How to frame the gun lobby argument to cut off debate

[arthwollipot]

Two points: was "home defense" a valid reason for not participating in the buyback program, and what are the membership fees of these shooting clubs?

"Self defence" is not considered a valid reason to own a gun. Not sure about the wording of "Home defence". Having never joined a shooting club, I don't know what the membership fee is, sorry.

 

[BStrong]

As for the discussions above:

And:


OK, so we are all ignorant of the finer points between a rifle and a machine gun. That is not the point. The point is, rapid fire, large caliber, high volume magazines and rapid fire weapons allow some shooters to kill too many people too fast.

Framing the argument as, "I used to think ... blah blah blah" suggests that all gun regulations are misguided. Fine, tell us then what one needs to do to slow down a rapid fire murderer in a crowd? And don't tell me a good guy with a gun because there are only rare cases this has ever stopped a mass shooting before the police arrived.

To frame it as we are all ignorant sidesteps the issue, it doesn't address it.

As for the violence is going down as gun sales go up, the problem is multifaceted. We have 15-20% of the voting public supporting a jerk for POTUS that wants to ban all visiting Muslims from entering the country. There have been too frequent mass shootings from mentally-ill individuals to disgruntled ex-boyfriends in the last couple years.

The point is rapid fire murderers are one problem. Gun regulations can at least cut back on those and the public is at least interested in stopping such needless carnage.

Better prevention of mentally ill shooters, good investigative efforts dismantling terrorist cult groups and cutting back on rapid fire firepower are needed.

Just telling people they don't understand the difference between a rifle and a machine gun is meaningless chatter to distract from the actual solutions which might cause gun profiteers to sell fewer rapid fire guns.

Do we need other measures? Absolutely. Black and white framing of gun regulation problems is unhelpful except to the gun-lobby.

The point is that 26 years of assault weapon regulations cited by anti-gun groups as an example for other states to follow didn't keep AW's out the hands of the SB shooters, or the actors that killed some of my friends otj.

DJS nailed it - AW restrictions appeal to folks based on their feelings, not their knowledge of the matter at hand, and even the New York Times has noted the failure of various AW restriction laws to curb criminal acts committed with these rifles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

You may well be very happy to attempt framing the discussion in ways that exclude any views but those of yourself and folks that agree with you, but you can't make up your own reality. anymore than the nimrods that insist that armed civilians in a given incident would prevent a mass shooting can, although I have an example of such an incident at hand:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Santa-Clara-Gun-Club-Shooter-Wanted-to-Kill-Self-2920923.php

"A San Jose man intended to kill himself and others when he took three Santa Clara gun club employees hostage with a rented semiautomatic rifle Monday night, police said yesterday.

Richard Gable Stevens, 21, was in critical condition at Valley Medical Center in San Jose last night after one of the National Shooting Club employees shot him twice with a handgun. Police also later shot Stevens with plastic bullets to subdue him.

Although no one else was injured during the shootout, Stevens made it clear in a suicide note to his parents that he would take others' lives as well as his own, and make his parents pay for his act, according to Sergeant Anton Morec of the Santa Clara Police Department.

In the note, Morec said, Stevens wrote, "You both had warnings of exactly what I intended to do. You did nothing to help. Now, you'll spend the rest of your lives fighting lawsuits from my victims' relatives and die with only dimes perhaps."

However, Stevens was thwarted when an employee pulled a .45-caliber Glock from underneath his shirt and fired twice, striking Stevens in the chest. Another employee ran inside the building to call police, who later fired plastic bullets at an uncooperative Stevens."

Second bolded? have any numbers or is legislation as wish fulfillment now a legitimate political action? You need to explain why the state with the strictest laws still has nuts w/ illegal firearms, terrorists w/ illegal firearms and evidently every doctor. lawyer and Indian chief too - maybe when the state's point man on gun control with commendations from various anti-gun groups, Leland Yee, is on the take and is busted and pleads guilty to, among other things, planning an illegal arms deal smuggling various small arms into the U.S., including assault weapons, an answer wholly outside of new legislation may be in order

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Former-Sen-Leland-Yee-changes-plea-to-guilty-in-6360935.php

"Former state Sen. Leland Yee faces years in federal prison after admitting Wednesday that he took bribes from undercover FBI agents in exchange for promises to vote on legislation, arrange meetings for his purported donors, and illegally smuggle guns from the Philippines."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are back to arguing the gun issues and that belongs in the gazillion other threads.

I will only say unless the regulations are federal, they are meaningless. So arguing local regulations did no good when all one need do is buy the gun elsewhere ... well clearly claims the regulations did no good is a flawed claim.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

You need to explain why the state with the strictest laws still has nuts w/ illegal firearms, terrorists w/ illegal firearms and evidently every doctor. lawyer and Indian chief too

Every single state in the contiguous 48 is in the same country, so local laws are hardly capable of stopping any cross-border shenanigans.

As for the rest... corruption charges are the toy of every demagogue. Why? Because you can always find dirt on any group of homo sapiens, regardless. It is not a differentiating factor. If you think people are 'better' in behavior for holding a political or religious view, you might be right in the small minority of instances in which formal convictions fully determine daily behavior, but for the bulk of what people do, same deal, same species, same mediocrity.

 

[Fudbucker]

"Self defence" is not considered a valid reason to own a gun. Not sure about the wording of "Home defence". Having never joined a shooting club, I don't know what the membership fee is, sorry.

Home defence refers to defending not just me, but everyone in my home.

If Australia doesn't consider basic self-defense to be a valid reason to own a gun, then Obama's mentioning of Australia is alarming. As alarming to me as some Senator mentioning China's environmental policies in a positive matter.

 

[Polaris]

While I will disagree with your conclusion, let me add some grist to your mill:

[qimg]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/602/23253197799_cf8aed97e8_c.jpg[/qimg]

A portion of the magazine rack at the Ingles grocery in Blue Ridge, GA yesterday.

A new one for me was a whole magazine based of silencers (suppressors)!

(second shelf up from bottom, third in from right)

Ooooh, Beadstyle!

 

[WildCat]

strange reason managed to keep my guns. Go figga eh?

You just didn't have any guns that were declared illegal. If you did they would have ended up with the others...

 

[WildCat]

There's also the fact that aside from the action of suppressing the muzzle blast, adding the weight of a suppressor to the barrel can fine tune barrel harmonics caused by the passage of the projectile through the rifled bore - a barrel that vibrates less tends to be more consistently accurate than a rifle without the harmonics balanced by the addition weight.

Which is why I always shoot my M91/30 with the bayonet attached! It shoots different without it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Home defence refers to defending not just me, but everyone in my home.

If Australia doesn't consider basic self-defense to be a valid reason to own a gun, then Obama's mentioning of Australia is alarming. As alarming to me as some Senator mentioning China's environmental policies in a positive matter.

"Self defence" is specifically called out in the gun legislation as not being sufficient reason to own a gun.

This and the Second Amendment are why our two countries' attitudes towards guns are so very different. We have guns, but only those people with a specific purpose can have them. You don't have to tell anyone why you want a gun and consider any request to do so to be a personal affront. Hence, every woman and her cat can have a gun, and you have a gun death rate that is totally out of all proportion when compared to us.