Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, July 20, 2012

Darcy Burner: "The NRA Can Go to Hell"

Posted by on Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

First Congressional District hopeful Darcy Burner has a post up on Daily Kos today that's been making some noise nationally. It's about the Aurora, Colorado shootings:

Earlier today, a gunman walked into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where people were watching the midnight showing of the new Batman movie. He fired gas canisters into the crowd, and then opened fire. At least 12 people are dead and 59 people are injured. My heart and prayers go out to all of them.

On the day Gabby Giffords was shot, I was picking up my son Henry from a lesson when I got the text message saying there had been a shooting. I’d campaigned with Gabby in 2006. Henry didn’t understand why I’d stopped getting into the car and started crying.

Walking back from a haircut the other day, I passed Café Racer, where on May 30th a gunman walked in and killed four people.

It's time we had an adult conversation in this country about guns.

Ridicule her in the comment thread if you want, but not before you read the whole damn thing.

Burner, a gun owner, rightly points out that our nation hasn't had an adult conversation about guns for many years, because the National Rifle Association "threatens the career of any politician who so much as opens the conversation." She then closes by bluntly telling the NRA to "go to hell."

That's an awfully bold statement coming from a candidate running in a substantially rural swing district, and no doubt she's got establishment Democratic types rolling their eyes at this moment. See, that's why Burner is unelectable, they'll tell you: She's a loose cannon who doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut.

Maybe. But I'm not sure I want to belong to a party that ridicules honesty as a political liability.

 

Comments (101) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
There's adequate honesty in saying we need an adult conversation and in pointing out that the NRA does try to stifle it. The "go to hell" part is just plain silly and panders to a desperate class of people that see her as a rising star of confrontational progressivism.

Sadly, Burner says nothing her peers haven't already said -- even the NRA threats remark. What she does say that breaks from the pack, however...
Posted by Baconcat on July 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM · Report this
3
Yeah, my first thought was, this might not play so well in Marblemount and Rockport.

Posted by sarge on July 20, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
4
Quit crying you stupid bitch. Reminds me of all those stupid fags crying over 9/11 even if they hadn't lost a loved one. People love to milk the attention they receive for the identity of being a victim.

You people make me sick. Grow the fuck up. Develop a mature opinion on politics. Put a block on that heart bleeding all over the American political intercourse.
Posted by Central Scrutinizer on July 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this
5
@4, stop trying so hard.

Yeah, I think Burner's more interested in the national profile in any case. I honestly don't think she'd mind losing if having run again keeps her name in front of people.
Posted by gloomy gus on July 20, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
6
@1
"There's adequate honesty in saying we need an adult conversation and in pointing out that the NRA does try to stifle it."

Yes they do.

Unfortunately, so do people such as Goldy.
And I'm guessing that this is just the first draft of her position on this issue.

"As a consequence, our country has not discussed assault weapons – which have no use except killing large numbers of people in massacres like the ones I’ve listed."

That is not the only use for them.

"We have not discussed the fact that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without any background check, even if they have a history of criminal violence."

Good point. And one that has been brought up many times in these forums. So it has been discussed but the solutions seem problematic.

"We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don’t have to reload."

While that statement is factually correct, in practice it does not seem to be an issue.

"We have not discussed what a sensible, rational approach to regulating guns in our country might be."

The problem being that different people have different opinions on what "sensible" and "rational" mean. Not to mention their opinions on regulations.

The first step is identifying what outcome you want.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
DOUG. 7
While I agree with her, "go to hell" is an odd way to start an "adult conversation".
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on July 20, 2012 at 5:12 PM · Report this
BigSpinach 8
@6"That is not the only use for them."

Killing efficiently is, however, -exactly- what they were designed to do. They have no place in civilian hands. Period. Full Stop. Don't try to argue this point.
Posted by BigSpinach on July 20, 2012 at 5:12 PM · Report this
9
@6

What other use is there for assault weapons besides "killing large numbers of people in massacres?"
Posted by SuperSteve on July 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM · Report this
biffp 10
@2, sure, right after we have an adult conversation about military spending, Bush era tax cuts and the top 1% paying their fucking share.
Posted by biffp on July 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM · Report this
11
@9: What if you need to mow down a herd of 50 deer in thirty seconds? Or what if 50 people try to break into your house one night?
Posted by tiktok on July 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM · Report this
12
I'm just outside her district, but I just gave her campaign $15. It was the last line that did it for me.
Posted by morganducks on July 20, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 13
I'm all for an adult conversation about gun control.

Too bad neither side has any adults.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 20, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
14
@8
@9
Home defense.

@13
"Too bad neither side has any adults."

Yeah, I'm getting that feeling as well.

No one has yet been able to clearly state what outcome they want.
But they'll go off on tangents all day long.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 15
@6:
"We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don’t have to reload."

While that statement is factually correct, in practice it does not seem to be an issue.
The Giffords shooter had a large cartridge, which allowed him to fire 31 rounds before stopping to reload - at which point he was tackled.
Posted by Free Lunch on July 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 16
Assault rifles are not necessary for us to live our daily lives.

People have killed other people with assault rifles. Thousands of innocent deaths.

Alcohol drinks are not necessary for us to live our daily lives.

People have killed other people after drinking alcohol. Thousands of innocent deaths.

Should both assault rifles and alcoholic drinks be banned? If you only say one of these two should be banned and the other should be legal, you are a hypocrite. Don't be emotional, be rational.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this
17
I have a friend who owns an assault rifle (semi-auto, I think). He thinks it's fun to shoot at a shooting range. As far as I know, he's never killed anyone with it.

You can argue that he doesn't deserve that fun when weighed against the consequences of legal civilian ownership. But saying there are absolutely, positively no uses for assault rifles outside of murder is hyperbolic.
Posted by Lumpmoose on July 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 18
The reason there has not been an adult conversation about guns is mainly due to mindless ideologues on the left who refuse to listen to logic or facts regarding firearms. These people often make up or alter statistics, such as including suicides in gun violence statistic, including 19 year old gang members in "children killed by guns" and using the tragedies of others as a way to further their political ends.
All of this to justify their own fears of an inanimate object, or to perhaps more sinisterly increase their own power over the citizens of this country. Every mass murdering dictator on the last century implemented gun-control before beginning their reign of terror.

Fact of the matter is that there are around 200,000,000 gun owners in this country covering all sexes, creeds, religions, classes and sexual orientations. These kind of horrible events happening are thankfully very very rare considering the numbers we are dealing with, and certainly less dangerous than the automobiles on the road.

Like it or not gun ownership is a fundamental human right enshrined in both the US Constitution, and the Constitution of Washington State. You can choose to own a gun or not; however you can not force that choice on others.

@8

"They have no place in civilian hands."

Yea because governments have an excellent record of not murdering millions of unarmed civilians.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 20, 2012 at 5:40 PM · Report this
Teslick 19
What Urgutha Forka said. I am always amazed how the debate about guns or drugs completely flips the pro & con arguments.

And Goldy, since she's lost twice against a weak candidate, in watershed Democratic cycles, "unelectable" fits her better than "electable".
Posted by Teslick on July 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 20
@15
The Giffords shooter had a large cartridge, which allowed him to fire 31 rounds before stopping to reload - at which point he was tackled.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, here let me help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%…
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 21
'cannon', not 'canon'.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on July 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM · Report this
22
@14

I'm not familiar with this phenomenon. Can you provide any instances of a home invasion, in the United States, where a home invasion was successfully repelled by a home owner with an assault rifle? I've got a list of times where an assault rifle was used to slaughter innocent people in a public setting, and I'm SURE that you've got actual data backing up your position, as opposed to, say, a Tom Clancy novel or a masturbatory revenge fantasy.
Posted by Ruke on July 20, 2012 at 6:08 PM · Report this
Sam Levine 23
The price of living in a free society isn't less security. It's having to tell people, again and again, that giving up liberty only provides the illusion of security.

The shooter in this incident made bombs. He could have killed a bunch of people with a few books from a library and some common, legal, products. This might have well been more deadly than just him running around with a few guns.

You aren't perfectly safe. The government can't make you perfectly safe. They can't even make you more safe by banning or confiscating privately owned firearms. Stop being afraid. Stop spreading fear. It really is the only thing to fear in this situation.
Posted by Sam Levine http://levinetech.net on July 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
24
I wish I voted in WA-01 so I could vote for her. Sure would be more interesting than the 7th district, anyway.
Posted by Cow on July 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
25
@15
"The Giffords shooter had a large cartridge, which allowed him to fire 31 rounds before stopping to reload - at which point he was tackled."

And 6 people died.
He could have killed 6 people with a 10 round magazine.
The original statement was:
"We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don’t have to reload."

If you're focusing on when the shooter reloads then you've missed the point. The shooter can always bring a second gun. And a third.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM · Report this
26
@18
The difference between automobile-based deaths and gun-based deaths is that guns are designed to kill things, and cars are designed to transport people. A handgun or an assault rifle is basically ONLY useful to kill a human being.
Posted by Ruke on July 20, 2012 at 6:13 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 27
@18: if suicides by firearm aren't gun violence, what are they?

Posted by Max Solomon on July 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM · Report this
Doctor Memory 28
@4: congratulations, you have officially locked up the title of "most annoying commenter on Slog on any day that Will in Seattle or SgtDoom are too hung over to post." Your commemorative third-place statuette will make you the talk of the town in your natural habitat of the Youtube comment threads. Please give them our regards, and remember: vote Camacho!
Posted by Doctor Memory http://blahg.blank.org on July 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM · Report this
29
@22
"... and I'm SURE that you've got actual data backing up your position, as opposed to, say, a Tom Clancy novel or a masturbatory revenge fantasy."

Thanks! I'll use you as another example of the lack of adult commentary on this subject.

You see, an adult would be able to use Google on his own to research this subject before spouting off rhetorical questions.

http://www.independent.com/news/2012/apr…

There's really no need for you to pretend to "participate" in this discussion if you don't even have an understanding of the facts.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM · Report this
The Accidental Theologist 30
For the first time ever, I wish I lived in the First District so's I could vote for her.
As for all you snipers: have you never heard of the word guts? Here's a pol who has them. Too much for you?
Posted by The Accidental Theologist http://accidentaltheologist.com on July 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM · Report this
31
18 is completely full of shit, in case it wasn't obvious by the NRA talking points.

Genocide occurs thanks to the support and efforts of a citizen majority blaming a minority for its woes. It doesn't occur because a dictator decided to do it one day. Dictators just use that public sentiment to distract from their shitty job as ruler. They succeed because the public wanted them to. So don't fear the government, fear your neighbor.

And there have been plenty of armed genocide victims. It didn't stop them from being slaughtered.

No, Americas current gun laws exist solely to keep the gun makers rich from the fear and paranoia of a nation of fucking morons. What's a few mass murders when compared to the illusion of safety?
Posted by mubhappy on July 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 32
@7- Getting the NRA out of the conversation is the first step to making it an adult conversation. They modern NRA can and should go to hell. Then the adults can talk.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on July 20, 2012 at 6:30 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 33
@ 16, I think the major differences between alcohol and assault rifles speak for themselves. Use the former properly, and everyone feels good. Use the latter properly, and you have a nice stack of bodies.

Assault rifles do not reasonably compare to anything else that is NOT known to result in human death when used properly. That's why, despite the large numbers of deaths due to cars, guns can't be compared to cars. You only die in a car collision when the car is not properly operated. Alcohol problems are all related to excessive (improper) drinking.

Therefore, speaking of banning guns but not banning alcohol is NOT hypocritical.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 6:50 PM · Report this
34
"Go to hell" just got me to open up my wallet for her.
Posted by codswallower on July 20, 2012 at 6:53 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 35
@ 29, I'll admit to ignorance about guns, but I'm not sure that the instance of someone using an M-1 carbine rifle in defense means that that's its ideal use.

To put it another way, the fact that something can be used for self-defense doesn't necessarily mean that it's such an important option that we'd suffer if it were taken away. If assault rifles were once again banned, the homeowner in your sample could have used a handgun, perhaps just as effectively. Sounds like the guy really knew how to shoot.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 36
@33,
Proper use of alcohol? Proper use of assault rifles? That doesn't make any sense.

I was in the Army, the infantry. I've used assault rifles properly, I am professionally trained in the proper usage of assault rifles, I've fired thousands of rounds from them... and I've never killed anyone.

Alcohol is poisonous to humans, it has no "proper" use, unless it's to kill someone. The only reason you get buzzed is because it's getting you closer to death. It seems to me if you don't kill yourself with alcohol, you've used it improperly.

But that doesn't even matter. That's just semantics. I was talking about real life.

Alcohol (drinking alcohol, that is) has no necessary function in society. We don't need it to survive and thrive. Further, people using alcohol recklessly sometimes kill others. So doesn't it make sense to ban it? We don't need it, and the reckless use of it causes death sometimes.

Just like assault rifles.

They DO reasonably compare to each other.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 38
BTW, I love Sam Levine's comment @23.

All the freedom we have comes with a lot of consequences, but I'd rather have the freedoms than the "safety" that would be "promised" by banning those freedoms.

I want drugs legalized. I want gays to be able to get married. I like that we have free speech. I like that we have elections. I like these things and wouldn't want them taken away just because someone else thinks they're too dangerous. As such, I can't justify taking guns away from gun owners just because I think they're dangerous.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 20, 2012 at 7:17 PM · Report this
39
@35
"If assault rifles were once again banned, the homeowner in your sample could have used a handgun, perhaps just as effectively."

You're probably right.
But semi-automatic handguns are also an issue with the specifics of "killing large numbers of people in massacres" (to quote Darcy Burner). Many of her examples had fatalities of 5 or fewer. Easily achievable with a couple of handguns with 10 round magazines (22 total rounds without reloading). So the net result would be the same.

Which is why I think that the first step is clearly defining what the desired outcome would be.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 7:29 PM · Report this
40
I rarely depart from SECB recs... but I'm voting for Darcy. Or I would, if I lived in her district. To the checkbook!
Posted by Dan Savage on July 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM · Report this
COMTE 41
@14:

Most home defense experts will tell you that, of all the weapons to use to fend off a home invasion, an assault rifle is the absolute WORST choice, for any number of reasons, including: time required to retrieve an AR from a locked cabinet; difficulty in properly aiming at moving targets under close-quarter conditions; increased likelihood of through-wall penetration, thus increasing the risk of injury or death to other home occupants.

You're far better off with a shotgun or handgun if you want to deal with a home intruder.

Also, a single example of someone using an AR does not invalidate the greater point that, on the whole, they have very little practical or effective use in such situations. Seriously, unless you're fending off rampaging hordes surrounding your house, there are plenty of other weapons that would be far more effective than an assault rifle.
Posted by COMTE on July 20, 2012 at 7:32 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 42
@ 36, you've never killed anyone because, I'm going to guess, you never went into combat. Is that correct?

You're not seriously trying to tell me that assault rifles aren't designed to main and kill, are you?

Alcohol, like any drug, is not poisonous. You're being lazy. It's harmful only when taken excessively - like any drug. It's "poisonous" only when used incorrectly. Furthermore, alcohol is actually beneficial to one's health when taken in moderation (2 drinks or so a day).

Sorry. I say the comparison remains invalid.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 43
Oh, and @ 38 - "taking away guns" is probably the biggest red herring in the history of American political discourse. The constitution forbids ex post facto laws, so any new ban would not mean that current owners of assault rifles could EVER be forced to turn them in.

You can address that perhaps that fact would make any assault weapons ban futile since one could still possibly buy one already legally owned, but I kind of doubt it - they'd be collector's items and be a lot harder to come by when they're not available in every Bass Pro Shop in America.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM · Report this
44
@41
"... time required to retrieve an AR from a locked cabinet; ..."
Then:
"You're far better off with a shotgun or handgun if you want to deal with a home intruder."

As a responsible gun owner, there should be no difference in how you store your rifles or your handguns. If you have to take time to get a rifle out of a gun safe then you should also have to take time to get a handgun out of a gun safe.

As for aiming, that will depend upon the specific circumstances. As shown in that one example, there was no problem.

As for wall penetration, depending upon the situation, that can be a positive.

"You're far better off with a shotgun or handgun if you want to deal with a home intruder."

And a semi-automatic handgun has the exact same issues with regards to "killing large numbers of people in massacres" as a semi-automatic rifle or carbine does. Except for the range limitation.

So, are we going to get to the discussion of the desired outcome yet?
Or are we still going to go on and on about tangential subjects?
Because if you want to do that, you might as well just hand this debate to the NRA again.

The NRA keeps winning on these issues because they can focus on specifics and they have factual accounts to support their position.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 7:51 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 45
@ 39, "I think that the first step is clearly defining what the desired outcome would be."

I agree. I think people have mentioned banning large magazines - that seems simple and effective enough for the examples you mention.

And it bears mentioning that any realistic plan should understand that, with so many millions of guns out there, ending gun violence is simply not going to be achieved. And although horrific massacres like today always stir up these debates, it must be acknowledged that their casualties account for a virtually insignificant number of gun deaths and injuries. (However, they cast a much larger pall over the collective feelings of Americans, and are damaging in other ways - how much money will that mall lose because of this? Or all of Aurora, CO? Or movie theaters everywhere, especially ones showing Batman? Those costs belong in the debate.)

Defining the outcome isn't something I could really define, at least not right now. I'd love to see these massacres come to an end. I'd love to see gun violence slashed. But I'd love to see other kinds of violence be drastically reduced, too. There are definite things we can have government do (people keep mentioning mental health monitoring as well as assault rifle bans and other gun control), but there are things we can only try to change as a society, and I have no idea what to do there.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 7:53 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 46
Whoops. "Defining the outcome isn't something I could really define." Great writing. My 9th grade English teacher is rolling in her grave.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 47
Urgutha, you're making way too much sense for most of these people to comprehend. You should know better by now.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 48
@20 Oh - ha! Yes, you can tell I don't own a gun. Thanks for the assist.
Posted by Free Lunch on July 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 49
@ 47, feel free to jump in. I'm doing my best to represent the rational adult side of gun control here. (Since I've pragmatically given up on gun control years ago, I don't actually have strong feelings on the subject anymore.)
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 20, 2012 at 8:07 PM · Report this
50
I was reading in Bloomberg how both Obama and Romney are doing the respectful thing and not turning this specific tragedy into a soapbox for arguing gun control.

Wish some of the lower lights showed as much restraint.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on July 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM · Report this
51
In the interest of adult discourse I have a question (full disclosure, I am a gun owner myself, but from the other side, I have a friend who was shot during the Columbine massacre and is now permanently paralyzed from the waist down...I see the arguments from both sides as best I can). I don't necessarily think we should ban even assault weapons, but what exactly is the problem with making you go through say, a bigger and bigger level of background check/ mental health evaluation the bigger the gun you buy? Srsly, I'm pretty certain most of the clearly well educated, gun owning sloggers (or even most average joes who want a handgun for protection or even AR-15 for the range) wouldn't have any problem passing such hoops, but it might just keep weapons out of the hands of guys like the virginia tech shooter. I'm looking for an honest response here. We require people to take a test to drive, why not require some sort of test to own a gun?
Posted by lone locust on July 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM · Report this
Daddy Love 52
What would Suzan DelBene say?
Posted by Daddy Love on July 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM · Report this
53
@45
"I think people have mentioned banning large magazines - that seems simple and effective enough for the examples you mention."

Okay, magazines again.

Because banning certain magazines will result in certain magazines being banned and the existence of those specific magazines is ... somehow ... causing ... something ... somewhere ... damn those magazines!

Time to put some numbers here. From Darcy Burner's list of how many killed and injured:
5 killed 30 injured
8 - 6
13 - 21
3 - 3
6 - 8
7 - 5
0 - 6
6 - 2
5 - 4
32 - 17 - two handguns with 10 & 15 round magazines
8 - 4
2 - 3
5 - 2
5 - 17
5 - 1
2 - 7
8 - 2
3 - 9
13 - 29 - 1 handgun fired 214 rounds
4 - 0
3 - 6
3 - 2
3 - 3
8 - 2
7 - 1
4 - 7
3 - 7

So, from those numbers, almost every single instance would be the same if the shooter had used a pair of handguns and 10 round magazines and spent some time at the pistol range.

And the NRA people do spend time at the ranges.

In the worst incident there, that is almost exactly what the shooter did do.

So the NRA wins again. Banning 30 round magazines ends up doing nothing except keeping 30 round magazines out of the hands of law abiding people.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM · Report this
54
@19) Reichert was not a "weak" candidate. He was a popular, well known, well financed, Republican incumbent in a district that has never elected a Democrat.

The idea that he was a weak candidate came from the fact that Darcy nearly knocked him off.

Reichert wasn't a weak candidate, Darcy was a stronger than expected one.
Posted by sarge on July 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM · Report this
Teslick 55
54: Reichert (did) represent a district that has voted Democratic in recent presidential elections, had no decent legislative record to run on as an incumbent, and was only famous for being a sheriff. Burner was well-financed and should have swept in the blue tidal wave that was 2006. In 2008, she had name recognition, and should have easily won on President Obama's coattails, who won the district handily over McCain, yet she did worse.

We'll never know if 8th could have been Democratic, now with redistricting.

Posts like this one, while playing well with the base, will not win elections in swing districts. She has been down this path before, which tells me she isn't the best candidate. People should learn from their mistakes.
Posted by Teslick on July 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 56
Matt @49: Thanks for the invite, but I've learned that there's no point talking to people who don't want to hear. (I'm not referring to you.)
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM · Report this
57
Typical psuedo-libertarian weirdass male dominated Stranger thread. This is why I stopped bothering with the Slog and will so again.

P.S. the NRA and the gun nuts love these kind of killings. For the nuts, it justifies their paranoid victim complex world view. And for the real power behind the NRA, the manufacturers lobby, it ratchets up the climate of fear they love for selling their wares.
Posted by cracked on July 20, 2012 at 9:48 PM · Report this
59
Can't help but chime in one more time.

There is very little likelihood of retrieving a gun quickly enough from a locked locker in time to defend against a surprise intruder. Are all you gun proponents going to tell me that people who keep a gun within close enough reach and available enough to defend themselves against an intruder who wakes them up are re-locking their guns back into a locker when they leave for work every morning. I simply don't believe it.
Posted by cracked on July 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM · Report this
60
Urgutha -

My opinion is that you are falling into the trap of assuming that guns need to be banned and/or all gun related violence needs to be eliminated for regulation to be effective. I don't think this is true.

Regulation can deter illegal handgun use by increasing the responsibility of gun owners. There has been work done to either 'fingerprint' guns and/or ammunition. Just make responsible gun owners account for their guns & bullets and you probably don't really even need to worry about magazine capacity, etc. as much. Create penalties for irresponsible owners - get your gun stolen, lose the right to have access to guns for a period of time, as one example.

There are different ways to approach defining responsible gun ownership via regulation, and ways that would over time result in less access to guns by those not up to the task. Responsible owners & self defence - not the problem, generally. Idiots to don't secure their weapons sufficiently or engage in strawman transactions - zero tolerance.

The discussion does not really need to revolve around bans, but around responsibility and accountability. That would get you a long ways towards reducing idiotic gun use.
Posted by Action Slacks on July 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 61
@Matt from Denver,

That's correct, I've never been in combat... thankfully! But I have been trained in the proper use of assault rifles. And there is a proper and inproper use, for anyone who cares.

Yes, assault rifles are designed to kill humans massed for combat. Designed to kill infantry units. And they're good at it. Strike that... they're GREAT at it. Assault rifles do a great job killing people - what they were designed to do - and they're not worth much else.

But that's STILL not the point.

Do you want to ban assault rifles? Ok. So what then? Do you stop there?

Do you want to ban ALL guns? Ok. Let's say you ban all guns. What then? Have you solved the problem? No more guns, so we can all just kick back and relax, right? Problem solved! Ahhh.... victory!

Here's my problem with anti gun people.... they are identical. IDENTICAL. to anti abortion people.

They think guns/abortion is the problem. and if you simply make the problem illegal? Then the problem is solved!

But they're wrong. They don't understand the problem.

The problem isn't guns. The problem isn't abortions. The problem is much deeper.

But the anti-gun/anti-abortion crusaders don't give a fuck about the real problem. They don't give a fuck about reality. They don't give a fuck about anything or anyone except themselves. They're locked into a belief system they cannot change. They're hopeless. They're losers. But they still fight. Blindly they fight. Against reason and fact.

And they think they're different from each other.

In fact, they're identical.

The problem isn't guns. The problem isn't abortion. But they refuse to see it, they all think they know what the problem is, but they're all wrong. So we have what we've got here now... a failure to communicate.
More...
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM · Report this
62
The Republican Party may just as well have pulled the trigger.
Posted by soggydan on July 20, 2012 at 10:51 PM · Report this
63
Yeah, access to guns is just like access to abortions, because when people fuck, guns come out, so unless you're gonna ban fucking, you can't stop people from getting guns. If you make shoulder-mounted missile launchers criminal, then only criminals will have shoulder-mounted missile launchers!

And if you want to transfer your abortion to a private party, there's little need for paperwork.

Seriously, please use the Preview function to review what you're saying before you make stupid analogies.
Posted by madcap on July 20, 2012 at 11:01 PM · Report this
64
@60
"The discussion does not really need to revolve around bans, but around responsibility and accountability. That would get you a long ways towards reducing idiotic gun use."

Good points.
I'd like to see more funding of research into ways to fingerprint guns (and ammo if possible).

Even the NRA people agree that criminals should not have guns (when they commit new crimes). Where are the criminals getting their guns? How to stop that? Or at least take a chunk out of it in the future.

So I'd say that one of the first goals should be to prevent criminals who cannot legally own guns from getting guns.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 20, 2012 at 11:42 PM · Report this
venomlash 65
@61: Why not have a ban on civilian ownership of assault rifles and allow ownership of hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns with a permit? What's the problem with that?
Posted by venomlash on July 21, 2012 at 12:11 AM · Report this
66
@60 and @64. You guys are talking grownup talk. The NRA's victory in the national argument on guns has been so complete that even a discussion like yours is not allowed.
Posted by cracked on July 21, 2012 at 12:12 AM · Report this
67
That Burner posted on Kos merely confirms she is inadequate for the job. Adult conversation and Kos don't go together.

And as far as her comment re: hell. You first bitch.
Posted by delbert on July 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM · Report this
69
The whole "assault weapons are good for things besides killing large numbers of people" reminds me of the "101 Uses for a Dead Cat" theme from when I was a kid.

Sure, you can go out of your way to think up ways other uses for an assault weapon - but the simple fact is that they were designed to be efficient at shooting large numbers of people (not "targets," not "objects," not "animals," but living, breathing human beings) as quickly as possible.
Posted by SuperSteve on July 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 71
@ 53, thank you for the stats.

@ 61, if it were up to me, personally, assault rifles and perhaps any other gun designed for military or law enforcement use (thinking riot control here) should be severely restricted. Perhaps outright banned. I would stop there. Many gun control people seem to want all guns to be banned, but that ain't never gonna happen.

Back to @ 53, I would still think that large magazines make gun massacres easier to carry out, and have virtually no legitimate use for hunting, self defense, or anything except mabe target practice (which more and more of these guys engage in when the targets are human). Obviously there are ways around it, but that alone wouldn't make it ineffective.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 73
everyone on this thread, please take the time to read this article and learn how we came to be in this situation. prior to 1977, absolutist interpretation of the 2nd amendment wasn't an issue for anyone but the fringe of the NRA.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/…

Posted by Max Solomon on July 21, 2012 at 9:20 AM · Report this
74
@71
"I would still think that large magazines make gun massacres easier to carry out, ..."

The problem is that you are defining "gun massacre" in your head in such a way that numbers are not associated with it.

27 examples are in Darcy Burner's list.
24 of those had deaths fewer than 10.
1 of the remaining 3 was carried out with two handguns with 10 and 15 round magazines.
That 1 was also the one with the largest number of fatalities.

"Obviously there are ways around it, but that alone wouldn't make it ineffective."

You're subconsciously equating "magazine" with "massacre".
If only the shooter had been limited to 11 rounds he would not have been able to kill those 4 people.

And that is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.
They have a much simpler and easily stated position.
"They're trying to take our guns!"
And they have the math to prove it.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM · Report this
Puty 75
Super-tight controls on the private ownership of military-grade firearms is self-evidently sane. Do better, America.
Posted by Puty on July 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this
Daddy Love 76
You all know, don't you, that because any proposal will not completely eliminate the problem, the only sane answer is to do absolutely nothing?
Posted by Daddy Love on July 21, 2012 at 12:54 PM · Report this
77
@74, all you're proving is that it's hard for someone to strike with a kill shot with every bullet in the clip (or magazine or whatever the hell you call it). Reducing the number of rounds in a clip won't turn these guys into sharpshooters, but it will limit the damage they can do before having to reload.
Posted by clashfan on July 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM · Report this
78
fairly.unbalanced,

Surely you don't think those shooters all had kills with their first 10 shots, then none after that? Just because someone kills fewer than 10 kills when they make far more 10 shots doesn't mean that if they only had 10 shots they'd kill just as many people. You seem to really love this line of reasoning and it's ridiculous. And do injuries count for nothing?
Posted by Eric L on July 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 79
@31
Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public:

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

@41
"Most home defense experts will tell you that, of all the weapons to use to fend off a home invasion, an assault rifle is the absolute WORST choice, for any number of reasons, including: time required to retrieve an AR from a locked cabinet; difficulty in properly aiming at moving targets under close-quarter conditions; increased likelihood of through-wall penetration, thus increasing the risk of injury or death to other home occupants.

You're far better off with a shotgun or handgun if you want to deal with a home intruder."

You must be going to the wrong defense experts, a semi-automatic carbine chambered in 5.56 NATO is among the best weapons for home defense. An FBI study determined that handguns take at least 2 shot to stop an attacker regardless of caliber, rifles and shotguns take one. An AR-15 carbine is shorter and more maneuverable than an shotgun, and easier to control under fire and easier to operate under stress, most people under stress will short stroke a pump-action shotgun rendering it inoperable. The AR has a mounting platform for a white-light to ensure proper target identification, granted you can also put a light on a handgun or a shotgun but it feels more natural on an AR as most of the ARs ergonomics. being a carbine the AR is easier to aim than a pistol, has a longer sight radius and id far more accurate reducing the risk of stray projectiles. Lastly 55 grain NATO ammo has less barrier penetration than either 9mm or buckshot reducing the risk of bullets over penetrating into other rooms or other residences. The tendency of the round to fragment makes it less likely to injure bystanders on the other side of walls and gives it a better terminal effect on the attacker, this is why swat teams have pretty much universally traded in their 9mm SMGs for the AR15 platform.

As for hunting the AR is one of the best varmint rifles on the market. Also the modular design of the AR lets you trade the upper for a larger caliber like 6.8 SPC, in many jurisdictions the 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem round is considered "underpowered" and is illegal to use for hunting large game. That said my new hunting rifle is an AR10, mainly due to my wife's familiarity with the AR platform.

As for "No sporting purpose" the fastest growing shooting sport in the US is Practical Rifle, which requires a semi-automatic rifle with large capacity detachable magazines. It is also loads of fun.
More...
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM · Report this
80
@77
"Reducing the number of rounds in a clip won't turn these guys into sharpshooters, but it will limit the damage they can do before having to reload."

Again, this is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.
At least read the statistics that are posted here.
13 kills - 29 wounded - 1 handgun fired 214 rounds
He was not carrying a 214 round magazine.
He reloaded. Multiple times.

@78
"Surely you don't think those shooters all had kills with their first 10 shots, then none after that?"

Hey, only 77 posts and you still missed the point.
The NRA keeps winning because the NRA has mathematically proven their point.
It does not matter how many shots it takes to X people.
The only way to prevent that is to ban anything that can hold X or more rounds.

"Just because someone kills fewer than 10 kills when they make far more 10 shots doesn't mean that if they only had 10 shots they'd kill just as many people."

32 people killed and the guy used two handguns with 10 and 15 round magazines.
You can argue that it cannot be done but he did it.
He killed 32 people and he used two handguns with 10 and 15 round magazines.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 21, 2012 at 7:32 PM · Report this
OutInBumF 81
@73- Thanks for the link- very insightful, and explains why many members of my family have disavowed the NRA over their change in attitudes in the past 40 years. Sad. The rest of my family have become as rabid as the NRA regarding gun legislation.
It's good to know that there's a conservative organization as hell-bent on "destroying America" as the Religious Right, Christianists, Liberals and GLBT people. Oh- don't forget Obama. Civil war, here we come.
And I repeat- "Why can't we all just get along?"
Posted by OutInBumF on July 21, 2012 at 8:04 PM · Report this
82
How do you disarm people who already have guns? The Aurora shooter got his guns before the shooting. The Cafe Racer shoot, however, had his for years, and no revision of the laws would have taken them away. How about other violent criminals such as gangs?

Gun control changes will solve at best a negligible portion of the greater problem. The source of deadly crime is much, much more than the mere availability of guns.
Posted by Gomez http://misterstevengomez.com on July 22, 2012 at 8:31 AM · Report this
84
As soon as I read her piece on Daily Kos, I went to her web site and contributed. I'm just inside of that new district she's running in and she depend on my vote. The NRA can kiss my butt.
Posted by Formerly Fred on July 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM · Report this
85
As soon as I read her piece on Daily Kos, I went to her web site and made a contribution. live I just inside that new district she is running in, and she can depend on my vote. Kiss my butt NRA, you don't scare me!
Posted by Formerly Fred on July 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 86
@70,
Tanks, grenades, missile launchers, mortars, machine guns, etc.... they're not illegal to own. Seriously. You have to go through a shit-ton of scrutiny to own one, but you CAN legally own them.

I'm not certain about plutonium or uranium, but I don't think it's illegal to own them either. Of course, the scrutiny to get either of those would be insane, but hey, the people who run nuclear power plants have access to them, and they're civilians... not government workers, so no matter how you look at it, it IS possible for a civilian to legally control nuclear material.

You just don't hear about those people. The only ones you hear about are the ones who go on killing sprees.

Just like plane crashes. A million flights a day occur safely, with no casualties. But one plane in a hundred, hundred, million crashes... and suddenly everyone is terrified of flying.

It's irrational.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 22, 2012 at 10:48 PM · Report this
87
I'm not as locked into my liberal beliefs about gun control as I am about most things, so I'm finding the arguments against it here pretty interesting. However, @fairly.unbalanced, your argument--small cartridges *can* kill as many people as large ones, so ipso facto we shouldn't considering limiting access to larger ones--just doesn't seem very strong. If this is truly the the only "mathematical proof" you keep mentioning, I remain unconvinced on this particular point.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM · Report this
88
@87
"If this is truly the the only "mathematical proof" you keep mentioning, I remain unconvinced on this particular point."

Whether you personally are convinced or not is immaterial to the discussion.
Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people using only 15 round and 10 round magazines.
Maybe you should read up on the facts? Yes?

"However, @fairly.unbalanced, your argument--small cartridges *can* kill as many people as large ones, so ipso facto we shouldn't considering limiting access to larger ones--just doesn't seem very strong."

You can consider it all you want.
The point that I keep reiterating (some people still don't get it after 86 posts) is that the NRA is going to win that debate because they have the numbers that show that banning 30 round magazines will not reduce the number of people killed.

The same as the NRA has been winning these debates for years and years.
Because people like you simply refuse to do any research to understand why the NRA keeps winning.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM · Report this
89
@88
You're being very confrontational, which I would suggest is something you might want to check if you're advocating for guns.

I really think I am hearing the point that you keep reiterating. You're saying that it will do nothing to ban one thing, because the numbers show that the same ends can be achieved with another thing, which still will not be banned. I'm not disputing that you can kill a lot of people with small cartridges. I'm skeptical that that means that banning large magazines will not reduce the number of people killed in massacres in general. There's one logical step you're making there that I don't follow.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
90
@89
"You're being very confrontational, which I would suggest is something you might want to check if you're advocating for guns."

I'm not advocating for guns.
I'm pointing out why the NRA keeps winning these debates.
And the number one reason is people just like you who cannot even do basic research.

"You're saying that it will do nothing to ban one thing, because the numbers show that the same ends can be achieved with another thing,"

No. I'm saying that the NRA wins these debates because the NRA has a simpler message.
That message being : "They want to take away our guns".

The NRA can use that message so effectively because the numbers support them.

"I'm skeptical that that means that banning large magazines will not reduce the number of people killed in massacres in general."

Again, the statistics show otherwise.
The guy who killed 32 people did it with 15 round and 10 round magazines.
One guy who killed 13 people fired 214 rounds from one handgun.

Your emotional reaction is not consistent with the facts.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM · Report this
91
@90
What basic research can I not do? You're the one doing the research for me.

A statement beginning with "One guy..." should never be used as proof for anything on a macro scale. "Two guys" has similarly low statistical power. This is the only reaction I've expressed. Do you really believe that's overly emotional?

Even if you had more guys to use as examples, it wouldn't prove the point I think you're trying to prove. Just because there is another way to kill lots of people doesn't prove that this wouldn't help on a macro scale.

And by the way, "They want to take away our guns" is about the most emotional message I can think of.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
92
@91
"What basic research can I not do? You're the one doing the research for me."

Exactly what I just said.

"Do you really believe that's overly emotional?"

Yes I do.
Particularly considering that your research has been non-existent.

"Even if you had more guys to use as examples, it wouldn't prove the point I think you're trying to prove."

You are not even intellectually capable of grasping my point when I have spelled it out.
The NRA has won the debate.
It's over.
The gun control people have lost. And they lost because of people like you.
Even when a guy walks into a movie with a 100 round magazine and an a semi-automatic rifle, only a couple of politicians even bring up the subject of gun control.
And neither of the candidates for President.

"Just because there is another way to kill lots of people doesn't prove that this wouldn't help on a macro scale."

Like I said, the NRA have won this debate because of people like you.
That's my point.
People like you have handed this debate to the NRA.
91 posts and you STILL do not get the message.

You still want to argue that something is impossible.
When presented with the fact that it DID happen you want to argue that the fact "doesn't prove that this wouldn't help on a macro scale."
You still do not understand. After 92 posts now you will still not understand.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 23, 2012 at 12:34 PM · Report this
93
@92
I have not once tried to argue that something is impossible. I am not discussing this with the NRA. I am discussing this with you.

Banning large cartridges will not stop anybody from being killed by people using small cartridges. In the cases where they would have used small cartridges anyway, it will not reduce the number of deaths at all. You are right about that. You are right, you are right, you are right, you are right.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM · Report this
94
@93
"I am not discussing this with the NRA. I am discussing this with you."

Well that's sweet of you.
But my point is about how the NRA keeps winning these debates.
Which is the point that you have, once again, missed.
And the reason the NRA keeps winning is because people like you keep missing the point.

"Banning large cartridges will not stop anybody from being killed by people using small cartridges."

Well at least that part has finally gotten through to you.
I'll count it as a success.

"In the cases where they would have used small cartridges anyway, it will not reduce the number of deaths at all."

And why is that?
You can have the right answer for the wrong reasons.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM · Report this
95
@95
Are you saying that every person who did use large cartridges would have used smaller cartridges if the larger ones were banned, and that they would have been able to kill the same number of people? This is the part that I think the numbers you have presented are not showing.

And your point that the NRA has already won the debate is not a point that I am missing. It's simply a point that I'm not addressing.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 23, 2012 at 1:12 PM · Report this
96
@95
"Are you saying that every person who did use large cartridges would have used smaller cartridges if the larger ones were banned, ..."

Are you familiar with the word "DUH"?
Are you?

"... and that they would have been able to kill the same number of people?"

Have I told you about how the NRA keeps winning these debates?
They do.
They keep winning.
Because of people like you.
People like you who do not do any research and expect to argue from their emotions.

Virginia Tech.

You don't even know how many of the 27 examples used magazines that held fewer than 30 rounds.

You don't even know in how many of those 27 examples the shooter reloaded.

But you want to talk about "a macro scale". When you have no facts. Only your emotions.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM · Report this
97
@96
Do you know? Is there a reason you're not telling me?
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 23, 2012 at 2:48 PM · Report this
98
@97
"Do you know? Is there a reason you're not telling me?"

And people wonder how the NRA can get laws like "Stand Your Ground" passed in so many places.

The point is that you do not know.
Because you do not know, the NRA wins because they do know.
And even when that is spelled out for you, you still refuse to do the research.

The fact that you STILL have not bothered to educate yourself is the issue.

You are arguing from emotion and the NRA can beat that with their facts every time.

The question you have to ask yourself is why do you think that skipping the facts will help your argument.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 23, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 99
@95
Do you even know what a cartridge is?

It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about, and have absolutely no business talking about firearms.

My guess is the only thing you know about guns is that they are "scary" and make you feel upset, therefore you feel the need to deny the rights of others. Because obviously our rights end where your feelings begin.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 23, 2012 at 4:49 PM · Report this
100
@99
I know a lot of people use questions solely as rhetorical devices, but I am actually asking questions to try to understand things better. I know what a cartridge is, but I do not know a lot about guns. Guns do scare me (I hope you can see that that is somewhat reasonable), but I don't really think they should be banned, and would like to understand the situation better. What I am really questioning is the logic regarding these numbers and the conclusions that @fairly.unbalanced is drawing from them. You can fault me for not doing my own research right now if you want, but the ad hominem attacks aren't helping.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 24, 2012 at 9:15 AM · Report this
101
@100
"I know a lot of people use questions solely as rhetorical devices, but I am actually asking questions to try to understand things better."

But you cannot be bothered to do any research on your own.
That is the point.
You are ignorant of the facts and you know it but you will not take any steps on your own to do anything about it.
You would rather argue from emotion.
And that is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.

"You can fault me for not doing my own research right now if you want, but the ad hominem attacks aren't helping."

No, that is the point.
The point is that you do not do your own research.
You would rather argue from emotion.
So the NRA keeps winning these debates.
Because the NRA does research and uses the facts against your emotional argument.

100 posts in this thread and you still have not done any research on your own.

"... and would like to understand the situation better."

Then do some research.
But you won't.

That is the part that I find fascinating.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM · Report this
Post_Mortem 102
Somewhere in here, I noticed a semi-reasonable gun-rights advocate repeatedly arguing that all the talk about the various shootings and rampages throughout the US (and any discussion of banning or regulating assault rifles or extended clips) was merely tangential to the issue at hand. What was necessary to have an adult conversation, he said, was a list of desired ends. Granted, his position makes no sense, and flies in the face of how reasoning has typically been done the world over for more than two thousand years, but I thought I'd try things his way for a change of pace.

Desired and desirable ends:

1) A responsible gun culture (in terms of ownership, politics, and policy), and the fostering of such by federal, state, and local governments and relevant NGOs. --It should be noted, the actions and general practices of the NRA are largely incommensurate with this aim, but the NRA going to hell would not be.--
2) Reasonable restrictions and restraints on the sale, ownership, and use of weapons such as guns.
3) Accountability of gun sellers, owners, and regulators in the case of gross misuse, misconduct, or general bloody rampage.
4) That it should be easier for the mentally unstable to receive help than to obtain firearms. That it should be easier for a family to get their loved one mental assistance than for that person to slip through the system's cracks and end up homeless, hopeless, or murderous.
Posted by Post_Mortem http://pointlessman.blogspot.com/ on July 24, 2012 at 12:42 PM · Report this
103
@102
"A responsible gun culture ..."

You need to clearly define "responsible" there. Otherwise you'll have NRA people arguing that this is already in place.

"Reasonable restrictions and restraints ..."

Again, define "reasonable". There are already laws on the books.

"Accountability of gun sellers, owners, and regulators in the case of gross misuse, misconduct, or general bloody rampage."

Try breaking that one down a bit.
A gun that can be used for self-defense is also capable of killing innocent people.

"That it should be easier for the mentally unstable to receive help than to obtain firearms."

You'll get lots of vocal support for that one.
Unfortunately that support will not translate into funding for specific programs.
People seem more inclined to want to keep their money and hope that the mental patient does not shoot them. Which makes sense from a statistical standpoint. 100% you are out of some money or 0.001% that you will be shot.

Here's another idea.
How about whoever is the last recorded owner of a gun is also, legally, considered to have some degree of responsibility for whatever crimes are committed with that gun.
So if guy A sells a gun to guy B but no paperwork is filled out, when guy B commits a crime with that gun, guy A is also charged.
At least that would be a step towards reducing the "gun show loophole".
The paperwork is how you officially remove your responsibility for the gun.
Also
If you are caught with a gun without a serial number you will be doing 10 years in jail (or whatever sentence).
Those two have to go together.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM · Report this
104
@101
Did some research. Actually went on a pro-gun website to find the arguments for keeping high capacity magazines around. Found this:

"...there’s never been a single study establishing actual real-world safety benefits (to victims) of attempting to restrict criminals to guns with smaller vs. larger magazines. Not one."

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04…

That's in his first point. His second point is actually that it's difficult to change magazines in a high-stress situation, which seems to me like it could easily be a reason to limit the size of magazines. But hey, maybe you should email this guy and tell him that the issue has already been mathematically proven. Just make sure not to tell him what that means. He needs to do his own research.
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 24, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
105
@104
"Did some research."

Somehow I doubt it.
More likely you just looked around for someone you wanted to quote.

"But hey, maybe you should email this guy ..."

Yep. You did not do any research.
You just looked around for someone you wanted to quote.

Again, I find it fascinating that people like you behave the way you do.
I don't know what is it about research that makes it so abhorrent to you.
But you continually want to argue from a position of extreme ignorance.
And that is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.
105 posts here and you still refuse to do your own research.
It's fascinating.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM · Report this
Post_Mortem 107
FU, my language was intentionally ambiguous so as to leave room for necessary debate. However, the suggested ends are meant to work synergystically and be treated together, thus slightly clearing up eachother's intent.

Despite my broad wording, I'm not sure what made you think I wrote anything about the usefulness of guns or on whether or not guns which had been used for something other than crime might not also be used for criminal purposes (or vice versa).
Posted by Post_Mortem http://pointlessman.blogspot.com/ on July 24, 2012 at 3:42 PM · Report this
108
@105
I looked around and found no evidence of any study on the matter. It's almost entirely speculation on both sides. I provided a quote which basically summed that up. Where is this mathematical proof?

@106
Scary thought. Is this not something gun owners practice?
Posted by Dr. Henry Chillberg on July 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM · Report this
109
@108
"I looked around and found no evidence of any study on the matter."

Translation, you looked for someone you wanted to quote.
You refused to do any research of your own.
As you have continued to do.
And yet you still feel the need to form an emotional argument from a position of ignorance.
Which is why the NRA keeps winning these debates.

You refuse (have refused, are refusing and will refuse) to do any research on your own.
I find that fascinating.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 24, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy