The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[kittyKaiti]

Carrying a gun around everyday hoping to show some punk a thing or two smells like a personal problem to me.

If you are hoping to use a gun on someone, that would already make one an irresponsible gun owner. People watch too much Hollywood and think that Rambo'ing a bunch of bad guys will be fun. It's an extremely high adrenaline experience to have to draw a gun on someone. And not the kind of rush one would enjoy from skydiving.

[kittyKaiti]

Thought Experiment - Trying To Understand The Pro-Gun Perspective

The logic of those people is horrendous.

The guy's first scenario is ridiculous. Such a scenario pertains to absolutely no real world situation. "You're in a room with three people and have three guns, are you safer? Or with no guns at all? Oh and nobody can get in or out." Wtf does this have to do with anything?

Then the woman imitates a concealed carrier responding to bad guys trying to shoot up a place by pretending to draw dual pistols. She then states people can't react properly to a shooting situation, despite dozens of CCTV videos I've watched of random concealed carriers effectively doing that exact thing. Drawing their guns in a panicked and high tension situation, in crowded public places, and firing on and hitting the armed criminals.

Then she calls gun ownership a marketing ploy and a corporate scheme to make money. This is ludicrous. We've had the Second Amendment in our Constitution and a "culture of gun ownership" for 150 years prior to Hollywood, capitalism and marketing's existence.

The entire video is merely a display of the complete and total ignorance people have on the topic of guns, based on opinions they get from CNN, the Democrats, Hollywood action movies and liberal media (all whom themselves, know nothing about firearms).

[buttslinger]

Just once did my Uncle Joe from Mississippi meet my Uncle Willie from New Rochelle NY.
My Uncle Willie said he had never heard of George Jones.
I watched my Uncle Joe's world stop for a minute in disbelief.

When WWII broke out, they sent all the Yankees to train down south, and all the Rebs to train up north.
They took advantage of the war to bring an end to the previous Civil War, which was still smoldering in many places down south.

[thombergeron]

The amusing thing about the anti-gun lobby is that they are trying to take advantage of these Fort Hood shootings to further their agenda on banning civilian gun ownership despite the fact these are military soldiers shooting up bases.

I'm professionally acquainted with a number of people active in the "anti-gun lobby," and I've heard literally zero gun-control advocates say anything at all about Ivan Lopez. Perhaps you could be more specific about who is "taking advantage."

I have heard many noted gun-lobby apologists -- John Lott, Allen West, Steve Doocy, etc. -- "taking advantage" of the latest Fort Hood shooting to argue for more guns, for expanding the market for the gun lobby.

So it seems as though what's happening here on earth is precisely the opposite of what you have alleged.

The problem here is that a military base is a gun free zone. Soldiers can't have guns on their person unless they are military police. So, like any gun free zone, an armed criminal knows he or she is walking into a crowded building full of unarmed victims who have no means of defense. You would think, at least of all places, that our soldiers would be able to defend themselves from spree shooters. You can thank the Clinton administration for that one.

This is obviously false. For one thing, the second sentence contradicts the first. How is a military base "gun free" if authorized personnel are, in fact, armed? There are many occupational specialties that are authorized to carry on post. Anyone who has actually been on base would observe armed personnel within minutes.

As it happens, I was stationed at Hunter Army Airfield in February 1992 when DoD issued directive 5210.56, which formalized existing practice regarding firearms on post for all service branches. Two things:

• Rank-and-file noticed no change as a result of this directive; base commander had already barred most personnel from carrying on post.

• February 1992 was almost a full year before Bill Clinton took office.

You have a tendency to uncritically parrot gun-lobby propaganda. You accuse your ideological opponents of ignorance, but you're clearly getting all of you information from a single source.

You're certainly not the first person to misrepresent Department of Defense policy regarding firearms on post. Neither are you the first to accuse Bill Clinton of issuing a DoD directive (that you don't fully understand) 11 months before he took office. Heck, the gun lobby's misrepresentation of DoD policy has already been covered in this very thread.

Your response to AsianG’s stalker worries a couple of weeks back was textbook gun industry marketing copy: “The police can’t help you. Buy a gun.” That's the essence of every speech Wayne LaPierre has given in the last five years.

You referred to Gary Kleck’s 1995 paper with no apparent knowledge of the 20 years of research that has occurred since then. You trotted out the very tired “other things are dangerous” argument, while failing to note that the number of people who drown or are stabbed to death is a full order of magnitude smaller than that of those killed by firearms.

I’m especially amused every time one of you gun nuts breathlessly refers to motor vehicle crash deaths. The raw number of Americans killed in motor vehicle crashes has been reduced by almost 1/2 since its peak in 1972. In terms of fatalities per vehicle miles traveled, the 2013 rate is less than 1/10 what it was in the 1940s. And how, you might ask, did the U.S. achieve such a precipitous reduction in motor vehicle crash deaths? Why, through some of the same policies that apologists for the gun lobby now claim are a dire threat to liberty: mandatory licensing, universal registration, mandatory safety devices, strict liability, etc.

It’s mysterious to me why self-styled libertarians, who are usually so keenly attuned to the influence of money on policy, are so credulous when it comes to the gun industry. Gun manufacturers made about $30 billion from U.S. consumers last year. They make that money by convincing you that their products are essential, by lobbying legislators to head off any kind of regulation of the products that they sell you, and by spreading misinformation about the empirical research that clearly shows that their products are dangerous.

It’s really not very complicated. You seem like a smart and curious person. You owe it to yourself to find some better data, think more critically, and not rely exclusively on people trying to sell you something.

[95racer]

Yeah, right. Dream on.

Dream on? More like a nightmare.

[broncofan]

My and friends houses while growing up had gun racks complete with guns. Ours were in the basement and I knew where all the ammo was kept.

I involved my son early with firearms. Starting about five years old he would clean guns with me. I taught him proper use and handling (just like those nasty NRA classes). That took all the curiosity out of it. Progressed to hunter safety, now has a CPL, and attends advance training with me. Now my granddaughter is almost ready to shoot the Red Ryder BB gun that I got him. Once she sees the pink stock version I'll probably have to get one of those.

Passed on for three generations? When will one of your lineal descendants get a reprieve from this ignorance?

Of course I don't understand this sentence but maybe it explains your interest in this site:

"Now my granddaughter is almost ready to shoot the Red Ryder BB gun that I got him"

[95racer]

Passed on for three generations? When will one of your lineal descendants get a reprieve from this ignorance?

Of course I don't understand this sentence but maybe it explains your interest in this site:

"Now my granddaughter is almost ready to shoot the Red Ryder BB gun that I got him"

Him, meaning my son. Pretty simple to understand.

[thombergeron]

I involved my son early with firearms. Starting about five years old he would clean guns with me. I taught him proper use and handling (just like those nasty NRA classes). That took all the curiosity out of it. Progressed to hunter safety, now has a CPL, and attends advance training with me. Now my granddaughter is almost ready to shoot the Red Ryder BB gun that I got him. Once she sees the pink stock version I'll probably have to get one of those.

Would you say that the instruction and training that you gave to your son is superior to that of the US Marine Corps School of Infantry? Does the NRA offer more rigorous classes than the Corps' Infantry Training Battalion? Because this Marine just accidentally shot his fellow sentry:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/arti...-officials-say

And if U.S. military bases are "gun-free zones," why were the sentries at Lejeune armed?

[trish]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/arti...-officials-say

Indeed, a nightmare.

[thombergeron]

There is a reason that police departments, gun stores and gun shows don't get shot up by spree killers.

Not to belabor the point, but on Monday, Daniel Yealu walked into the LAPD's Wilshire station and opened fire with his Glock pistol:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...#axzz2yPvZwEdZ

It was actually the second time in less than a year that someone shot up the Wilshire Station. They never caught the guy from last year.

And this former police officer walked into Frank's Gun and Taxidermy Shop in Pennsylvania, stole a weapon from a display case, and shot Frank to death: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/coron...-shop/23715272

You may be right that there have been no intentional shootings at gun shows in recent memory, but hardly a week goes by without someone being accidentally shot at one. You get an auditorium full of firearms and firearm enthusiasts, you're pretty much asking for an accidental discharge.