Myth #3 - Guns are bad

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I do feel that the NRA is just as extreme as those gun-control politicians you quoted.

Why do you feel that the NRA is "extreme"? What have they done that you disagree with?

Usually when someone tells me this, it is because the news media has painted a false picture of what the NRA does, or what their stance is on a gun issue. Once the true facts are known, they discover that the NRA position was actually quite reasonable.

I suspect that you may have fallen prey to this media-induced syndrome also.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It does seem that in a round about way you do agree that a waiting period will prevent a first time buyer from shooting someone in a fit of anger. Is that right?

No. My additional messages regarding waiting periods, should have made it clear that they are useless at preventing "heat of the moment" murders.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Before I go ahead and call you a thick-headed, ignorant idiot... How do you keep fuckin' ignoring that reality?!

Jeffrey (and this goes for Winsor too), I'm on your side of this issue. However, I would like to plead with you to tame down your responses. The moderators here have deleted entire gun threads in the past, due to such language.

There is a lot of good information being put forth here, and I wouldn't want to see that get shut down. We should educate rather than insult. You attract more converts with honey than with vinegar.

Even if we don't change the minds of some of the participants here, there are also lots of lurkers reading our messages here. Let's keep the debate civil in tone, so that it can continue, and let the readers decide for themselves.

Thanks.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In the hollywood bank incident, those were AK rilfes in full auto configuration. Those have been regulated/illegal since 1934.

Yep, those are the rifles over which the media has everyone terrified. And it was already illegal for those guys to own those, because they were unregistered. Furthermore, they had been caught with them earlier, and a judge ordered the firearms returned to them. So a little earlier tough enforcement could have precluded that shootout. And despite all those thousands of bullets those two guys sprayed from those "assault weapons", they didn't kill a single person! Lions and tigers and SKS rifles, oh my!

Quote

If you can't understand the concept of compromise, I guess there really is nothing further to talk about.

It is interesting to note that he thinks we are unwilling to compromise because we don't want to ban the so-called "assault weapons". But as people have pointed out here, that ban is about cosmetic features only, which is ridiculous, and does nothing to remove dangerous firearms. Thus, the basis for this claim of "unwillingness to compromise" is bogus. And yet, based upon that irrational logic, gun owners are portrayed as the bad guys, for not being willing to ban guns based upon an irrational basis...

[Douva 0]

I think, for the most part, the people involved in this debate have done a pretty good job of presenting their cases. There has been a little bit of the old "I'm write, and you're wrong, but you're just too dumb to know it" mentality, but in fairness, most of those posts have come from the pro gun side. I would just like to end my involvement in this debate with a brief summation of why I take such a hard-line pro gun stance when my views on most other issues tend to be more moderate.

By taking guns out of the hands of citizens, you are taking the ability to defend life and property out of the hands of citizens. You are creating a society completely reliant on a government entity and providing no recourse should this government entity in any way fail. To me, this would be like jumping with a rig that has no handles, just a Cypres set at 2,000.' Sure, a Cypres won't get accidentally pulled in a funnel, and a Cypres won't loose altitude awareness, and a Cypres won't get knocked unconscious if somebody tracks into you, but do you really want to take the ability to save your own life out of your hands? I take comfort in knowing that my Cypres is there to save me if I need it, just like I take comfort in knowing that we have well trained police officers out there working to keep us safe, but I don't want to make jump after jump knowing that I have very little control over my own fate, nor do I want to go to bed every night with that thought. Ideally, the police would be all we'd require, but we don't live in an ideal world. Many of us feel the need to be prepared for the unforeseen, be it crime, natural disaster, civil unrest, or nuclear war. As much as most of us in the civilized world like to think our societies are going to grow and prosper from here to eternity, that is not necessarily the case. Our comfortable existence rests on a dangerous precipice, ready to slide into the abyss at a moment's notice. We can't, like the citizens of Pompeii, be ignorant to the dangerous around us until they wipe us off the map. Maybe I am not as well trained to protect my friends and family as the police or the army, but if the police and the army can't get to us (let's say they're otherwise occupied), I'll do. Today, we as Americans are safer in our day-to-day lives than we have ever been. Contrary to popular belief, drive-by shootings and police shootouts are not happening on every street corner. We live in a virtual utopia compared to the America of two hundred or even one hundred years ago. But we cannot let this increase in safety fool us into believing we are on the path to a true utopia where weapons and violence will be a thing of the past. The truth is, we have no way of knowing where we are going, so like the Boy Scouts, we had better be prepared.

Blue skies and peace,

Douva

PS. If you don't like the Cypres analogy, take a pole at your drop zone and ask who would like to take up bungee jumping. It's been my experience that very few jumpers want to put their own safety entirely in sombody else's hands.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[PhillyKev 0]

Wow.....perfectly stated. My sentiments exactly.

[downwardspiral 0]

I used "extreme" for lack of a better word. What I meant was the NRA's desire to stop gun control is equally proportional to the gun control advocates' desire to control guns.

Quote

I suspect that you may have fallen prey to this media-induced syndrome also.

I certainly can't dispute that. I've never really looked into (or have been interested in) the gun control debate prior to this thread. So if I question an argument, that doesn't mean I am trying to discount the argument. I am simply trying to play devil's advocate so I can have a better understanding of the debate. Is that reasonable?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[bmcd308 0]

The NRA is more or less a gun control group that wants less gun control than is currently fashionable. They are therefore considered extreme. However, it is important to remember that they are indeed an "anti-gun" group to some extent when you evaluate the debate. That the NRA is considered by some a pro-gun extremist organization boggles my mind.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[downwardspiral 0]

I've never heard that. How so?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[bmcd308 0]

The NRA has supported a number of gun control initiatives over time, including the biggies - the NFA in 1934 and the GCA of 1968.

In both of these cases, the belief by the NRA was that by conceding major new gun laws, those who wished additional gun controls would just give up. It turns out that this has not been the case - many gun control groups openly follow a strategy of "incrementalism," trying to add additional laws a few at a time with the ultimate goal of eradication.

I have explained this strategy like this in the past:

Let's say I want to punch you in the mouth twice. You say you don't want me to harm you in any way. So we compromise, and I punch you in the mouth once. We met in the middle and everyone is happy, right?

Well, no. I immediately say that I want to punch you in the mouth twice again. You take an extremist position - that you do not want me to touch you at all. Everyone comes down on you for not being willing to compromise, so eventually you agree to let me punch you in the mouth once again. We met in the middle, which was very reasonable of you.

Once that is done, I say that I want to punch you in the mouth five times. You once again take an extreme position that I should not be able to touch you. Now, everyone is coming down on you not only for your heated rhetoric about not wanting you to be touched, but is also saying that you just agreed to be punched in the mouth last time, and that did not do anyting to placate me, so you have to let me do more. We compromise again, and this time I get to kick you in the nuts.

While you are still doubled over, I say that I want to kick you in the nuts twice now, and the bystanders once again encourage you to compromise. By this point, you might be starting to feel like all your compromising is not doing you any good.

Since I get to play the game over and over, there is no compromise that really does anything for you. In any "normal" negotiation, once the negotiation ends, the issue is settled. When it comes to gun control, agreeing to any more than we have already agreed to is very difficult for those of us who think there is way too much already, particularly since agreeing to more does not make the other side stop proposing more, a portion of which we are expected to agree to as a compromise.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[downwardspiral 0]

That's a funny analogy. Thanks.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I used "extreme" for lack of a better word. What I meant was the NRA's desire to stop gun control is equally proportional to the gun control advocates' desire to control guns.

I understand what you are now saying. However, I still don't agree with it. The NRA is not against *all* gun control. In fact, they have been in favor of many things, and helped them to be passed in Congress. And they've made numerous compromises with the anti-gun lobby. However, the media never tells the public any of this, so to the general public, there are just a bunch of bull-headed extremists. That characterization though, is untrue. It comes about only because the media can't stand to say anything nice about the NRA. The anti-gun organizations, on the other hand, get nothing but positive press, and it is never pointed out how they lie, distort statistics, and propose stupid ideas.

Quote

I am simply trying to play devil's advocate so I can have a better understanding of the debate. Is that reasonable?

I am all in favor of people asking questions, in order to learn, and to provide the opportunity for others to respond with that information.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The NRA is more or less a gun control group that wants less gun control than is currently fashionable. They are therefore considered extreme. However, it is important to remember that they are indeed an "anti-gun" group to some extent when you evaluate the debate. That the NRA is considered by some a pro-gun extremist organization boggles my mind.

That was a little challenging to follow along with - I had to read it twice! But I agree.

The anti-gun folks tend to be so far left on the scale that they're about to fall off the end. So from their perspective, anyone in the middle of the scale looks like a far right-wing extremist.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the belief by the NRA was that by conceding major new gun laws, those who wished additional gun controls would just give up. It turns out that this has not been the case - many gun control groups openly follow a strategy of "incrementalism," trying to add additional laws a few at a time with the ultimate goal of eradication.

That was a great analogy on how "compromise" with the anti-gun forces works.

We've compromised so much there are now 20,000
gun laws on the books, and they still want ever more!

And yet despite all of those laws, gun crime continues to happen, and the laws have no effect upon the criminals.

So do the anti-gun forces throw up their hands in defeat and say; "Well shucks, I guess we've been going about this all wrong, and we should just revoke all those laws we passed and try something else."

Oh no, they never do that. Instead the response is something like this; "Well, all this proves is that we still haven't done enough with legislation. We need still more laws!"

They can no longer see the forest for the trees. They're so hell-bent on banning guns, that they can't think of anything else. Logic be damned. Do they spend their money on gun safety education or public safety messages? Rarely.

But look at how successfull the public education programs have been over the last decade for wearing of seat belts, and to stop smoking. They work. But the anti-gun folks don't get that message - they just want to ban guns.

They will not stop until all of our privately owned guns are gone.

[downwardspiral 0]

Ok please continue....what gun control laws are supported by the NRA and why?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Guest]

AGH!

You are of course correct - it was Nitrogen Tri-Iodide!

However, the process for making Fulminate of Mercury, though dangerous, is not out of reach of the kitchen-sink chemist. Witness the Methamphetamine scourge...

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So thats what an AK-47 sounds like when they shoot it at you.....I always wanted to know.

"The AK 47 is the choice firearm of our enemy. It has a distinct sound when fired at you in anger"

- Heartbreak Ridge




[yeah, I know, the quote's not perfect but it gets the point across]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

AGH!

You are of course correct - it was Nitrogen Tri-Iodide!

However, the process for making Fulminate of Mercury, though dangerous, is not out of reach of the kitchen-sink chemist. Witness the Methamphetamine scourge...

mh

Maybe, I wouldn't do it in my kitchen though!
I used to do all sorts of dangerous stuff as a kid. Now I skydive instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jkm2500 0]

Brother you have no idea how disticnt that sound is. Other distinct sounds that I now have ability to describe are RPGs(yes it was fired at me). It hit about 25-35 feet from me while sleeping. Imagine waking up to that....WHAT THE FU#& WAS THAT??!!! Other fun things that go bump in the night are mortars, land mines, and IED's. And yes I have experienced all of those. Sound like fun? see your local Army Recruiter. All expenses paid vacation to Iraq, for a whole year. Bring your sunscreen and IBAS. It is fun for all.

josh

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[JohnRich 4]

Here is a story which demonstrates how ridiculous some of the gun-control proposals can be, and how far some anti-gun people will go to abuse their power:

Consumer Product Safety Commission Drops Frivolous Complaint Against Daisy

On November 14,2003, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted 2-1 to settle an administrative proceeding against the Daisy Manufacturing Co., ending a frivolous complaint brought in 2001 with the support of then-CPSC Commissioner Ann Brown, and current Commissioner Thomas Hill Moore, both Clinton appointees.

The incident that led to the complaint is one in which a 16-year-old boy pumped a Daisy to maximum pressure, closed the bolt and, at close range, intentionally pulled the trigger while aiming the muzzle at a friend's head. Most people would say that the shooter, not the gun, was at fault, but not Brown, who alleged the Daisy air gun to be "a very dangerous product that kills and maims children."

CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton, recently appointed to the post by President George W Bush, and CPSC Vice-Chairman Mary Sheila Gall, first appointed by President George H.W. Bush, cast the two votes ending the case against Daisy. To say that they found the case short on theory and fact is to put it mildly.

Stratton noted, "On four separate occasions, the Commission has been asked to regulate air guns. Throughout its 30-year history, the Commission... has never found that air rifles, or any model of air rifle, constitute a substantial product hazard."

Gall, who had cast the lone vote against the complaint in 2001, wrote that the case against Daisy "should never have been brought. The Commission's actions have done serious and unjustified damage to the reputation and business prospects of a company whose product represents no substantial product hazard." She added, "An injury will occur only if the shooter points the gun at another person at close range and pulls the trigger, an action violating every known rule of shooting safety and common sense."

Source: "American Rifleman", Jan. 2004

[quade 4]

On the flip side . . .

How freekin' difficult would it be to put in a pressure relief valve so to limit the amount of pressure possible?

Not very.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

How freekin' difficult would it be to put in a pressure relief valve so to limit the amount of pressure possible?

Good idea.

While you're at it, why not coat all of the roads in styrofoam peanuts? Roads are hard after all, someone could fall and skin a knee.

Why not dull the point on every pair of scissors? Wouidn't want someone getting hurt there.

Maybe we could set it up so that all cars had a top speed of one mile per hour. Wouldn't want anyone getting hurt in a car accident.

Pressure relief valve? Give me a break.

You know what I find even more disgusting than your suggestion of a pressure relief valve? Good, I'll tell you. What I find even more disgusting is that 30 years ago, when _I_ was growing up, this wouldn't have been an issue. We would have mourned the loss of life, told the kid who pulled the trigger what a stupid fuck he really is, and moved on.

This politically correct, non-personal responsibility taking society we seem to enjoy these days is getting absurd.

This isn't about product safety, again, it's about our unwillingness to accept responsibility for our actions.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

So then I take it you're against seat belt laws too? (No fuckin' assholes are going to tell me I have to buckle my kids in damn it!) Get real.

The product was designed for kids. It only makes sense to limit it's lethality. You probably can't make it fool proof, because kids will find a way to make anything lethal, but it's pretty simple to limit its muzzle velocity to something a little more reasonable.

Oh wait, what am I thinking? Doing something like this means that eventually all personal ownership of guns might cease.

I'm sorry. My bad.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

So then I take it you're against seat belt laws too? (No fuckin' assholes are going to tell me I have to buckle my kids in damn it!) Get real.

Absolutely, I am. However, let it be known that I wear my seatbelt every time I'm in a car and when I'm the driver I insist on seatbelts for all of my passengers. It's impossible to legislate common sense, don't you think?

Quote

The product was designed for kids. It only makes sense to limit it's lethality. You probably can't make it fool proof, because kids will find a way to make anything lethal, but it's pretty simple to limit its muzzle velocity to something a little more reasonable.

More reasonable how? Had the kid been shot from 10 feet he'd likely be fine. However, he was shot at point blank range, in the head. Why are you blaming the gun when clearly the kids (BOTH of them), and the parents are the ones at fault?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

Quote

Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad

America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.

But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them; it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-7.html

Anyone have a gun for sale?

Edited to add: Check out the rest of the myths. Its actually very interesting.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-1.html

Well, Arizona has a concealed carry law, but you dont need it since you can strap on a handgun and walk around in public with it without one. Long as its showing.

The crime rate here??? Unbelievably low. Guess that proves how well gun control works (sarcasm).