NRA Tweet This Morning: "Good Morning, Shooters. Happy Friday! Weekend Plans?"

[Kulindahr]

Good for you for quitting smoking! I'm proud of you.

But Peaches, Kuli is wrong in his beliefs. He may think I'm wrong but the big difference between us is that I don't call him ignorant for his beliefs. Wrong, but not stupid.

I call ignorance when it appears.

Using the term "assault weapon" is ignorant, because it's a term with no objective meaning.
Assigning ordinary rifles the label "WMD" is ignorant (and an insult to real WMDs -- kinda like calling a grizzly bear a "rodent").
Calling for laws to stop mass shootings is ignorant; there are none imaginable which would do so.

But there's a not bad idea mentioned here that could be implemented in a way that could have stopped this and the madman who shot Rep. Giffords: require all colleges to administer an MMPI to all students on a regular basis. Even the raw scores can indicate who ought to get the live interview assessment. Odds are good we could have caught both the Arizona loonie and this one.

 

[White Eagle]

I've said this before and it would not hurt to mention it again. It's the parents fault for not giving their children the facts about guns. What they do and can't do.
My brother a deputy sheriff would come home and hang his gun and holster on the kitchen chair. His 6 yo knew about guns. He was taught how to shoot as early as that. The boy never tried to take the gun and do whatever with it. He now has 4 boys of his own and I'll bet they all know how to handle guns.

 

[Rolyo85]

This is ridiculous. Guns are not safe sex. Guns are power. Knowing how to use a condom makes you make the right choice. Knowing guns are dangerous and how to handle them only gives you knowledge. How you use it is ENTIRELY up to your personality and the amount of damage you have it in you to cause others.

Kuli - every weapon designed to kill people (which is, let's face it, most forms of guns) is an "assault weapon" when it's used for assaulting. I doubt CB was talking about categories here.

 

[Lostlover]

You're citing a man who has been rebuked and threatened with prosecution by the US Department of Justice for blatantly disregarding the law and interfering in ongoing investigations? who was also rebuked by neighboring jurisdictions for illegally interfering with law enforcement operations within their jurisdictions?

And also a man that has seen crime rates in NY drop because of his policies which include restricting gun accessibility.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've said this before and it would not hurt to mention it again. It's the parents fault for not giving their children the facts about guns. What they do and can't do.
My brother a deputy sheriff would come home and hang his gun and holster on the kitchen chair. His 6 yo knew about guns. He was taught how to shoot as early as that. The boy never tried to take the gun and do whatever with it. He now has 4 boys of his own and I'll bet they all know how to handle guns.

This is true: the gun-safest households are those where kids are taught the whole deal about them.

But too many parents today don't want to be bothered to teach anything. That's why we in Oregon see little kids falling out of windows on better than a monthly basis -- even though it's happened before, parents don't bother to teach their kids (or child-proof their windows). It's why kids as old as ten still end up in the hospital die to swallowing small toys.

In an educated household, a .45 magnum hanging on the bed in a holster is perfectly safe. In an uneducated household, nothing at all is safe.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is ridiculous. Guns are not safe sex. Guns are power. Knowing how to use a condom makes you make the right choice. Knowing guns are dangerous and how to handle them only gives you knowledge. How you use it is ENTIRELY up to your personality and the amount of damage you have it in you to cause others.

Kuli - every weapon designed to kill people (which is, let's face it, most forms of guns) is an "assault weapon" when it's used for assaulting. I doubt CB was talking about categories here.

He's using a political term deliberately intended to be emotionally loaded so as to skew the debate.

BTW, I own seven rifles, and only one was designed to kill people. It's record at that is poor -- but it's brought down a few deer.

 

[Stardreamer]

Only to the cowardly.

I've lived in places where every household has a gun, where kids went out shooting on their own. There was no paranoia, and the only violence was at bars on Friday nights -- places where there were no firearms.

The only places I've lived where there's been any paranoia have been places where firearms are restricted, and the only paranoia was from those who didn't like them.

It's all part of a nation of cowards (cf Jeffrey Snyder).

According to some of the history I've read, the so called 'Wild West' was some of the safest, most peaceful towns with rates of per capita gun violence that was tiny compared to even the most gun restricted city of today. The 'gun fighters' and 'gun fights' glorified by the writers of the time were the very rare exception not the norm.

Another interesting contrast is the places that are safest (crime wise) in modern societies were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You could safely walk the streets at night and leave your doors unlocked in Berlin and Moscow.

 

[Stardreamer]

This is ridiculous. Guns are not safe sex. Guns are power. Knowing how to use a condom makes you make the right choice. Knowing guns are dangerous and how to handle them only gives you knowledge. How you use it is ENTIRELY up to your personality and the amount of damage you have it in you to cause others.

Kuli - every weapon designed to kill people (which is, let's face it, most forms of guns) is an "assault weapon" when it's used for assaulting. I doubt CB was talking about categories here.

LOTS of people know how to use a condom and practice unsafe sex anyway. Flawed analogy. Though it does lead into your point, there are people who will know how to use guns properly and abuse them anyway. The problem is those types of people will do so no matter how much you regulate firearms. Ensuring more people understand gun safety will reduce accidents and improper use by those who do not intend to abuse.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

Truly, he seems to have left quite an impressive bomb in his apartment, if he didn't have the firearms for his rampage, he could just as easily blown up the theater with an even higher casualty rate.

Takes time to set up a complicated booby trap bomb, time isn't on your side when you want quick results without getting caught. You can make a bomb and bring it with you but the results sometimes fail like the first world trade center, but not in OK city.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

He's using a political term deliberately intended to be emotionally loaded so as to skew the debate.

BTW, I own seven rifles, and only one was designed to kill people. It's record at that is poor -- but it's brought down a few deer.

I am pro gun and realize these events and crime will occur with more law and less guns to legal citizens or not. But hell Kuli I could off you with a butter knife . Any gun can kill you if you are shot with it, including a b-b gun.

 

[CowboyBob]

This is ridiculous. Guns are not safe sex. Guns are power. Knowing how to use a condom makes you make the right choice. Knowing guns are dangerous and how to handle them only gives you knowledge. How you use it is ENTIRELY up to your personality and the amount of damage you have it in you to cause others.

Kuli - every weapon designed to kill people (which is, let's face it, most forms of guns) is an "assault weapon" when it's used for assaulting. I doubt CB was talking about categories here.

It doesn't matter to those who love guns. No matter what you say or do, no matter how much you try to reason with them they'll always defend guns. Easy access to them enables those who shouldn't own them to get them. It makes killing easy, quick and efficient.

 

[Telstra]

According to some of the history I've read, the so called 'Wild West' was some of the safest, most peaceful towns with rates of per capita gun violence that was tiny compared to even the most gun restricted city of today. The 'gun fighters' and 'gun fights' glorified by the writers of the time were the very rare exception not the norm.

Another interesting contrast is the places that are safest (crime wise) in modern societies were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You could safely walk the streets at night and leave your doors unlocked in Berlin and Moscow.

ummm you can also say the Safest place is in Saudi Arabia.
Would you like to live under these systems (Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) ?

Under these systems, some people were deleted forever without any fuss.

 

[Stardreamer]

ummm you can also say the Safest place is in Saudi Arabia.
Would you like to live under these systems (Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) ?

Under these systems, some people were deleted forever without any fuss.

My point exactly

 

[Rolyo85]

Am I the only one who notices that the "safe" factor came from heavy police presence, not any inherent "evilness" of the regime. Less guns in the hands of random idiots = less accidental deaths cause by random idiots. A random idiot with a gun rarely stands a chance against a criminal bent on actually killing him ANYWAY.

 

[levenshulme31]

I call ignorance when it appears.

Using the term "assault weapon" is ignorant, because it's a term with no objective meaning.
Assigning ordinary rifles the label "WMD" is ignorant (and an insult to real WMDs -- kinda like calling a grizzly bear a "rodent").
Calling for laws to stop mass shootings is ignorant; there are none imaginable which would do so.

That is just semantics. You know full well what are commonly referred to as assault weapons - multi-shot rifles with large capacity magazines capable of firing a large number of bullets in a short amount of time. You can call them fluffy cuddle sticks if it makes you feel better. It will not alter the fact that it is still a device designed and produced as a weapon which will allow the user to kill or injure a large number of people in a very short space of time. The fact that most of them are used for target shooting is irrelevent. I'm sure they make lovely paperweights or bookends too but they are still dangerous lethal weapons.

But there's a not bad idea mentioned here that could be implemented in a way that could have stopped this and the madman who shot Rep. Giffords: require all colleges to administer an MMPI to all students on a regular basis. Even the raw scores can indicate who ought to get the live interview assessment. Odds are good we could have caught both the Arizona loonie and this one.

Interesting that you use the word loony to describe these particular killers. I assume you believe that they have some form of mental illness - which was instrumental in their murderous actions, i.e. they were not fully in control of their senses when they carried out their attacks. You also feel that these mental health issues should have been detected and therefore these people should not have been allowed to legally own the weapons they used for their attacks. In a thread on healthcare some months ago you stated that you take medication for bi-polar disorder. I know, statistically it is rare for bi-polar disorder to cause violent episodes and that bi-polar people are more likely to harm themselves than others, but it could happen. Would you pass the MMPI test? Are you fit to hold your weapons?

Almost 1 in 2 Americans own a firearm. 1 in 4 people will suffer mental health problems during their lifetime. I'm sure far more than that will get drunk or high or just red-mist-angry at some point in their lives. All of these scenarios could lead to violence. Possession of guns added to the mix means far more death or serious injury could be the outcome.

Also

Great dodge. Changing the subject is always a good ploy.

<not>

followed by

Michael Bloomberg (May 2012): "The gun lobby is writing our nation's gun laws."

You're citing a man who has been rebuked and threatened with prosecution by the US Department of Justice for blatantly disregarding the law and interfering in ongoing investigations? who was also rebuked by neighboring jurisdictions for illegally interfering with law enforcement operations within their jurisdictions?

Don't you see how you did exaclty the same thing there? How does Bloomberg's conduct in any way alter the meaning of his statement regarding the gun lobby's influence over gun laws?

 

[Kulindahr]

I am pro gun and realize these events and crime will occur with more law and less guns to legal citizens or not. But hell Kuli I could off you with a butter knife . Any gun can kill you if you are shot with it, including a b-b gun.

As can cars, nail guns, hammers, screw drivers, knitting needles, etc. ad nauseum.

"There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon -- there are only dangerous men."

 

[Kulindahr]

It doesn't matter to those who love guns. No matter what you say or do, no matter how much you try to reason with them they'll always defend guns.

It's called defending human dignity. The man who is denied the choice of the means he prefers to defend himself has been decreed to be of no value.

 

[Kulindahr]

Am I the only one who notices that the "safe" factor came from heavy police presence, not any inherent "evilness" of the regime. Less guns in the hands of random idiots = less accidental deaths cause by random idiots. A random idiot with a gun rarely stands a chance against a criminal bent on actually killing him ANYWAY.

That's why gun safety and skills should be taught starting in first grade.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is just semantics. You know full well what are commonly referred to as assault weapons - multi-shot rifles with large capacity magazines capable of firing a large number of bullets in a short amount of time. You can call them fluffy cuddle sticks if it makes you feel better. It will not alter the fact that it is still a device designed and produced as a weapon which will allow the user to kill or injure a large number of people in a very short space of time. The fact that most of them are used for target shooting is irrelevent. I'm sure they make lovely paperweights or bookends too but they are still dangerous lethal weapons.

Cars, fertilizer, gas station chemicals... alsp capable of killing or injuring a large number of people in a short period of time.

But an "assault weapon" is no faster than any other kind -- the speed is entirely dependent on the user's trigger finger.

Interesting that you use the word loony to describe these particular killers. I assume you believe that they have some form of mental illness - which was instrumental in their murderous actions, i.e. they were not fully in control of their senses when they carried out their attacks. You also feel that these mental health issues should have been detected and therefore these people should not have been allowed to legally own the weapons they used for their attacks. In a thread on healthcare some months ago you stated that you take medication for bi-polar disorder. I know, statistically it is rare for bi-polar disorder to cause violent episodes and that bi-polar people are more likely to harm themselves than others, but it could happen. Would you pass the MMPI test? Are you fit to hold your weapons?

I do so with regularity. One psychiatrist called me safer with firearms than any random gun owner off the street.

See, what I know is that guns are not for the initiation of force -- they are for stopping those who initiate force. I can't wrap my mind around initiating force with one. I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around using mine to defend just myself.

Almost 1 in 2 Americans own a firearm. 1 in 4 people will suffer mental health problems during their lifetime. I'm sure far more than that will get drunk or high or just red-mist-angry at some point in their lives. All of these scenarios could lead to violence. Possession of guns added to the mix means far more death or serious injury could be the outcome.

And most mental illness will not render the person dangerous with a firearm -- a good deal of mental illness will make peole afraid of them.

Don't you see how you did exaclty the same thing there? How does Bloomberg's conduct in any way alter the meaning of his statement regarding the gun lobby's influence over gun laws?

I have no faith in someone with no respect for the law to make any claim for anything other than his own self-aggrandizement.

 

[levenshulme31]

Cars, fertilizer, gas station chemicals... alsp capable of killing or injuring a large number of people in a short period of time.

But an "assault weapon" is no faster than any other kind -- the speed is entirely dependent on the user's trigger finger.

Again, none of the potentially lethal things you mention were designed with the PRIMARY PURPOSE OF KILLING THINGS. None of them are sold in places which also sell large numbers of people-shaped targets. I have a large selection of kitchen knives, all of which I could easily kill people with, but they don't have rapid fire and 30 blades each and my chopping board does not have a silhouette of a man on it. Fertiliser isn't sold with a bomb-making recipe (though I bet plenty of NRA members have, know or know where to get the recipe). Yes, cars kill a huge number of people, but the number where a car is deliberately used as a weapon is very small, and there are very strong legal restrictions to prevent people using cars when they are drunk, high, medicated or impaired by mental or physical impairment. You need a government controlled licence and insurance to drive a car, there are traffic lights, stop signs, speed limits etc. Cars have airbags and impact zones to reduce harm, they don't have dumbdumb bumpers or armour piercing steering wheels.

Please can you name a legal, non-military/law enforcement scenario where the need to fire more than a single bullet at a time is an absolute necessity? (Firing a machine gun at shit because firing machine guns at shit is fun doesn't count).

I do so with regularity. One psychiatrist called me safer with firearms than any random gun owner off the street.

You probably are safe than any randon gun owner off the street. You probably never will kill or injure anyone accidentally or deliberately. But what happens if you stop taking your expensive medication or your condition changes. One of the more serious consequences of bi-polar disorder is suicide. Your personal arsenal will make it too easy for you should you feel the need. For your one psychiatrist who thinks you are safe I suspect there would be dozens whose opinion would differ. Are you singularly unique in that you have such an understanding and control of your own mental health that your gun ownership is completely without a higher degree of risk than a non bi-polar gun owner? I admire your confidence. Or is it arrogance. Surely you couldn't possibly be one of the "loonies" you spoke of earlier.

See, what I know is that guns are not for the initiation of force -- they are for stopping those who initiate force. I can't wrap my mind around initiating force with one. I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around using mine to defend just myself.

i.e. you admit that when it comes to guns and their use, you are not 100% convinced of your own rational decision making ability.

And, again, statistically a legally owned gun is more likely to cause an unintended death or injury due to accidental mis-use or suicide than it is to be used to prevent a crime. It also makes the intended killing (i.e. murder) of another person far easier should you or any other legal gun owner be taken by murderous intent.

And most mental illness will not render the person dangerous with a firearm -- a good deal of mental illness will make peole afraid of them.

Which category do you fall into? Are you dangerous with your guns? In which case you probably should not have them. Or are you afraid of them? In which case you probably should not have them. Or do you have that special mental illness which makes you more rational and more in control of your actions, no, wait, I forgot you have already stated this is not the case.

I have no faith in someone with no respect for the law to make any claim for anything other than his own self-aggrandizement.

How does your opinion of Bloomberg have any bearing on this particlar quote? Do you disagree with the notion that the NRA and gun lobby has had a massive influence over gun laws in America over recent decades and that many people see that influence as a negative thing? Until there is a National Victims Association with the same lobbying clout as the NRA, then they will continue to have too much influence.