NRA press conference in response to NewTown massacre

[CosmicCowboy]

Gun control legislation is DOA in Washington. Obama can "dialogue" all he wants between golf games. between Christmas, New Years, Bowl Games, The Fiscal Cliff, the Super Bowl etc. that crazy er in Connecticut will be old news before you know it.

[DMC]

A "state of safety"? Having a CHL and a CH does not create a state of safety. Hopefully, that's not what you're implying.

There's the feeling of being safe, i.e. laying in your bed at night believing your doors are locked, or there's the state of being safe, i.e. locking your doors. CHL holders have the ability to mitigate a situation that develops too quickly for police to be of any help. Feeling that a cell phone is your lifeline to safety might be comfortable, but it's not going to stop at attack. I think that much was obvious from my post. No one is 100% safe, stop talking in absolutes. The CH's purpose is to give the holder the ability to use deadly force if needed to defend his/her life and/or the lives of loved ones.

I carry a spare tire. It doesn't make me feel like I won't be stranded on the side of the road, but it will give me the ability to mitigate the situation of a flat tire. I could just feel safe and not have a spare, or I could have a spare and still be aware that other things can happen (or a combination). I prefer to be as safe as I can.

[LnGrrrR]

There's nothing wrong with commerce, with owning a gun, with buying a gun. There's something wrong with marketing the killing of innocents to kids. That's what a lot of these video games do, they desensitize kids to the concept of taking a life. You don't have to agree, but it's right there for you to check out.

Actually, most of those studies have been disproven when accounting for other factors. Killing people in video games isn't usually like killing a real person; it's merely an obstacle in the way. As video games got more "realistic" they needed more realistic enemies. I don't think kids ever fantasized about killing turtles because they played a lot of Super Mario Brothers. Frankly, I remember playing with army men as a kid, and pretending I was shooting bazookas, guns, etc etc. It's a matter of scale rather than kind.

And in 99% of video games, you're not killing "innocents". GTA is a notable one, but there's not many others that are mainstream. Most usually involve killing "bad guys".

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm looking forward to the sales after everyone restocks. I was almost ready to pull the trigger on a Mossberg 715T before the hit the fan as a ranch beater/plinker but think I will just get Ruger 1022 conversion stuff and build up a killer tactical 1022 with new trigger, barrel, suppressor, etc. and buy a few thousand more rounds of .22 ammo.

[ChumpDumper]

You're being intentionally obtuse here. Your error was to call someone else out as being in error. Your word games don't impress me.

Nor do your weak attempts impress me. I know what was posted and I know what I posted.

If that's true, you should lay out the plan on how these things would work, why they should be implemented, the existing issues with existing procedures and laws, how they should be changed and why. You cannot do any of that because it would cut into your snide remark troll shtick, and into your "give the other poster a task" shtick.

Oh, you want me to actually draft legislation on a message board. Awesome.

That was a childish remark, you feel the need to "nuh uh" every point made.

Yes, you've been so mature this entire time.

All of your responses are "well what about you" known as "tu quoque". You try way to hard to troll to be any good at it.

Not all my responses are, but pointing out your hypocrisy is pretty effective. As you get angrier you try to get fancier with your words, as if that would mask the inanity.

It's obvious who knows what here.

Yes, it's obvious you have no idea what I have said about the actual topic.

For reasons I pointed out.

No, for reasons I pointed out -- that you didn't read.

Because that's what you are.

You've not said anything interesting.

You couldn't tell -- you never read it.

Start a thread, give your take, don't be obtuse and dodgy about it.

These are the threads. If you quit talking about me, maybe someone can discuss the topic.

But you won't. You don't want to surrender the ability to plausibly deny taking any stance you are held to.

I've already stated my stance.

You're the most notorious petty bickering participant here.

You know my stance.

And yet you've done none of what you demanded of me above. More hypocrisy.

And you don't know my stance because you didn't read it. You were too busy with your petty bickering.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Chump, are you for gun control?

If so, how extensive?

[ChumpDumper]

So Chump, are you for gun control?

If so, how extensive?

I'm not in favor of introducing any new gun control legislation. Haven't seen anything that would make much difference.

Thanks for asking.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not in favor of introducing any new gun control legislation. Haven't seen anything that would make much difference.

Thanks for asking.

I agree. I can shoot 10 ten round mags just as fast and accurately as I can 5 twenty round mags. Drop, load, recharge in under 2 seconds. Lots of political bull going nowhere fast.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree. I can shoot 10 ten round mags just as fast and accurately as I can 5 twenty round mags. Drop, load, recharge in under 2 seconds. Lots of political bull going nowhere fast.

And this boys and girls is why if you are going to have some sort of ban the ban needs to include all semiautos.

[DMC]

Actually, most of those studies have been disproven when accounting for other factors. Killing people in video games isn't usually like killing a real person; it's merely an obstacle in the way. As video games got more "realistic" they needed more realistic enemies. I don't think kids ever fantasized about killing turtles because they played a lot of Super Mario Brothers. Frankly, I remember playing with army men as a kid, and pretending I was shooting bazookas, guns, etc etc. It's a matter of scale rather than kind.

And in 99% of video games, you're not killing "innocents". GTA is a notable one, but there's not many others that are mainstream. Most usually involve killing "bad guys".

In many of these games, you absolutely can kill innocents. In CoD there's a point in the single player game where you walk through an airport shooting innocent people.

Regardless, it's as much to blame as "too many guns" is to blame.

The truth is the school shootings are extremely rare. In fact mass shootings are rare. In a country of 300 million, the odds of being in a mass shooting are incredibly low. That doesn't make the families of the victims feel better, but because of the victims themselves, especially kids, we panic and try to apply patches when we don't even know where the blood is coming from.

[DMC]

And this boys and girls is why if you are going to have some sort of ban the ban needs to include all semiautos.

A revolver can be reloaded with a speed reloader in just seconds.

It's not a semi-auto.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree. I can shoot 10 ten round mags just as fast and accurately as I can 5 twenty round mags. Drop, load, recharge in under 2 seconds. Lots of political bull going nowhere fast.

You have to carry more magazines in the latter case though, and you introduce greater possibilities of a shooter making a mistake during a reload.

[ElNono]

What ever happened to reasonable? If the law deems an individual is responsible enough to carry concealed, then what's wrong with trusting them to help protect our kinds?

Sorry, I don't particularly trust any third party. If given the option, I want guns as far away as possible from them. No CHL, no guards. If the tradeoff is that once in a blue moon some crazy goes on a rampage, so be it. As FWD said, there's nothing logical or rational about these people and if they want to hurt people odds simply are that they will.

[CosmicCowboy]

You have to carry more magazines in the latter case though, and you introduce greater possibilities of a shooter making a mistake during a reload.

Seemed to work out fine for the Virginia Tech shooter since he was in a gun free zone. As I remember 19 spare 10 round clips in his backpack. Weights the same. 100 rounds is 100 rounds. Clips don't weigh .

[LnGrrrR]

Seemed to work out fine for the Virginia Tech shooter since he was in a gun free zone. As I remember 19 spare 10 round clips in his backpack.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a surefire way. Just that such legislation would introduce more chances for failure. (Dropping the clip, incorrect insertion, etc etc). The chances are slim, but having to put in two 15 round cartridges takes slightly more time and increases the chance for shooter error than one 30 round cartridge.

[DMC]

You have to carry more magazines in the latter case though, and you introduce greater possibilities of a shooter making a mistake during a reload.

Magazines exist, banning the manufacture of new ones will not change that, it will just make existing ones more expensive, but there are plenty used magazines to be had.

The solution is deterrence. Even those who plan to die afterward will likely not engage if they know they might be shot at. You have to make it an undesirable act, remove the reward of killing numbers of people. There would still be those who walk into a police station and open fire, suicide by cop is better than mass killings.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh, I'm not saying it's a surefire way. Just that such legislation would introduce more chances for failure. (Dropping the clip, incorrect insertion, etc etc). The chances are slim, but having to put in two 15 round cartridges takes slightly more time and increases the chance for shooter error than one 30 round cartridge.

eh...thats a weakass argument and you know it but it's Christmas and I will let you slide. And FWIW ten round clips are the most reliable out there. it's the big clips that consistently have jam problems, even the OEM's. In Nam they would rather tape two 10's back to back than load 20's.

[ChumpDumper]

Seemed to work out fine for the Virginia Tech shooter since he was in a gun free zone.

Conversely, Loughner was disarmed by citizens not using guns after he dropped a clip (one was armed, but arrived after the shooting was over and never drew his gun). And no, I'm not advocating new clip laws -- just saying what happened.

BTW - Biased as the source is, Mother Jones put together an interactive map of all the mass/spree shootings in the US over the last 30 years. Just the facts are sobering stuff.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

[CosmicCowboy]

Conversely, Loughner was disarmed by citizens not using guns after he dropped a clip (one was armed, but arrived after the shooting was over and never drew his gun). And no, I'm not advocating new clip laws -- just saying what happened.

BTW - Biased as the source is, Mother Jones put together an interactive map of all the mass/spree shootings in the US over the last 30 years. Just the facts are sobering stuff.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

Mother Jones should put together a map of people getting hit by lightning...now thats REALLY scary ! Like 150X as many people killed by lightning as mass shootings.

[CosmicCowboy]

Before you ask...we average 54 fatalities a year from lightning strikes. Only about 10% are killed so there are another approximately 450 injured every year.

[ChumpDumper]

Mother Jones should put together a map of people getting hit by lightning...now thats REALLY scary ! Like 150X as many people killed by lightning as mass shootings.

Before you ask...we average 54 fatalities a year from lightning strikes. Only about 10% are killed so there are another approximately 450 injured every year.

We had what, about 60 mass shooting deaths this year? I don't know how many injured. I'm sure the numbers are higher than average for whatever reason.

I don't think lightning strikes or swimming pools are political lightning rods, so to speak. Should they get more attention than they do? Maybe.

[CosmicCowboy]

We had what, about 60 mass shooting deaths this year? I don't know how many injured. I'm sure the numbers are higher than average for whatever reason.

I don't think lightning strikes or swimming pools are political lightning rods, so to speak. Should they get more attention than they do? Maybe.

Agree that statistically this year was much higher than normal. It happens.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A revolver can be reloaded with a speed reloader in just seconds.

It's not a semi-auto.

So you think that a revolver can keep with the rate of fire as a semiauto? Are you implying this?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As for another thing. While the mass shootings are what precipitated this discussion one fact remains is that semiautomatic bans have a significant effect on gun homicides, suicides, accidents and the like.

Australia banned all semiauto and pump/lever action guns in the mid 90s after they had a mass shooting and here is a study on the effects of said ban.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded (table 1).8 In the 10.5 years since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia.

Table 2 shows that gun-related deaths (both in numbers and as a rate per 100 000) had been steadily falling throughout the years before the new gun laws were announced. In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 11 299 firearm deaths (annual average 627.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 2328 firearm deaths, (annual average 332.6). Figure 1G and table 3 indicate that although the rate per 100 000 of total firearm deaths was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this rate doubled to 6% after the introduction of gun laws. The ratio of trend estimates differed statistically from 1 (no effect; p = 0.03). The decline in total firearm deaths thus accelerated after the introduction of the gun laws.

Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total firearm deaths in Australia (more than three in four of all firearm deaths). In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 8850 firearm suicides (annual average 491.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 1726 firearm suicides, an annual average of 246.6. Figure 1E and table 3 indicate that while the rate of firearm suicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this more than doubled to 7.4% per year after the introduction of gun laws.

I would like to make one thing clear: I have been a supporter of liberal gun control policy. In fact I own many firearms myself. However recent issues as well as a mountain of statistical evidence from the rest of the first world after their bans has me rethinking my position.

If it was just an issue of keeping someone from hurting themselves, that is one thing but it's just not the case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

dubby dub