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

[JayHawk]

Kulindhar I often do find your defense of firearms both interesting and sometimes amusing. I stand by it as well.

Cowboy you brushed off the use of an automobile in a room full of kids as a accident BUT you fail to realize or acknowledge that vehicles can be and have been used as weapons.

I think if all the folks in here ACTUALLY believed in the sanctity of human life and senseless deaths should be avoided then they will immediately form a lobby to outlaw the car. AT 37 thousand traffic deaths just in 2009 alone it is obviously the major issue here. That eclipses the 30 gun deaths reported in another thread. It is also down from 47 thousand deaths annually in 1990.

So as a mass killer it is obviously much more severe. People often choose to do irresponsible things with cars. Some people leave their keys out and young children get in the car and go for rides most often ending in accidents. People imbibe too much alcohol and then take the Russian roulette version of living by driving at 60 or 80 on the highway. In our inner cities where cars are everywhere and the car violence is at it's apex officials have taken the odd measure of providing subways, busses and streetcars to reduce the use of cars. The federal government last year has a buy back of older cars to try and get cars off our streets.

Please join me in this cause... cars are killers. Not people.

 

[CowboyBob]

Kulindhar I often do find your defense of firearms both interesting and sometimes amusing. I stand by it as well.

Cowboy you brushed off the use of an automobile in a room full of kids as a accident BUT you fail to realize or acknowledge that vehicles can be and have been used as weapons.

I think if all the folks in here ACTUALLY believed in the sanctity of human life and senseless deaths should be avoided then they will immediately form a lobby to outlaw the car. AT 37 thousand traffic deaths just in 2009 alone it is obviously the major issue here. That eclipses the 30 gun deaths reported in another thread. It is also down from 47 thousand deaths annually in 1990.

So as a mass killer it is obviously much more severe. People often choose to do irresponsible things with cars. Some people leave their keys out and young children get in the car and go for rides most often ending in accidents. People imbibe too much alcohol and then take the Russian roulette version of living by driving at 60 or 80 on the highway. In our inner cities where cars are everywhere and the car violence is at it's apex officials have taken the odd measure of providing subways, busses and streetcars to reduce the use of cars. The federal government last year has a buy back of older cars to try and get cars off our streets.

Please join me in this cause... cars are killers. Not people.

This is a silly argument. A car as a weapon? Sure it's been done but how does that compare to the gun violence in the country? Did he drive a car into the movie theater? Did he drive a car at Virginia Tech? How about Columbine? Did those little Amish girls get run over by a car?

How about these people?

A glance at US mass shootings in recent years | syracuse.com

The "Let's ban cars, pillows, knives, bath tubs, kitchen floors, basement stairs" argument is bogus. You know as well as I a loaded assault rifle is a killing machine. Carrying a gun kills efficiently & quickly and the murderer doesn't even have to look his victim in the eye. No one is saying to ban guns or take them away..... enact laws that restrict the sale of these devices. Magazines that allow 30 + rounds need to be restricted.

The gun apologists will never acknowledge the real problem..... too many guns are out there in the hands of too many people. The NRA has blood on their hands. Guns are adult toys and they don't want anyone to tell them what to do with their toys. If you need protection then get better locks on your doors.

 

[MystikWizard]

This really needs to be a campaign issue, but I doubt it will be. This seems to be something that neither side will touch.

 

[bankside]

I don't see the problem. Is everyone supposed to suddenly do something differently because of some nutcase flinging lead around?

Yes.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Rolyo85]

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.

I'm sorry, but the only word that describes that is "bullshit". You can use that argument for defending "traditional marriage" as well. Hell, chances are hate groups that fight against my right to marry are less of a threat to me than a random drunk redneck with a rifle.

And to your absurdly insensitive comment -was everyone supposed to suddenly do something differently because of some nutcases smashing planes in buildings?

 

[Kulindahr]

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).

To get a firearm that can fire "more than one bullet at a time" requires a heck of a lot more government paperwork than having a car -- as I've said, a guy who has such a license considers the process of getting one about as pleasant as getting a "hostile enema".

I would have no problem with laws against shooting drunk -- or even having a loaded weapon when drunk. The right to keep and bear arms is aimed at enhancing the security of a free country, and being armed while drink doesn't enhance security in the least.

Compared to the number of firearms, the number of times that a firearm is deliberately used against people is vanishingly small. Even compared to the number of times firearms are fired, the number is vanishingly small.

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.


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.

LOL I don't think you really read what I wrote. I am TOTALLY convinced, because I can't wrap my mind around the idea of using a firearm against a person who has not attacked me. That confidence comes from psychiatrists who have assured me that I am safer with a firearm than a random gun owner off the street, for the very reason that I can't wrap my mind around using a firearm to commit aggression. If I were offered a billion dollars to shoot someone I can't stand, I would stare blankly at the person making that offer, because the concept doesn't make sense to me. That's not what firearms are for.

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.

That statistic is a lie. If it were true, then there would be hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of accidental misuse or suicide every year in the U.S. And me having a gun makes the chance of someone murdering me less, not higher.

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.

You're just making crap up now -- or not actually reading my posts, just mining them for things you can spin.

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.

It's not my opinion of Bloomberg, it's the opinion of the US Department of Justice and several states, most notably Virginia (the officials of which couldn't understand why a mayor in another state would be spending his law enforcement budget on interfering with investigations in another state and were understandably rather pissed).

The NRA qualifies as a National Victims Association. They're the driving force behind severe penalties for the misuse of firearms, for compensatory damages imposed to aid victims, for training in firearm safety.

OTOH, today's liberals are a National Victims Association, in that they fight to make everyone a potential victim, to empower the criminal while making people just targets.

 

[Kulindahr]

The gun apologists will never acknowledge the real problem..... too many guns are out there in the hands of too many people. The NRA has blood on their hands. Guns are adult toys and they don't want anyone to tell them what to do with their toys. If you need protection then get better locks on your doors.

No. The problem is that there are crazies out there. Turning everyone into potential targets for the killers isn't a solution.

We need gun safety education in the schools. We need gun training in the schools. We need a national "Project Exile". We do not need the government telling people to act like sheep and hide.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes.
.
.
.
.
.
.

So if someone spills coffee and gets scalded, is everyone supposed to cancel their plans to get together with friends for coffee? If there's a massive pileup on a freeway, is everyone suddenly supposed to stay off the freeways? If a high school kid is killed playing sports, are we all supposed to give up sports for a while -- and cancel the week's pro sports events?

Idiocy.

 

[Rolyo85]

No. The problem is that there are crazies out there. Turning everyone into potential targets for the killers isn't a solution.

We need gun safety education in the schools. We need gun training in the schools. We need a national "Project Exile". We do not need the government telling people to act like sheep and hide.

This is an absurd argument. If you have a rabid dog in the back yard, you don't teach your kids how to wear protective gear and avoid the back yard. You put it down. Freely available guns are the problem, not how people deal with them. It's in people's nature to be destructive. All of society is designed to prevent us acting out our nature. Introducing an element that enables us in our destructive drives is crazy and you don't need to find ways to deal with the introduced element, you simply need to get rid of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry, but the only word that describes that is "bullshit". You can use that argument for defending "traditional marriage" as well. Hell, chances are hate groups that fight against my right to marry are less of a threat to me than a random drunk redneck with a rifle.

Huh? It would be an argument against "traditional marriage": everyone gets to choose the form of marriage he/she prefers.

And random drunk rednecks with rifles are rarely a danger to people -- but they're frequently and notoriously aggressive toward road signs. And recently in this area one was a danger to mailbox flags stood up to indicate mail waiting to be picked up.

And to your absurdly insensitive comment -was everyone supposed to suddenly do something differently because of some nutcases smashing planes in buildings?

No, they weren't. They were to continue to go to work, to proceed with their weekend plans, Should pilots have all of a sudden refused to fly, because some people misused planes? That would have gone over well....

 

[Kulindahr]

This is an absurd argument. If you have a rabid dog in the back yard, you don't teach your kids how to wear protective gear and avoid the back yard. You put it down. Freely available guns are the problem, not how people deal with them. It's in people's nature to be destructive. All of society is designed to prevent us acting out our nature. Introducing an element that enables us in our destructive drives is crazy and you don't need to find ways to deal with the introduced element, you simply need to get rid of it.

Firearms are not rabid dogs -- they're objects. No firearm will ever be caught jumping up and attacking someone.

The rabid dogs are the people who do these things -- they're what should be put down.

There's no "introducing" involved -- the tool is here. It's rarely used for mayhem, mostly used for sport. But it's often used to protect against mayhem, and for that reason alone everyone should have one: if the criminals know someone is going to dispute their actions, they're far less likely to engage in them.

All technology "enables us in our destructive drives". By your argument, we should get rid of everything anyone has ever used to be destructive -- all explosives, and automobiles, for starters; then all sharp objects, and so on.

 

[CowboyBob]

As expected, the gun fuckers are using the terrible Aurora tragedy as an argument for even looser gun laws:

Aurora massacre 'an argument for more guns' says lobbyist - Americas - World - The Independent

Yeah, that's it..... put even more assault weapons into the hands of more people. Everyone should be packin' heat.

This man-child fondly yearns for the old Wild West days.

Asshole.

 

[Rolyo85]

Firearms are not rabid dogs -- they're objects. No firearm will ever be caught jumping up and attacking someone.

The rabid dogs are the people who do these things -- they're what should be put down.

There's no "introducing" involved -- the tool is here. It's rarely used for mayhem, mostly used for sport. But it's often used to protect against mayhem, and for that reason alone everyone should have one: if the criminals know someone is going to dispute their actions, they're far less likely to engage in them.

All technology "enables us in our destructive drives". By your argument, we should get rid of everything anyone has ever used to be destructive -- all explosives, and automobiles, for starters; then all sharp objects, and so on.

Don't turn this into a "by your logic" turbosimplified argument. Guns aren't rabid dogs, but people with guns whose job does not require them to have guns are rabid dogs waiting to happen.

I repeat my key argument. People are idiots. Aggressive idiots. "Guns are rarely used for mayhem" is a lie. They are constantly used for mayhem, it's just that most of the time that only happens in people's heads. And do you know when guns are even more rarely used for mayhem? When they aren't available.

Give someone a knife and he might knife someone. Give him a club and he might club someone. But that's all personal - you have to go to the other person, face to face (or face to back, but it's still a close contact) and do the deed. That puts all sorts of psychological blocks to doing it. Guess how many of those apply when you just have to pull a trigger from a distance.


Kuli - guns are NOT a useful tool in everyday life. Explosives aren't either which is why we don't walk around strapped with them. Cars are made to move us from one point to another. The fact that they are large machines capable of maiming and killing is an accidental part of their function and how they fulfill it, not the GOAL of their creation. Sharp objects are 90% tools, and not weapons.

You have zero argument as to why Europe has lower crime rate with so much stricter gun control. Every time I've confronted you on this, you've avoided, deflected or simply denied that gun deaths are in any way related to guns. On this subject you are completely irrational and Benvolio-like. Sorry to say it but it's true.

 

[Kulindahr]

As expected, the gun fuckers are using the terrible Aurora tragedy as an argument for even looser gun laws:

Aurora massacre 'an argument for more guns' says lobbyist - Americas - World - The Independent

Yeah, that's it..... put even more assault weapons into the hands of more people. Everyone should be packin' heat.

This man-child fondly yearns for the old Wild West days.

Asshole.

Only one thing needs to be changed: eliminate no-gun zones so the barbarians aren't being invited in the kill helpless victims.

We ought to yearn for the Old West days -- they were more polite and more civilized and less violent.

 

[bankside]

So if someone spills coffee and gets scalded, is everyone supposed to cancel their plans to get together with friends for coffee? If there's a massive pileup on a freeway, is everyone suddenly supposed to stay off the freeways? If a high school kid is killed playing sports, are we all supposed to give up sports for a while -- and cancel the week's pro sports events?

Idiocy.

Well it would have been impolite for me to say, but if you're going to describe your own inapplicable, off-base comparisons that way....

 

[bankside]

There is no question in my mind that disarmament and the general unavailability of this kind of weaponry would have prevented deaths. A theatre of armed patrons, confused, in the dark, taken by surprise by someone with body armour, would not have saved one life. Our security, and our personal safety, by which i mean mine and yours, depends on getting over this "every man and his gun for themselves" falsehood, and realising that security lies in disarmament and other kinds of collective action. We are all in this together.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't turn this into a "by your logic" turbosimplified argument. Guns aren't rabid dogs, but people with guns whose job does not require them to have guns are rabid dogs waiting to happen.

Only in cowardly fantasies. If that's true, the rate is on par with the decay of the neutron, by the evidence.

I repeat my key argument. People are idiots. Aggressive idiots. "Guns are rarely used for mayhem" is a lie. They are constantly used for mayhem, it's just that most of the time that only happens in people's heads. And do you know when guns are even more rarely used for mayhem? When they aren't available.

More guns in the US than people... if they were "constantly used for mayhem", there wouldn't be anyone left alive.

The evidence is against you. For thirty years the US states have been making more guns more readily available and allowing more people to carry and use them in more and more places... and gun violence has dropped. If your arguments were true, there wouldn't be an empty hospital bed in the country; they'd all be full of firearms victims.

Give someone a knife and he might knife someone. Give him a club and he might club someone. But that's all personal - you have to go to the other person, face to face (or face to back, but it's still a close contact) and do the deed. That puts all sorts of psychological blocks to doing it. Guess how many of those apply when you just have to pull a trigger from a distance.

For most people, to shoot someone requires being face to face and very close. Except for those who practice regularly, hitting a circle a foot across from twenty feet isn't that easily done on a dependable basis.

Kuli - guns are NOT a useful tool in everyday life. Explosives aren't either which is why we don't walk around strapped with them. Cars are made to move us from one point to another. The fact that they are large machines capable of maiming and killing is an accidental part of their function and how they fulfill it, not the GOAL of their creation. Sharp objects are 90% tools, and not weapons.

Yes, they are. Just because you don't bother to make use of them doesn't change that. They deter crime on an hourly basis, they defend livestock, they provide enjoyment.

That they can kill or maim isn't their purpose -- it's just what people made nervous by them claim. Hardly any firearms in the US are bought in order to kill or maim. Hardly any are manufactured with the intent they be used to kill or maim.

You have zero argument as to why Europe has lower crime rate with so much stricter gun control. Every time I've confronted you on this, you've avoided, deflected or simply denied that gun deaths are in any way related to guns. On this subject you are completely irrational and Benvolio-like. Sorry to say it but it's true.

Gun deaths are only peripherally related to gun deaths -- US experience proves that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well it would have been impolite for me to say, but if you're going to describe your own inapplicable, off-base comparisons that way....

You're maintaining that people should abandon their weekend plans because some wacko shot some people.

If that were the custom, terrorists could mess this country up so easily, just by paralyzing it with some shootings.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no question in my mind that disarmament and the general unavailability of this kind of weaponry would have prevented deaths. A theatre of armed patrons, confused, in the dark, taken by surprise by someone with body armour, would not have saved one life. Our security, and our personal safety, by which i mean mine and yours, depends on getting over this "every man and his gun for themselves" falsehood, and realising that security lies in disarmament and other kinds of collective action. We are all in this together.

Stop spreading the "every man and his gun for themselves (sic)" falsehood.

And tell the Jews of Warsaw that disarmament leads to security.

 

[Lostlover]

As expected, the gun fuckers are using the terrible Aurora tragedy as an argument for even looser gun laws:

Aurora massacre 'an argument for more guns' says lobbyist - Americas - World - The Independent

Yeah, that's it..... put even more assault weapons into the hands of more people. Everyone should be packin' heat.

This man-child fondly yearns for the old Wild West days.

Asshole.

They're assholes. Sub-human, for sure.

They're destroying this country with their games.