NRA Hijinks
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
Exactly.
It takes a liberal or perhaps a european to think the solution to illegal guns is a law declaring them illegal. See, the thing is, they're already illegal, by definition.
The reason gun rights advocates will not "compromise" or go along with proposals to restrict our freedom is that we know any step is just a way station for the left's ultimate goal, total confiscation of privately owned firearms.
"Smart" guns have a surface appeal but so far fail the practicality test. Having to retrieve a sensor unit at 3 AM or enter a PIN is unrealistic. How will a fingerprint reader work if you have gloves on or if another family member needs to use the gun? What if it fails? Calling tech support may not be an option when you need the thing to go bang. Plus, there is the fear that smart guns are another step on the slippery slope of gun control.
....and there is the thing - if its not a problem why then do gun lovers always bring up the point that if guns are not the problem more guns will fix the problem. Getting to the threads heading....Here in lies the NRA hijinks....creating a problem of fear when there isnt one.
for the record - I dont think guns should be banned, I also dont think regulations are the thin edge of the wedge, but its like watching an alcoholic go through stages of denial and diversions of accepting that there are people who are concerned. Not everyone who thinks there is a problem is a facist nanny.
As for solutions - there are plenty of them from smarter regulations, personalized guns, better training - all of them have holes none of them are perfect....what is, but the attitude of cant solve the problem with a perfect solution so why bother is not a solution....I can bet parts of the world would wish the US would adopt that attitude on other things.
Maybe its not the problems of guns, but the attitude some folks have to violence, guns and their abilities to solve problems with out them.
Like most things in life its the small few who spoil it for the rest of us.
Somewhere buried in all this (thread) is the observation that the Pavlovian response of the gunnuts to any suggestion of control has little to nothing to do with hunting or with protecting oneself against intruders but with defending oneself and one's home against governmental assault, and while fear of the government is hardly unique to the US, this paranoia does help to explain why the gunnuts balance on the edge of psychosis.
What you or anyone else proposes as a "solution" will not pass because the only solution is to eliminate the government: federal, state, local. But they tried that over a hundred years ago and it didn't work out.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. What gun lover is saying more guns will fix...what problem? All gun folks are "saying" is keep your hands off my guns.
I didn't say you were a fascist nanny. I just don't know what you're trying to get at. You seem to be dancing around the position without committing to either side.
You keep talking about solutions, but no problem exists. Only rabid moonbats on the left think there's a problem. Everyone else is just fine with the way things are now. Do we have some lunatics out there? Sure. But lunatics are always going to be lunatics, and they'll kill with a gun, a knife, a wood chipper, whatever. The gun is just a tool. The lunatic is the problem. So if you want to talk about solutions, start there - by trying to deal with the bad guy. Don't go to the good guy and say "since a few idiots cannot behave with their guns (which they stole and don't own), we can't trust you with yours."
Don't start by trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Total rubbish, as usual. No one here says there should be no government at all. Point me to one post, one post here by anyone other than c-kid (ucanteatbonds being the latest moniker) that is calling for absolutely no government.
Because if you can't, then please shut the fuck up and leave the conversation to the adults.
If you don’t like the idea of walking down the street surrounded by armed civilians who could pull a concealed firearm out from under their coat at any moment, that makes you “paranoid,” according to a commentary posted by the National Rifle Association on Wednesday. The NRA video features a monologue by a man named Billy Johnson, who, after touting the NRA’s familiar line that people need to carry firearms in order to protect themselves from a “real threat to their safety or security.” He then informs the viewer who the real tin foil hat wearers are:
The implicit message in the NRA’s video is that there are two kinds of gun owners — those who “legally exercis[e] their right to bear arms” and the other kind — and that it is wrong to fear people who have thus far behaved legally. In NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s words, “[t]he only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” and bad guys and good guys form a rigid dichotomy. So long as someone is a “good guy,” you don’t need to fear their firearm.
The reality, however, is far more nuanced. According to a study published by the journalPediatrics, children were injured in accidents involving firearms 2,149 times in 2009 alone. Another report revealed that nearly 3,800 people in the United States were killed in accidental shootings from 2005 to 2010. Again, these were accidental shootings. They were not cases where a “bad guy with a gun” willfully shot someone.
The most common motive for actual homicide crimes, moreover, has nothing to do with a “bad guy” who plans out and then executes a plot to kill someone. Rather, according to Washington State Sociology Professor Jennifer Schwartz, “[n]early half of all homicides, committed by men or women, were preceded by some sort of argument or fight, such as a conflict over money or property, anger over one partner cheating on another, severe punishment of a child or abuse of a partner, retaliation for an earlier dispute, or a drunken fight over an insult or other affront.” Schwartz also estimates that “40% of male offenders were drinking alcohol at the time,” and that about 1 in 3 women who commit homicide crimes were also drinking at the time of the offense.
What this means is that a good guy with a gun can unpredictably transform into a bad guy with a gun because they are drunk, angry or both. An argument that would ordinarily have only resulted in a screaming match or a fistfight becomes a fatal shooting because one of the participants is legally carrying a concealed firearm.
And even in those rare instances where a “good guy” stumbles upon an actual gunman who threatens the lives of innocents, the good guy with a gun could easily become as much of a threat to innocent bystanders as he is to the bad guy with a gun. A 2008 study by RAND Corporation regarding the New York Police Department’s firearms training program found that “the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.” Thus, even trained police officers are more likely to miss their target than to hit it. And each bullet that misses its target can endanger the lives of innocent bystanders.
All of these reasons, in other words, offer a pretty good explanation for why someone might be “paranoid” about people carrying concealed firearms.
IAN MILLHISER
What does it say about you that you are afraid of people who are legally exercising their right to bear arms? What does it say about you that your fear of an inanimate object, a gun, has led you to suspect everyone who chooses to own that object? And what does it say about you that you are afraid of the almost 10 million legal concealed carry gun owners in the U.S. who don’t commit crimes every year? Who’s the paranoid one now?
The implicit message in the NRA’s video is that there are two kinds of gun owners — those who “legally exercis[e] their right to bear arms” and the other kind — and that it is wrong to fear people who have thus far behaved legally. In NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s words, “[t]he only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” and bad guys and good guys form a rigid dichotomy. So long as someone is a “good guy,” you don’t need to fear their firearm.
The reality, however, is far more nuanced. According to a study published by the journalPediatrics, children were injured in accidents involving firearms 2,149 times in 2009 alone. Another report revealed that nearly 3,800 people in the United States were killed in accidental shootings from 2005 to 2010. Again, these were accidental shootings. They were not cases where a “bad guy with a gun” willfully shot someone.
The most common motive for actual homicide crimes, moreover, has nothing to do with a “bad guy” who plans out and then executes a plot to kill someone. Rather, according to Washington State Sociology Professor Jennifer Schwartz, “[n]early half of all homicides, committed by men or women, were preceded by some sort of argument or fight, such as a conflict over money or property, anger over one partner cheating on another, severe punishment of a child or abuse of a partner, retaliation for an earlier dispute, or a drunken fight over an insult or other affront.” Schwartz also estimates that “40% of male offenders were drinking alcohol at the time,” and that about 1 in 3 women who commit homicide crimes were also drinking at the time of the offense.
What this means is that a good guy with a gun can unpredictably transform into a bad guy with a gun because they are drunk, angry or both. An argument that would ordinarily have only resulted in a screaming match or a fistfight becomes a fatal shooting because one of the participants is legally carrying a concealed firearm.
And even in those rare instances where a “good guy” stumbles upon an actual gunman who threatens the lives of innocents, the good guy with a gun could easily become as much of a threat to innocent bystanders as he is to the bad guy with a gun. A 2008 study by RAND Corporation regarding the New York Police Department’s firearms training program found that “the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.” Thus, even trained police officers are more likely to miss their target than to hit it. And each bullet that misses its target can endanger the lives of innocent bystanders.
All of these reasons, in other words, offer a pretty good explanation for why someone might be “paranoid” about people carrying concealed firearms.
IAN MILLHISER