliber/Gauge
by Age Group of Possessor

Long Gun Type and Caliber - All Ages

Shotgun 12 GA...........6,854...............35.5%
Rifle .22...............4,076...............21.1%
Rifle 7.62mm............1,729................9.0% (mix of hunting guns, bolt-action target guns, and "assault weapons")
Shotgun 20 GA...........1,277................6.6%
Rifle .30-30..............616................3.2%
Shotgun .410 GA...........615................3.2%
Rifle .223................599................3.1% (mostly "assault weapons," but including some small-game bolt-action hunting guns)
Rifle 9mm.................412................2.1% (mostly "assault weapons")
Rifle .30-06..............410................2.1%
Shotgun 16 GA.............409................2.1%
Top Ten Long Guns......16,997...............88.0%
All Long Guns..........19,311..............100.0%

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/generalfindings

.223 and 9mm would be mostly what the gun control lobby would call "assault weapons"; 7.62mm is a mix of hunting weapons, traditionally styled target weapons, and "assault weapons." .22, on the other hand, is the rimfire caliber popular for squirrel hunting and indoor target shooting.

Those supposedly criminal-magnet features don't appear to be working, or at least not on criminals. They might have something to do with the rifles' remarkable NON-criminal popularity, though...

BTW, to correct another inaccuracy, you repeat as fact the claim that "assault weapons" are less accurate than hunting weapons, from which you go on to construct a straw man. On the whole, "assault weapons" are just as accurate as comparably priced hunting weapons (and in some cases are more so); what they lack is kinetic energy, not accuracy.

[benEzra]

53. Damn, slip of the keyboard...first paragraph should read thus:

Funny, then, that by and large, criminals don't use them. Between handguns and long guns, handguns are overwhelmingly preferred by criminals due to their portability; of long guns, shotguns are involved in more crimes than rifles (due presumably to the fact that, unlike most rifles, most shotguns function perfectly when cut down to a concealable length); and of rifles, .22 rimfires are more commonly misused than your "assault weapons."

The "especially attractive to criminals" bit is not a "fact"; it is an a priori assumption made by those who wish to ban them, as a justification for banning them. Problem is, that assumption is not only false, it is demonstrably false.

Had a brain freeze; correction in red.

[gorfle]

54. Keep up the good fight, BenEzra!

I love your data presentations. Keep hammering them with the facts, buddy!

I especially loved your reply the other day that went something along the lines of, "Yeah, rifles are demonstratably hardly ever used in murder, yet somehow we are to believe they are used all the time for all kinds of bad things other than murder".

Good show.

To bad you're just throwing pearls before swine.

[benEzra]

23. The "less accurate than hunting weapons" crapola is BS.

The AR-15 is the most popular target rifle in the USA for a reason, and that is accuracy.


http://www.championshooters.com/store/product.php?productid=328

What it lacks in comparison to a deer rifle is power (i.e., kinetic energy), because it shoots a tiny 3.6-gram bullet instead of the 11+ gram bullets that a deer rifle would typically throw, but that doesn't matter if you're shooting paper targets instead of 250-pound deer. Notice the subtitle of The Competitive AR-15 is "The Mouse that Roared"; the AR-15 was initially derided as the "mousegun" in target shooting circles because of its small caliber.

I shoot competitively (as well as recreationally) with my civilian AK. It's just as accurate as a Winchester Model 94 (1800's vintage lever-action popular through much of the 20th century as a short-range deer rifle), which it ballistically resembles.

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/assaultweaponreport.pdf

CONSUMERS SUPPORT RENEWING AND STRENGTHENING
THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN <2004>

Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. They incorporate military-style characteristics specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings. These design characteristics make it easy for a shooter to simply point as opposed to carefully aim the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with bullets. Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms.

Thanks for proving the OP article's point. Large-cone-of-dispersion is one of the more wacky claims that has been made about modern-looking rifles, making that statement as a whole a textbook example of Begging the Question.

Although many shotguns are designed to be pointed (that's why they often have a simple bead as front sight, and no rear sight), rifles are designed to throw a bullet within a tiny fraction of a degree of the direction the rifle is aimed.

Rock River Arms, a leading AR-15 manufacturer (based in Illinois, FWIW) guarantees that even its defensive-style carbines (16" barrel) will shoot with 1 arcminute precision, and its precision hunting/competition models (20-24" barrel) are guaranteed to shoot with 30 arcsecond (1/2 arcminute) precision. For those that don't grok geometry, 30 arcseconds = 8.3 THOUSANDTHS of a degree.

"Spray a wide area with bullets," my ass.

[slackmaster]

24. Statistics don't support the claim quoted here in bold

"Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals"

[BadgerLaw2010]

26. The "interest" of criminals in assault weapons can be explained by Googling "ricer" images.

Just like every wannabe racer with no clue on how to tune a car has seen Fast and the Furious and thinks heavy and expensive mods that don't do anything for the engine make the car faster, every "gangsta" has seen Scarface and Heat.

"Well shit, this makes me look like a badass and it might be useful if I ever get into a one-on-twenty shootout after robbing that bank some day."

It's a bunch of poser BS, and the statistics support that. For all their curb appeal, assault weapons rarely get used, and when they do get used, it's almost never in a role where a normal gun wouldn't have been a "better" choice.

[spin]

34. I challenge you to watch a video, you might learn something...

From the link you posted...

... Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. They incorporate military-style characteristics specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings. These design characteristics make it easy for a shooter to simply point? as opposed to carefully aim? the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with bullets. Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms.

Semi-automatic rifles that look like military assault weapons do not "spray bullets". Saying that a semi-auto weapon is the same as an assault weapon is like saying a Volkswagen is the same as a Corvette. Similar logic as saying apples and oranges are the same because they are both fruit.

Watch this video by a 25 year veteran of the San Jose Police Dept. He explains the differences between assault weapons and semi auto weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30


And for the CFA survey, I will counter with a link from the Amendment II Democrats site which discusses this survey:


I postulate that CFA's polls are fundamentally flawed due to observer bias which has not been filtered from the polls themselves to prevent intentional or unintentional skewing of the final tallies. First, the use of the pejorative term "assault weapon" instead of a more socio-culturally neutral term such as "semi-automatic firearm" tilts the average poll subject against such weapons, conjuring up morbid images such as those of the tragic school shootings at Columbine or Stockton. Second, CFA's own description of an "assault weapon" seems to imply that "hunting and sporting firearms" are the only types of firearms that should be entrusted to the hoi polloi, thus leaving military-style semi-automatics in the hands of the military and the police. Somehow, this doesn't demonstrate much faith in the American people. After all, if you can't trust John Q. Citizen with a Springfield M1 rifle like the one his father carried at Normandy or Iwo Jima, how on earth can you entrust him with something potentially more powerful than any bullet - namely, a ballot?

Note: this Admendment II Democrats link also mentions DU in a very favorable manner:

So I posed the denizens of Democratic Underground, one of the foremost Democratic activism sites, with this question about a hypothetical Democratic candidate for President in 2008:

Scenario: Candidate supports Federal funds for stem cell research, universal health care, overhaul of science education in schools, Roe vs. Wade, gay civil unions (if not marriage), etc. The one thing she will not do is reauthorize a ban on "assault weapons." Would you vote for her?

Out of 152 poll responses, the results break down as such: go to the link for the results

http://www.a2dems.net/terms.htm

Now it is fine with me if you argue that all semi-auto weapons should be banned. No problem. You express your viewpoints and others will counter with theirs.

But it seems to me that the anti-gunners position is so weak that they have to resort to redefining definitions and terms to influence people to agree with their views.

Sad that the media allows them to get away with this.










http://www.a2dems.net/terms.htm

[iverglas]

48. well there ya go

Now it is fine with me if you argue that all semi-auto weapons should be banned.

Where I'm at, they're restricted -- to holders of licences that permit the acquisition and possession of them, who must qualify as either sports shooters (membership in approved club, training) or collectors (unacceptably loose category at present, requiring demonstration of some minimal knowledge of the objects collected), who are not permitted to transport them except for the purposes permitted by their licences and under specific permits to transport, and who must store them in accordance with specific regulations.

Same as for handguns. Both sets of provisions are inadequate at present, in my opinion.

So yup -- that will be one reason why I've never expressed an opinion in favour of assault weapons bans in the US: they're way too permissive and include way too many exemptions (e.g. grandfathering) and allow for way too much circumventing to be very effective. The other being that it hasn't got much to do with me. The firearms that are trafficked into Canada and used to facilitate crimes and commit homicides are pretty much exclusively handguns.

None of that means that I can't spot spin and diversionary grooming and misleading use of statistics and all-round disingenuousness when I see it.

[Firethorn]

44. One problem with that statistic.

I'll dispute the '50% of gun owners' supporting a reinstatement. By the sounds of it that's a very biased site, they're probably quoting engineered statistics. I mean, they might read that second paragraph out to them before asking the question.

For example, How many of those people do you think are educated on the actual characteristics of the weapons in question? I mean, that second paragraph is just full of bad points.

1. Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. - Assault rifles are discrete. Assault weapon is fairly arbitrary. Frequently all it takes to change a non-assault rifle to an assault rifle and vice versa is to change the stock, often called 'furniture'.
2. 'specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings' - Actually, no. They're more designed to wound. The theory that a wounded soldier takes more resources than a dead soldier; that wounding is 'enough', and that the smaller round size allows more to be carried by a combat soldier already carrying a massive load. All of my hunting rifles are far more deadly.
3. Pointing vs Aiming. An 'Assault weapon' operates identically to a standard semi-automatic rifle. A miss is a miss. You point a shotgun - they often only have a front sight, but then their standard payload is a mass of pellets, not a single projectile. If you want to be pointing your weapon, carry a shotgun, not a rifle. The only other thing would be the presence of iron sights, which assist in acquiring close but mobile targets, and fast recovery(IE ready and aimed for a second shot), at the sacrifice of some pin point accuracy due to human vision limitations. Then again, my Marlin 30-30 has iron sights. Only my bolt action magnums lack iron sights.
4. 'to quickly spray a wide area with bullets' - One pull of the trigger, one round fired. If anything, we want the criminals to be spraying, because it's a great way to go through a lot of ammunition without hitting anything.
5. 'especially attractive to criminals' - Less than 1% of guns used in murder are rifles of any type. Shotguns(which nobody is proposing a ban of) are used more often. Even if they're frequently found to have them(for example, when the police go through their home after an arrest), does it really matter if they're not using them?
6. 'and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms.' - Plenty of people hunt with a SKS rifle, which is increasingly counted as an 'assault weapon'. I have a varmint barrel upper for my AR15.

As for accuracy, cheap semi-auto versions of the AK47 aside, an AR15, for example, is more accurate than all but the most dedicated shooters, such as those that shoot bench rest - who mount their scoped rifles in clamps for more stability.

[iverglas]

47. oh well then

I'll dispute the '50% of gun owners' supporting a reinstatement. By the sounds of it that's a very biased site, they're probably quoting engineered statistics. I mean, they might read that second paragraph out to them before asking the question.

I will bow to your superior wisdom and adopt your opinion. After all, it's very obviously based on careful analysis and firmly established facts, and undoubtedly expertise in survey design and conduct.

[SteveM]

57. Same ol' same ol'. And roundly refuted...

"... Assault weapons are a discrete class of firearm. They incorporate military-style characteristics specifically designed to quickly kill large numbers of human beings. These design characteristics make it easy for a shooter to simply point? as opposed to carefully aim? the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with bullets. Such design characteristics make assault weapons especially attractive to criminals and distinguish them from true hunting or sporting firearms.


But the chorus here will keep telling us that because these things are less accurate than actual hunting weapons, no sensible criminal would want one. Like criminals give a flying fuck about accuracy ..."

"Design characteristic." Referencing an "assault rifle" or the shell-game "assault weapon?" "Spray?" Try spraying anything with a semi-auto rifle. Want spray? Get a shotgun. "Attractive to criminals?" Then why doesn't this class of arm show up in the homicide data.

From ignorance grows prejudice grows lack of credibility.

[Longtooth]

5. More and more the citizens of the U.S. are understanding that 2A

has nothing to do with hunting. Of course I'd rather have a nice M2 than the horrible M-16. What a peace of junk that thing is.

[apocalypsehow]

10. Funny, I've yet to meet anyone who thought the "2A" was even remotely connected to hunting.

Dig it:

Original text of the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”

Second draft:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Third version:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Final version:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Lot's of concern there about lots of things, not one of them to do with hunting. Or walking around with a Marshal Matt Dillon special tucked away in ones drawers. Or any recurring Red Dawn fantasies that seem to be the opiate of the gaseous in these parts.*

Dig it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

There's one of our very own "Founding Father's" giving his on-the-scene eyewitness report on what all this discussion regarding "well-regulated militias" is all about. Reading what one wishes to opine about before opining about it may be a bit infra dig for the average "pro-gun Democrat," I well understand. But you really ought to give it a shake - it ain't half bad.



*I whipped this little handy thing up myself, but if you want a "link" knock yourself out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



Edited misplaced verb.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. It's great isn't it.

Just a simple protection in our Constitution assuring that the individuals right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course I think they are all great. But I'm big on protecting peoples rights.

David

[apocalypsehow]

13. It's great that some reading tutor is going to have a source of steady income should you ever decide

to engage one full-time - which I highly recommend. :thumbsup:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. You're going to have to make it clearer than that.

I'm just a dumb old fireman. I'll be happy to have you tell me and Alan Dershowitz how we got it so wrong.

David

[comradebillyboy]

15. and just who is going to protect the people's rights?

certainly not the police. You ought to consider that you might want to have some responsibility for protecting yourself and your own rights.

a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. But, then I know how to use my firearms, and I am quite skilled in their use because I practice and comprtr regularly.

[Longtooth]

16. Silly, that's what the ACLU is for. . .Oh, wait, sorry, guess that doesn't help.

[iverglas]

17. whom you talking to, big billy boy?

You ought to consider that you might want to have some responsibility for protecting yourself and your own rights.

I doubt that you know whom ...

But anyhow.

Leaving aside the question of to whom you were talking -- to whom, exactly, would s/he be responsible for protecting him/herself and his/her rights?

And what, exactly, is the penalty for failing to live up to that responsibility?

Me, I don't want to have me some of that responsibility.

I'd have to fine myself, or award myself damages, or some such fool thing if I didn't live up to it.

a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Isn't a gun in the hand better than just about anything?

I'm sorry, sir, but that didn't even rate a Screeming Memey. (Yes, that's what I've decided to call the honours I hand out. It's what my little brother called T-shirts with tight necks that got stuck on his head.)

It's just too dumb to qualify as a meme even.

I practice and comprtr regularly.

This must be some new euphemism for what people do with the guns in their hands with which I am unfamiliar.

[mvccd1000]

19. You don't want the responsibility to protect yourself and your rights?

To whom, then, would you grant that responsibility that you so eagerly shirk?

[iverglas]

20. what responsibility?

To whom, then, would you grant that responsibility that you so eagerly shirk?


Did you demonstrate the existence of this responsibility someplace, and I missed it?

I'll gladly argue that you have responsibilities to/for others and others have responsibilities to/for you.

But your "responsibilities" to/for yourself? None o' my business.

And vicey versey.

So what basis might you have for asserting that I have any responsibility to/for myself?

Surely that is between me, myself and I. If me doesn't live up to my responsibility to myself, I will just have to step in and deal with me.

I won't bother asking you what basis you have for alleging that I "so eagerly shirk" said responsibility.

Can't shirk something that doesn't exist, so that would be pointless.

Of course, that's all moot, because I'm talking to someone who doesn't meet the minimum ethical requirements for me to engage in talk with him/her in the first place, as demonstrated by your assertion that I am shirking anything at all, utterly and completely and indecently false as that is.

[gorfle]

55. People with blue helmets, no doubt.

Some people around here would rather you be completely at the mercy of the charity of others for your security and safety. Call up your local police when you are under attack. If you don't have any, call up your local government. If you don't have any, call up the UN. If it takes too long to get a response, just join the other 9.2 million people around the world fleeing violence.

But under no circumstances will you ever be allowed to do anything about it yourself. No no, can't have that. We wouldn't be able to pat ourselves on the back for all our great humanitarian aid efforts then, now would we?

[hansberrym]

39. Tell it to DC and friends.

Do you think it an implausible reading of "2A" that there was some concern for the non-infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms? (read amendment)


Did Hamilton write that only those serving in the "well-regulated militia" had a duty to be armed?
(read your link - "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.")


Was "the right to bear arms" understood to mean merely the right to serve in the militia? Could that right be said to apply only to those persons in a state organized militia? (read some history)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/12ky90.html

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt


Was there anyone circa 1790 or early 1800's saying that the RKBA applied only to those persons in actual service of a state militia?

[Indy Lurker]

21. Gun-control backers are resting

Since they don't have any data or facts, they have to wait until something occurs that moves people in an emotional way.

Unfortunately for them their methods don't work.


Mayor Daley in Chicago is unable to expand Chicago gun laws to the rest of Illinois despite his best efforts.

The rest of Illinois sees the failure in Chicago and doesn't want any part of it.

[apocalypsehow]

27. ************Over here, my anonymous friend************** n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

30. Peculiar. Bizarre. Odd. Curious. Strange. Far-out. And I just really sorta run out of synonyms.

Quite a roll of the dice wasn't it? But you hit the jack-pot, alrighty. Still, I think it would've been hilarious if you'd gotten something back that said "who the fuck are you and what the hell are you talking about?" You wouldn't have, though, would you? I guess you no more than hit *send* than you disabled it, I reckon.

No matter: I'm happy to answer you here since this is the thread you referenced. Though it would've been much easier to just PM me (assuming you're not just a really, really, really, really avid lurker).

We have a nifty little piece of plagiarism software available to us for obvious reasons, and I for, oh, I don't know, just for the hell of it I guess, ran your "sample" through it along with something from a dissertation of mine of old that happened to be sitting around in a file parked on this very hard drive. It came back 82%, which is, indeed, seven points past the flag point, but well short of the actual threshold at which we normally confront a potential copy-cat. Now, I'm aware you weren't "informing" me that I might be plagiarizing anyone, but still, it works out to be pretty much the same thing, doesn't it?

So, I'm seven percent more likely to compose something in English in a manner similar to the author of your "sample." That's a curiosity, I guess, but not much of one. In any event, believe what you want. And everyone else can, too. I find the notion that someone is so wrapped up in such things that they actually keep track of internet literary styles to be fascinating.

And I once again scratch my head and wonder if a whole big group of anthropologist's somewhere aren't pulling our legs, and shaking with laughter as they do so....

Take it easy, now. And do stretch you legs and take a walk around the block every once in a while. Getting a life isn't as difficult as one might imagine, seriously.

[apocalypsehow]

31. OP, this is in no wise directed at you but I had no place else to park it. Just FYI. n/t.

[benEzra]

32. ? Is this related to something in this thread, or to something else? (n/t)

[iverglas]

33. this one I'll bet on

I think I can guess what it's about. Just from this. The whatsits were kind of out on it for me still, but I think I'm in the nay camp. If there's a nay camp.

Damn. I never eat during the day but I've been up all night and I needed sustenance, and now I've got barbecue sauce in my keyboard.

[facepalm]

35. We live in amazing times.

Journalists engaging in journalism and doing research and stuff. Pretty cool. Next thing you know we'll have public servants that serve the public.

As for where the gun control fans are, they are both everywhere and nowhere:

They are everywhere in that the average person, caught off guard with by a suggestive question, will probably agree "yeah, we need to ban rapid fire military assault weapons that kill police." But when you aren't asking them leading questions, they think about ordinary things like remembering to get groceries. The few average people that think about politics are probably thinking about one of a dozen other hot topics like abortion, the environment, health care, etc. If they don't own a gun, it probably isn't an issue they care about. Looking around here, I see only a handful of gun haters. I think this is pretty normal- most of the people drawn to this issue are here because they want to protect their rights.

But gun control fans are also nowhere. Like I pointed out above, gun control support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Almost everyone likes gun control enough to say "yes" to a push poll question. Almost no one likes gun control enough to ignore other issues they care about and vote in a way that supports gun control.

Anyone who doesn't see it at this point is being willfully ignorant of it. Every Democratic politician not living in a very gun 404 urban environment is running away from the gun control issue like it has rabies. Except for the rising number who are finally catching a clue and supporting gun rights. All that the bitter urban gun haters do is make southern democrats and the union vote feel unwelcome in the democratic party. For reasons I have explained elsewhere, this is short sighted.

[iverglas]

36. well damn

It's good thing you showed up. I was starting to think my 'Murrican cousins were just losing the plot.

You've explained it all so clearly and patiently now, I'm sure it will be no time before they're back on track.

To think that was all it took, was for you to come along and make it so simple. Even a fool could follow it, eh?


... Mind you ... I'm not quite getting this bit:

Almost no one likes gun control enough to ignore other issues they care about and vote in a way that supports gun control.

This would be all the people who are Republican on the occupation of Iraq, violating women's rights, denying equality to just about any minority group you can think of, maintaining inefficient for-profit health care, spending the national allowance on military crap and taxing the hell out of everybody but anybody who's got money ... okay now, these are the people who'd be voting Democrat because they like gun control, but just not enough for them not to vote for all that other stuff?

Okay now. Was this supposed to make sense to me?

[facepalm]

38. Fine, then I'll explain

This would be all the people who are Republican on the occupation of Iraq, violating women's rights, denying equality to just about any minority group you can think of, maintaining inefficient for-profit health care, spending the national allowance on military crap and taxing the hell out of everybody but anybody who's got money ... okay now, these are the people who'd be voting Democrat because they like gun control, but just not enough for them not to vote for all that other stuff?

You're still seeing this as a republican vs democrat issue with all the pro-gun people on the republican side (which is wrong). There is no moral, legal or political requirement than a gun owner be conservative. Gun owners are all over the political spectrum except where guns are concerned.

Actually this raises an interesting point- are gun grabbers all on one part of the political spectrum? I've known a few conservative (authoritarian) types that didn't trust non-cops with guns, but most "anti-gun" people I have known were urban people who had never owned a gun before and were either indifferent towards or afraid of them.

If ignorance/fear are the only driving forces behind the gun control movement, you guys are screwed because that isn't enough to sustain any kind of lasting social movement.

[iverglas]

45. sorry, that didn't help

I'm still confused.

What you said was:

Almost no one likes gun control enough to ignore other issues they care about and vote in a way that supports gun control.

It sounds like what you're saying is that there are people who are in favour of gun control, presumably of the kind that the Democratic Party advocates, but vote non-Democrat because of other issues.

I named a few issues on which the Democratic and Republican parties might be seen as differing -- healthcare, the occupation of Iraq, tax policy, public spending policy, equality issues.

So you appear to be talking about people who favour the Democratic Party's position on gun control, but favour the Republican Party's position on one or more of those issues, or some other issue.

So we're talking about people who favour gun control, but want the occupation of Iraq to continue. Or people who favour gun control, but don't want to see improved access to lower-cost healthcare. Or people who favour gun control, but support the current inequitable tax structure.

Are there a lot of these people?


You're still seeing this as a republican vs democrat issue with all the pro-gun people on the republican side (which is wrong). There is no moral, legal or political requirement than a gun owner be conservative. Gun owners are all over the political spectrum except where guns are concerned.

O-kay ... but we're not talking about "pro-gun people" or gun owners -- although both could well be in favour of Democratic Party-style gun control (and in fact many are).

You were talking about people who favour Democratic Party-style gun control, but don't vote Democrat for other reasons.


I've known a few conservative (authoritarian) types that didn't trust non-cops with guns, ...

O-kay, so you appear to have known a few right-wingers who would favour Democratic Party-style gun control. Maybe. Not really, from the sounds of it, but we'll grant them. So they voted non-Democrat because of all their other nasty tendencies.

Is this a significant voting bloc? And the reason for spending a moment thinking about them would be ...? You're right. They're not going to vote Democrat no matter what.

I think we're left with your original remark being just, y'know, dumb and pointless. The Democratic Party isn't going to attract the votes of the three dozen right-wingers in the US who want to remove firearms from the hands of members of the public (not least of all because the Democratic Party has never proposed to do so, nor is anyone else really doing that). Duh.


If ignorance/fear are the only driving forces behind the gun control movement, you guys are screwed because that isn't enough to sustain any kind of lasting social movement.

If the moon were made of green cheese, we could mine it and feed the starving millions.

And if you were interested in civil discourse, you wouldn't make claims based on false and insulting hypotheses.

[radioburning]

43. "Gun Nut"="Art Fag"

"Gun Nut" equals "Art Fag". For the record, I don't approve of either term.
I'm just trying to make people aware of the fact there are a lot of people in this country, whether you like it or not, that enjoy shooting guns in a lawful, legal ways and that does not automatically make us violent, psychotic, depressed, a republican, a redneck, racist, poorly educated, anti-social, or a "nut". We just want you to stop trying to take away our right to go to the shooting range and try to get closer to that bullseye, go hunting and bring home some food that didn't come from the supermarket, collect and admire specific guns for their aesthetic value or quality of craftsmanship or design, or just plain sleep better at night knowing that if you hear somebody breaking into your home you have the chance to do something to protect your life and that of your loved ones-other than just sitting on hold waiting for 911 to pick up. Whatever the reasons are that people want guns, when you call someone a "gun nut", or any other of the derogatory terms people use against gun enthusiasts, you're doing the same thing as when somebody calls someone into the art scene an "art fag". All it is is a way to negate everything about a person because you are ignorant to what makes them passionate about something. It's the same thing, just coming from a different direction.
Fine. You don't understand why we'd be at all interested in anything related to guns. I don't understand why anyone would be interested in anything related to onions! But I understand that there are other people in the world who love onions. So be it. I move on. Now here's where you say "well, onions don't kill people". Well, guns don't kill as many people as automobiles. Guns don't kill as many people as prescription drugs. Guns kill literally less than 1 tenth as many people than "poor diet and lack of exercise" (if you look at causes of death on the Center for Disease Control's annual totals). For the most part, most people just attribute those things to "symptoms of living in the modern world", and accept that the world will never be an absolutely perfect "utopia". But so called "assault weapons", which are the "evil boogeyman" of guns, get banned-not because they are responsible for less than 5% of all gun deaths, but because they look menacing and intimidating. Don't believe me? An AR-15(banned) and a Ruger Mini-14(not banned) shoot the same bullet, at roughly the same velocity and speed. The only "real world" difference is the way they look. That's like taking two similar cars and banning the one with the racing stripes because "it looks fast". Most of these gun laws are proposed by people who've never even been shooting. Motorcycle helmet laws were decided mostly by people who've never even been on a motorcycle. I almost cry when I see a 13 year old kid riding their bicycle around in quiet a cul-de-sac wearing a helmet because some bloated, out of touch politician thought it would be a good idea to play parent to a state! How long till we have to wear a helmet while shopping in the mall? This is an exaggeration, but what if the girls on the tv show "Laguna Beach" were deciding laws that affected your life? The laws would seem perfectly normal to them! Wouldn't you start to speak up about it? It's like people who will only have sex in missionary position making laws to make you have sex in only missionary position. You wouldn't even know I had guns unless you were standing next to me at the shooting range. Stay out of my life!
We are just people who are tired of being demonized by people who are usually completely ignorant about why we are passionate about guns, and when you call us gun nuts we see exactly what you are trying to do-belittle us because we are strong in our beliefs and you are afraid of anyone who is not afraid to be what they want to be and do what makes them happy...even if it makes the squeamish and timid nay in disapproval.

End of rant.

Signed,
radioburning
Liberal, Agnostic, Pro-Gun, Pro-America.

[iverglas]

49. now you've gone and made me cry

Poor persecuted pets. It just ain't fair, eh?


what if the girls on the tv show "Laguna Beach" were deciding laws that affected your life? The laws would seem perfectly normal to them!

I've never heard of that show, I'm afraid. A kiddie show? Does it have girls but no boys? If it has both, would the boys make sensible laws (I guess it's genetic, if they could do that at such a young age), and just the girls not?

google google ... ah, a reality show. Not my cuppa, those things, except for Big Brother. And I see the pic, and I see -- WOMEN! Aha, I get it. The girls of Laguna Beach are a metaphor for morons. Women are handy for that, I know.


You wouldn't even know I had guns unless you were standing next to me at the shooting range. Stay out of my life!

Hey, that's exactly how I'd like things! I wouldn't know you had guns unless I were standing next to you at the shooting range. Because at all other times, they would be securely and safely locked up so as to be as inaccessible as reasonably possible to anyone.

So you don't want to promenade around in public with pistols in your pantaloons??

So the question is -- whom are you addressing?? The great big lot of people in the US who want to outlaw the sport of target shooting? Have you observed there to be lots of them here at DU during your stay so far?

Most of these gun laws are proposed by people who've never even been shooting.

Jeez, I've never been boating, but I sure have seen the stories about people who are killed in boating accidents because of all sorts of unsafe practices. This year, where I'm at, a licence will be required to operate a motor boat. I'll bet there are provincial legislators who've never been out in a motor boat, but voted for that measure anyway.

I guess our legislators should have tests done before they get to vote on anything. No voting on boat operator licences unless you've operated a boat; no voting on speed limits unless you have a driver's licence; no voting on tenant protection laws unless you've been a landlord. Seems reasonable, eh?


Y'know something? I don't give a crap about why anybody is passionate about anything. Guns, butterflies, sports cars, quilting, the sun god, ancient Greek politics.

Nobody's passion about anything has thing fucking one to do with what the public interest may be when it comes to what they do. Sun god worshippers don't get to make human sacrifices no matter how bleeding passionate about the sun god they are, and butterfly collectors don't get to collect butterflies in my back yard, and quilters don't get to sell their wares on streetcorners without permits. What might make you so special that your passion about guns would be determinative when it comes to public policy about guns?

Nothing that I can think of.



If one could persuade you to hit that "enter" key a couple of times and make easily readable paragraphs, one would be grateful.

[facepalm]

51. more anti-gun cliches, yawn

It's not about target shooting. It's not even about politics. At least it shouldn't be.

Self defense is the most fundamental right of any living being. If you poke a wild animal, bystanders will get the satisfaction of seeing it maul you. In this modern world, the right to self defense is meaningless without access to modern weapons. Wherever there are people, there will be violent criminals and there will be a need for firearms.

Here is an interesting thought for you guys. We're all liberals right? We all believe in the value of a good public education, don't we? Support your local teacher's union and all that. None of us sees any controversy in teaching kids about sex ed so they don't end up as teenage mothers or infected with nasty diseases? None of us sees any controversy holding drivers ed classes because everyone knows that pretty much every high school student is going to grow up to own a car and drive.

This got me thinking. The same people that constantly warn us about how dangerous guns are in the hands of untrained civilians (supposedly all of us) also seem to share our views on public education, so why do these same people never suggest that we teach gun safety to every child in school? Guns are ubiquitous- more common in the US than automobiles or children. So why not spend a semester teaching teenagers how to handle a gun without accidentally shooting themselves. Ironically, we observe the exact opposite behavior amongst the anti-gunners: these people exert enormous effort in keeping any hint of the existence of firearms out of school- draw a picture of a gun or wear a t-shirt with a gun on it and you get expelled from school.

[iverglas]

52. nope

Here is an interesting thought for you guys. We're all liberals right?

Not me. So that didn't work, did it?

You, I wouldn't know.


None of us sees any controversy holding drivers ed classes because everyone knows that pretty much every high school student is going to grow up to own a car and drive.

It's never been done where I live. My co-vivant is 55 yrs old and never learned to drive a car. Good public transportation; amazing thing.

But hey, what the hell, I'll play with your ludicrous analogy.

People take driver's ed so they will present less of a threat to the general public when they are using a vehicle on the public roadways.

Now, where's your analogy gone?

I mean, is somebody actually talking about people accidentally shooting themselves, anyway? Ask all the gun fans here; no numbers of people worth a moment's thought accidentally shoot themselves.


Guns are ubiquitous- more common in the US than automobiles or children.

What utter fucking disingenuous nonsense.

You know a lot of people who own 5 or 10 or 40 cars, do you? Maybe dividing the number of "x" by the population isn't actually going to give you a measure of ubiquitousness? Maybe also the likelihood of encountering an "x", or several hundred or thousand "x"s, in the course of a day, might be of some relevance here?


Ironically, we observe the exact opposite behavior amongst the anti-gunners: these people exert enormous effort in keeping any hint of the existence of firearms out of school- draw a picture of a gun or wear a t-shirt with a gun on it and you get expelled from school.

Lordy, you're a valuable addition you are.

Yes, wearing a T-shirt with a gun on it is intimately related to teaching safe firearms handling, and prohibiting the former is an excellent indicator of ... something ...

Oddly enough, I think that even schools with complete, honest sex education programs would prohibit the wearing of T-shirts with picture of people screwing on them.


Self defense is the most fundamental right of any living being.

Thank you all the same, but some of us have our own opinions about what our most fundamental rights are, and we think yours is bullshit. As does anyone who's noticed that what was writen in the 18th century really doesn't represent the pinnacle and end of human thought.


edit to eliminate stray preposition

[gorfle]

56. Because...

Because education leads to enlightenment and often further curiosity. We wouldn't want to encourage that in our youths about firearms would we?

Seriously. It's been demonstrated anecdotally time and time again where anti-gun folks are taken shooting and suddenly they realize that shooters are people just like them, and that shooting is really fun and empowering.

The last thing anti-gun folks would want is for firearm education to become mainstream. You might end up with millions of children finding out the same thing. Can't have that.

[SteveM]

58. Great stuff. 30 years too late, but still great. (nt)