Slog Comments


Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Phoebe in Wallingford 1
How does one counter Ann Coulter's argument, who relates the scenario of a single mother protecting her children from a home invasion if she doesn't have a high capacity magazine considering that she's likely to be a poor shot under such duress?
My answer, don't let anecdotes tell the whole story. What else?

Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on January 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM · Report this
raku 2
#1: That's not what happened. The intruder snuck in through a tunnel he dug right underneath her bed and through the box spring while the single mother was taking the kids to school, punched through the mattress while she was sleeping, grabbed her gun under the pillow, fired 7 shots at a spider in the corner that he hated, then realized he had 9 extra bullets in a high capacity magazine and in an uncontrollable spider rage killed the single mother and her 8 children execution style. Ann Coulter supports this kind of tragedy that theoretically will happen a thousand times a day without common sense gun control.
Posted by raku on January 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM · Report this
The second amendment isn't based on hunting, though its language protects bearing of arms for such a purpose.
Posted by Tawnos on January 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 4
The gun nuts are losing this debate? But they have such good zingers.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM · Report this
Amnt 5
It's kind of funny how Slog is perfectly playing into the caricature of the sneering liberal elitist. You talk of simplistic black and white rhetoric while using the same type of arguments, mixed with childish insults and stereotypes.

As @3 said, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting, and self defense is a legitimate use for firearms, one which semi-autos (and I bet most on slog can't tell the difference between semi and full auto) are well suited for.

"loads and loads of regular guns"? AR-15 type rifles are the best selling guns in the country, they ARE regular guns. They are functionally no different than the M1 Garand used in WWII, only they are scary colors like black and have different grips.

And a lot of people ARE trying to take away guns from law-abiding citizens, as well as restrict them so heavily as to cripple most of their functionality. At state legislator in CT introduced a bill to ban ALL guns that can hold more than one round. NY state is about to pass an extremely restrictive law:…

For one part of it, the law would reduce the legal magazine size from a maximum of 10 rounds to 7 rounds. At one point gun-control advocates said you don't need more than 10 unless you are a mass murderer. Now it's 7. On top of that, very few manufactures make magazines smaller than 10 rounds, so the law functionally makes a huge number of guns illegal in the entire state. This kind on incremental attack is going on all over and is quite deliberate. I'd rather people be honest about saying they want to ban nearly all guns than these dishonest efforts.

Most people that aren't gun owners have no idea what an "assault weapon" is other than that it sounds scary, which is exactly the point. It was a term created to scare people into supporting a ban that would led to further restriction down the road. This was admitted explicitly from certain parties. This short slideshow offers some useful info:

I posted this once before, but think it's worth posting again because it addresses many of the issues that are really going on honestly and directly. This is a blog post by well-known author/atheist Sam Harris, I don't agree 100%, but it's a great starting point for many:…
Posted by Amnt on January 14, 2013 at 10:13 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 6

If an M1 Garand was the same, you'd shut up and get yourself an M1 Garand. Problem solved. You obviously want a much, much more effective gun than that. QED.

The real question for you is why your poll numbers are in free fall. Is it because America likes sneering liberals? Or because you're full of shit?

Or... Maybe the polls lie. It could be all like those sneering liberal polls that said Romney was going to lose. And we know how that turned out...
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on January 14, 2013 at 10:28 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 7
The quote shows support for background checks and database tracking, but I don't see bans of anything mentioned.

A fully mature and mentally fit individual should then have access to a UAV, if licensed and tracked.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on January 14, 2013 at 10:33 PM · Report this
Amnt 8
@6 Functionally the same in that it's a semi-auto with a removable magazine/clip, ARs etc are simply more refined version of the same basic idea. I never said they were identical, only that they operate in the same basic way. I don't deny that I prefer a more ergonomic rifle that fires more affordable and controllable rounds. Doesn't change my basic point.

If you expect me to defend Romney you are mistaken, I'm a liberal/progressive myself, I just happen to support gun rights. Sneering right back at Romney and anyone else you don't like isn't very constructive.

Poll numbers reflect ignorance and deliberate confusion of terms from those who don't know anything about guns as much as they reflect actual attitudes. I find that in general (there are always exceptions, life is complicated after all )the more people understand about guns and how they work, the less they are willing to create arbitrary restrictions that don't address the real causes of violence.
Posted by Amnt on January 14, 2013 at 11:07 PM · Report this
Eastpike 9
Speed limits are also arbitrary restrictions that save lives. Clip size, however arbitrary, should be restricted in the name of safety, IMO. More controllable high-efficiency weapons are exactly the problem that we're addressing, @8, so I hardly can see how your basic point holds up. The NRA talking point that the defining characteristics of assault rifles are "harmless cosmetic differences" is pure dog shit--if that were the case why so much opposition? Fighting for your right to customized pistol grips?
Posted by Eastpike on January 14, 2013 at 11:36 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 10
Hey, it's not like 90 % of Republicans agree with closing the gun show loophole.

Cause real hunters got stones. We don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer.

Just one.
Posted by Will in Seattle on January 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM · Report this
Amnt 11
Pretty much anything is arbitrary to some point, this is true. However, speed limits have measureable effects on road fatalities, magazine size doesn't:

"However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks"

DOJ report on the AWB:…

In the Virginia Tech shooting more people died than any other, and the shooter used a pistol with 10 and 15 round magazines, it doesn't have a significant impact.

The point of opposition to banning cosmetic differences is that it is exactly the kind of incrementalism that is used for further restrictions down the road. NY previously defined "assault weapons" as having at least two of a list of features, the bill they just voted on reduced that to one. If you don't defend rights, they get taken away, one step at a time.

What is the difference between these:……

They are the same gun with a different stock, so one is scary and one isn't.
Posted by Amnt on January 14, 2013 at 11:50 PM · Report this
Big Sven 12
"Notably, support for the most popular of these measures – expanded background checks, a gun database and banning high-capacity magazines – includes a majority of people who live in gun-owning households, a group that accounts for 44 percent of all adults in this country."

Most gun owners are for gun control. Worth noting in the superheated debate in which we currently find ourselves. Though it's more fun to call people names and use bold and ALL CAPS.
Posted by Big Sven on January 15, 2013 at 1:56 AM · Report this
venomlash 14
@10: The hunter's adage is that you only need TWO rounds, at most, to kill a deer.
If the first round misses, it's gone and there's no point shooting any more. If the first round kills it, you're fine and dandy. If the first round wounds it, you need the second one to end the animal's suffering.
Posted by venomlash on January 15, 2013 at 7:42 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 15

You prefer the AR-15. It's more "refined". Refined in what way? Is it better? Better at what?

You keep bleating that they're the same except for "cosmetic" differences, then you go on to say that banning these "cosmetic" differences is the end of the world.

Do you remember we had a nationwide assault weapons ban for ten years? Did we slide down a slippery slope then? Did anything terrible happen as a result during that ten years? And New York is one of nine states that limit assault weapons. Yet somehow the nation endures. Why is that?

Your argument refutes itself. That's your problem here.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on January 15, 2013 at 8:01 AM · Report this
Amnt @ 11 wrote The point of opposition to banning cosmetic differences is that it is exactly the kind of incrementalism that is used for further restrictions down the road.

The slippery slope argument just doesn't hold water. Let's argue the law on its merits and not on what might happen down the road.
Posted by Schweighsr on January 15, 2013 at 9:02 AM · Report this
I am 100% behind "Having Barack Obama Personally Come and Seize Every Single Gun, Regardless of Design or Caliber, in Wholesale Slaughter of Second Amendment".

In fact, I would support this even if Obama didn't have to take the guns himself, but could have some help. I'd volunteer to help. I'd be more than happy to put on a pin with a circle and a line through "2nd Amendment", and go from door to door collecting guns.
Posted by fad on January 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM · Report this
Amnt 18
@16 It's absolutely true. Just look at NY just passing a bill going from 10 round magazines to 7 rounds.
Posted by Amnt on January 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 19
@17: Recommend starting in the Texas volunteer collection force, it will be a good learning ground to gauge gun owner reaction. They'll meet you in the driveway, I'm sure.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on January 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 20
Sounds like it's time for the Democrats to make a full hard push for the outright repeal of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of all guns.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on January 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 21

What's wrong with 7 rounds? How many people are you planning to mow down?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on January 15, 2013 at 11:02 AM · Report this
Question? It has been many years since I bought a new gun, thus I unfamiliar with current "gun laws".

I recall being required to declare that I suffered no mental illness or something to that effect.

Many returning veterans are being diagnosed with PTSD. Is this a mental illness? I know of two Vietnam era Veterans who receive 100% VA compensation and Social Security Disability for PTSD. These individuals, who do not know each other, are both bible thumping gun nuts. They buy guns and trade guns on a regular basis. Both have concealed carry permits. Both claimed to have been tramautized on the back lines from non combat jobs by the "fear and nearness of it all". Both are NRA members and talk tough about shootin'.

How many people like this do you know? Are these gun packers the ones who will utimately defend and save us in the theaters and shopping malls? Is PTSD a mental illness that could, perhaps should, prevent gun ownership? They sometimes seem a little to eager.
Posted by charliebickle on January 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 23
@15: Personally, I am against bans that only target cosmetic features because such a ban would be effectively pointless, and therefore a waste of taxpayer money and the time of the legislature. Manufacturers are simply going to use technical details to get around it just like what happened in the 90's.

We need bans based upon magazine size, and rounds per minute, in addition to types of ammunition and extremely high powered weapons (such as .50 caliber guns). Period. Anything other than this is toothless legislation, or would be impossible to get through the legislature. Good luck with even these two ideas, at that.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on January 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 24
But most of the 11,000 gun deaths each year are from run of the mill hand guns. How can you overlook them???
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on January 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM · Report this
You all are aware that an M-16 (basically an AR-15 with an automatic or three round burst ability) is actually designed to be less than lethal on the battlefield? The Pentagon switched to using 5.56mm rounds for the simple reason that killing an enemy takes one man out of the fight, but wounding him takes two or three.

Basically, if you want to shoot up a school or mall or whatever, the better choice is the non-assault weapon looking higher caliber semi automatic rifle, not the Bushmaster.

In other words, not only are the cosmetic differences irrelevant, it's actually less likely to kill the victims.

But, of course, we don't really care about the end result. It's all about looking like we're doing something. Right?
Posted by Corydon on January 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 26

Deeeerrrrrp.... No.

That's an oldie but goodie though.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on January 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.