The NRA Are A Bunch of ****ing ****, Eh?

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:31 am

To paraphrase BF.

So, for those who missed it, according to the massive mindraping dickcheese at the head of the National Rimjob Association (sorry to give rimjobs a bad name):

- Our society's obsession with violence and poor mental health is to blame for all shootings. Not access to guns. We need to keep having guns every damn where.

- We need to dip into the federal funds that conservatives everywhere are screaming about cutting and magically put a police officer in every school. Oh, and ignore the fact that THERE WAS A ******* POLICE OFFICER IN COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL YOU ******* dip****.

- We need to make a list of people with mental illnesses. Governments need access to this list in case any of these people leave the house. Whether or not they have access to a gun is irrelevant.

Everyone say it with me:

COMPOSITE WORD INCLUDING F*CK!!!!!!!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:13 am

I especially like how he was giving the speech at the SAME TIME another maniac in PA was shooting civillians before blowing away three cops.

And by "especially like" I mean "can't stand to think that".

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:10 am

Something you need to keep in mind is that the NRA is an organization that, at least now, represents gun manufacturers. And, no matter what happens, you're not going to get the people who make their money by selling guns to say that perhaps fewer guns may lead to fewer casualties. It's kind of like the tobacco industry. No matter how many people die from smoking, they're not just going to up and say "it's better for us to go out of business than to keep contributing to cancer and death."

So the people at the very top of the chain are not arguing for fewer guns out of an honest belief that everybody having guns is the solution to the problem. They're arguing the point (and spending millions on others to lobby the same point) because of purely financial reasons.

Further down the chain, you'll get people who honestly believe that the ultimate solution to gun violence is to arm literally everybody. But those people, at least in a large part, believe that almost entirely because of what they've been told (from a very young age) from the people in that first group.

Now, I am always open to hearing new ideas. I can (and will, and do, and did) change my opinion on things based on new evidence that comes up. And I'm sure that goes for plenty of other people as well. But when one side (either side) will not argue honestly, and will continually repeat discredited (and easily disprovable) talking points, my brain just does the Elaine dance from Seinfeld and blue screens.

Generally, it goes something like this.

NRA: Fewer guns is not the solution. Fewer guns has never led to a decrease in gun violence.

Facts: Look at other countries with gun restrictions. Japan, for example, has almost no guns. And generally less than 10 gun-related deaths per year.

NRA: Yes, but Japan is much smaller than the US. If you look at the number of gun deaths in proportion, the numbers are almost equal.

Facts: Japan has 115 million people. The US has 300 million. Adjusted by totals, that still means that the US has about 3,000 times as many gun related deaths per year.

NRA: Yes, but even if there are fewer gun-related deaths, there will always be people who want to kill others and will find a way to do so. Look at the Akihabara incident, where somebody used a rental car and a knife to kill a dozen people. You don't want to ban rental cars and knives, do you?

Facts: That was one crazy person out of 115 million people. The murder rate in Japan is about 400 per year. Versus about 12,500 in the US. That's still about 30 times lower.

NRA: You can't compare such culturally different countries like Japan and the US.

Facts: What about countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia? They are much more similar, culturally, to the US than Japan, but they all have lower murder rates, and gun crime rates than the US.

NRA: Yes, and in those countries, the only people who have guns are criminals. Citizens have no defense against armed assailants. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

Facts: But that's never been the case in the US. Instances of civilian "good guys with guns" stopping armed "bad guys" with guns are so rare as to be almost non existent. And if you look at situations like the Aurora movie theater, the "bad guy" wasn't just a guy with a gun. He was an armored guy with multiple guns and weapons in a crowded, panicked, smoke-filled, enclosed space. The only person who could have stopped that, quickly, and without contributing to the chaos, was the character on the movie's screen.

NRA: Maybe those movies are contributing to the problem. Movies, music, and other violent forms of entertainment. Look at movies like Natural Born Killers, and video games like Mortal Kombat. Perhaps they contribute more towards violence than the guns themselves.

Facts: Those references are so date...that...that...uh...Elaine dance. Blue screen.

Look. You're never, ever, going to stop all killers from killing. It's just never going to happen. People WILL find a way to at least attempt it. But that's no reason to not take some steps to make it more difficult for them.

And, as much as I hate to say this, there IS an acceptable level of violence and death that I'm "comfortable" with to maintain the individual liberties of the population. And there IS, something to be said for being able to defend yourself and your home from the possibility of armed intruders. So, here's my proposal.

First three months: A stop to the manufacture of all guns (with the exception of single shot hunting rifles and six-chamber revolvers) and ammunition. You're a hunter? Use a regular hunting rifle. Target shooter/home defense? You've got six shots.

First six months: Mandatory registration of all existing firearms in the hands of private citizens. You've got guns? You can hold onto them, but if one of those guns is used in a crime, you're going to answer for it.

First year: Gun and ammo buy-back program. Turn in your guns and ammo and get their full value back in cash. Or, in trade for either non-lethal defense weaponry. Or brand new "approved" defensive weapons (as listed above). Moratorium on private sales and trades of guns and ammo. You can get the full value for selling your guns and ammo to the authorities. You can get a steep fine for selling them to your friends. And you can look at a prison sentence if the person you've sold it to commits a crime.

Future: If a gun registered in your name is used in a crime, all other guns and ammo will be taken from you.

500% tax on handgun ammo purchased for use outside of a firing range.

Mental health screenings mandatory for all gun owners. The first before purchasing the (approved) handgun. And future screenings every three years.

Written and practical exams: You must take a written test demonstrating that you know how to use your gun safely. You must also pass a physical test showing that you can hit what you're aiming at with a fair degree of accuracy.

Will that put an end to gun violence? No. Will some people still use those six-shooters and rifles to commit crimes? Yes. Will they be able to kill 20-50 people in one go? No. Not with a single shot rife or a six-chambered handgun. And with the mental health screenings in place, and still penalties for selling a gun privately, it's unlikely that many deranged potential killers will get their hands on guns in the first place. And, hey, maybe those mental health screenings will get disturbed people the help they need before they shoot a half dozen people, or themselves.

I would, honestly and truly, love to hear any critiques of my proposal.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:32 pm

What gets me is how, according to the gun nuts, we in the UK must be living in some kind of socialist prison camp.

I live in the east end of London, in one of the poorest boroughs in the country, where a whole bunch of different cultures are rubbing up against each constantly. Our mayor is even supposed to have connections with Islamic fundamentalist groups.

I'm not allowed to own a gun. I'm not even allowed to carry a knife.

According to the NRA and their zombie followers, I should be in constant danger of being gunned down, or being oppressed by the government. And yet I've never even seen a gun round here. I saw policemen carrying Hestler & Koch machine rifles when I was covering the terrorist trials at Kingston Crown Court, but that's different

I've never been hassled in the street, except for change. I've never been robbed. If I'm approached by a rowdy group of youths in hoodies, my greatest fear is that they've got knives, and I know I can run, if necessary.

And as for freedom, what exactly can these gun-toting Americans do that I can't? Aside from shoot each other or themselves?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:49 am

If you want to have an honest debate/discussion with people who hold (for whatever reason) different opinions than you do, I wouldn't suggest labeling them "gun nuts" and "NRA zombies." It doesn't set the tone for an open and honest exchange of ideas.

That said, I agree with you on the freedom thing. During my first visit back to the US after settling in in Japan, I wound up talking with somebody about "freedom." He said something along the lines of "America is the best country because of all the freedoms we have."

"Can you buy fireworks?" I asked, knowing that the sale of fireworks is only legal in a few states and the use of them is almost never legal without a permit (although law enforcement usually looks the other way).

"No," he admitted.

"Can you drink a beer or cocktail outside?" I asked again, knowing that "open carry" was illegal in nearly every state.

"No," he again admitted.

"So, how do you have more freedom here in the US?"

"I can own a gun!"

That, pardon the expression, blew my mind. Fireworks? Pretty. Enjoyable. Expodey. Illegal. No problem. Drinking a beer with your friends in the park (or outside a 7-11...). Good time. Something you might want to do at some point. Illegal. Not a problem for this guy. Owning a gun (which, by the by, he didn't)? Something that, most likely, you never WANT to use for its intended purpose? Hell no! We need that right!

Another right that people in the US have is the right to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after they've been drinking. Not too much, mind. But you could drive home from a bar after a few drinks, provided that you gave it a rest for an hour or so before leaving. And even that's only important if you get stopped by a cop on your way back and have to pass a breathalizer test. In Japan, the legal limit is ZERO. If you have even a trace of booze in your system when you get pulled over, you're finishing your ride in the back of a squad car.

And, speaking of cars...

An NRA gentleman today made the case that cars kill plenty of people every year. More than guns, in fact. And, certain cars that have 400+ horsepower, have the potential to kill even more. But nobody is talking about banning certain types of cars in the name of safety.

And I can not buy that he's making that comparison in good faith.

You can't drive a NASCAR racer on the street. You can't drive an F-1 racer on the street. You can't drive a funny car on the street. Without a special license, you can't drive an 18-wheeler. Without a special license you can't drive a vehicle carrying potentially dangerous chemicals.

So, by that comparison, we SHOULD regulate certain types of guns. We SHOULD require 40+ hours of supervised practice before letting anybody take a gun home. We SHOULD require special licenses for the ownership of certain types of guns. And, another bit about comparing cars to guns, is the bit about needing INSURANCE to continue owning and using a motor vehicle.

So, if the NRA guy wants to make the case that guns should only be regulated like cars? I am TOTALLY on board for that. Give it a shot (no pun intended) for a few years. Let's see how it goes.

But, I don't think the comparison was made in good faith. I think that he knew that the comparison was bogus. And that he just wanted to get the people who already agree with him to have something else to defend gun ownership (to themselves and to others who don't want to press the issue). The fact that regulating guns like vehicles might be a great idea and save a hell of a lot of innocent lives likely never dawned on him.

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:33 am

The old, pre-1970s NRA was a brilliant thing. An organistion advocating (And indeed responsible for most of America's) gun control laws. They advocated gun ownership requiring major checks and restrictions, and demanded that only well trained, responsible individuals be allowed them. They were responsible for the 2-day waiting period. They opposed concealed carry laws, lobbied to ban automatic weapons (Mainly used at the time by organised crime), and constantly hammered home that the "Individual right to bear arms" interpretation of the second amendment, as popularised by the Black Panthers, was inaccurate. Then a few guys decided that since all these black people now had guns, they could play off that, and the ensuing fear, to get more white people armed to the teeth.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:12 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-shot ... ories.html

I guess firefighters should be armed too.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:00 am

Hot Shot wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/firefighters-shot ... ories.html

I guess firefighters should be armed too.

The shooter killed his own grandmother with a hammer. I blame these new violent video games like Donkey Kong and the gangster rappers. MC HAMMER? Do I need to draw a ****ing diagram here?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:54 am

http://news.yahoo.com/autopsy-ny-gunman ... 49134.html

So, even when faced with armed, trained, "good guys with guns", the bullet that killed the latest news-making psychopath was his own.

Hot Shot · Post by **Hot Shot** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:15 am

Professor Smooth wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/autopsy-ny-gunman ... 49134.html

So, even when faced with armed, trained, "good guys with guns", the bullet that killed the latest news-making psychopath was his own.

Just like countless other "self-destruct sequence" gunmen before him. Not surprising in the slightest.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:57 am

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/ ... acramento/

New year. Same as the old year.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:45 pm

You guys might find this interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ale ... 01992.html

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:29 am

"Alex" "Alex" "Alex" "Alex" "Alex" "Alex" "Alex" "Alex" "Alex"

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:51 am

I tend to agree with Alex on certain issues and have a hard time calling him a typical conservative.

When he speaks, it usually gets me thinking.

However, I still disagree with him on the issue of guns.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:54 am

I would like to thank CNN for giving that goddamned fringe lunatic access to a much wider audience. Now, people who otherwise would have just dismissed his insane rantings as, well, the insane rantings of some wingnut will thing, "well, he's on CNN, so there must be something to his point of view."

Drew Curtis, of FARK, has pointed to "equal time for idiots" as being one of the things that's really hurting the news media. While, in the past, ranting psychopaths and old men yelling at clouds were easily dismissed. But now, they're given time to spread their bull$#!+ to a much wider audience. Look at how well that worked out with the anti-vaccination ass-hattery. You can trace that crap all the way back to the original source. You can disprove every claim that anti-vaccination advocates put forth. But it's out there now, and we're seeing a resurgence of illnesses that had been all but wiped out in the developed world. Why, because your subconscious mind hears a bit of it, doesn't remember where (source amnesia) and now it's found its way into your head. "Oh, I heard that Autism is caused by childhood vaccinations. Maybe we should think twice about getting Junior his shot."

Same deal with this guy. He goes on CNN and spouts what is either honest crazy or practiced appearance of crazy with the intention of getting the REAL crazy to buy whatever he's selling. He goes on CNN and starts shouting, literally RANTING that the host is "a hatchet man of the new world order" and threatening to "box his jolly roger."

Let me lay this out. Before it, hopefully and rightfully disappears from my brain.

There is NOBODY in the government right now, with any real power, who has suggested taking away the guns that people already own. There are some mumblings about, MAYBE putting a few new regulations on what new weaponry civilians can buy. But, even that is very, very rare. The only people you hear talking about taking peoples guns are people accusing others of doing it.

So, right there, it's pretty much a non-issue if you want to keep your guns. Nobody's going to take them. Or, rather, nobody is going to TRY to take them.

Jones seems to be one of those "we need our guns to stop the government" type people. And I want to go, right now, into a bit of detail as to why that's...maybe not well thought out.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that you're a member of a group with the absolute best civilian weaponry that money can buy. You're also, to the best of your ability, trained in the use of that weaponry. You've got a secluded compound that you have worked hard at making as defensible as possible.

You still do not have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything against "the government." Do the acronyms FBI, CIA, and SEAL mean anything to you? Those guys have the absolute best weaponry that exists up until the moment they stepped outside today. They have training that makes Jason Bourne look like a yellow belt in Tae Kwon Do. And they have an unlimited amount of ammo, men, and other resources. You can not stop "the government."

Oh, you can "fight back" but that's not going to work out in your favor over the long run. What, you shot the officer who came to get your guns? You started a shoot-out with the SWAT patrol that showed up after your gunned down a federal officer? Great. Now you are classified as a terrorist and/or a traitor. And "the government" is free to commence "operation bomb the hell out of you."

Defensible compound? Snipers? Great. Do you have goddamn F-35 jets? With bunker-busting missiles? How about a NAVY? How does your "compound" stand up to that of Osama bin Laden? SEAL Team 6 got him without losing a single guy. And Osama and his guys had a lot more to lose than their guns.

So, an armed-to-the-teeth, honest to goodness militia group has no chance of doing anything to stop (or even disuade) the government from doing whatever they want to stop it doing. So what chance do you, with your hunting rifle and glock have? You CAN'T stop the government. You CAN'T even protect yourself from them.

The time to put up a fight about the rights of the individual? That time was up a LONG time ago. But, maybe allowing the US military budget to inflate to more than that of the entire rest of the planet combined will have that effect, won't it? And it's the same people. The same people who want to keep their guns in case they ever need them to "protect themselves from the government" are the same people who fought like hell every time it was suggested that maybe some of the money the US was spending on developing new and more powerful weapons could have been spent elsewhere. That is some truly delicious irony.

Now, let's rant.

Here's where you find out if your company puts profits above basic, human decency.

McDonald's coffee used to be kept at such a high temperature that it could cause 3rd degree burns if it touched human skin. When that came to light, they were sued and stopped keeping their coffee at such an absurdly high temperature.

Some toy companies manufactured toys that were found to be dangerous to children in some isolated cases. Those toys were discontinued. They weren't BANNED. The manufacturers stopped making them. Safety laws were amended to keep things from happening again.

Asbestos is linked to cancer. Get rid of asbestos. Kids can choke on cereal prizes. Replace the prizes with something that won't kill kids. Laptop batteries can get so hot that they burn people. Better change that. China's putting lead in their paint. Make sure that doesn't happen again. Guns kill 30,000 people every year in the US. Nothing changes.

If a company makes a product that can be used to trigger a fatality, they are usually (and rightly) sued. How are gun manufacturers immune from this? "Hey! This guy bought your product, used it as the manual suggested, and landed me in the hospital for a week! Smith & Wesson should cut me a ****ing check!"

But, for some reason, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are treated differently than anything else.

Want the most absurd example I can come up with.

If your kid's friend shot at him with a Nerf gun, and your kid wound up choking on the dart, you would have a pretty open-and-shut case against Nerf, the family of the kid, and would probably have the darts taken off the market and replaced with something safer.

If your kid gets shot while sitting in his kindergarten class by some maniac who murdered his survivalist mother and stole her gun stash, apparently, the gun manufacturer is blameless.

Bringing back to Morgan/Jones, I boiled down the gun rights argument in the US down to this sentence and was called "disgusting" for it on Facebook. "There are basically two sides to the gun rights debate in the US right now. Those who believe that 30,000 deaths per year is a fair price to pay for the right to own a gun, and those that don't."

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:36 am

Did they actually manage to disupute your point?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:15 am

Best First wrote:Did they actually manage to disupute your point?

Of course not.

I want to get nerdy for a moment.

Recently, I put up a shelf of my Season 1/Season 2 Transformers. They've been sitting in a box for about three years (and four moves). One the top shelf, in all their glory, are Optimus Prime and Megatron.

Megatron transforms into a small, but fairly realistic Walther P-38. It is illegal to sell in (or to) the United States as it comes out of the box. So, somebody in the US could not buy one from me without a law being broken. The same is true of the more recently released Masterpiece Megatron (which transforms into a larger, but fairly realistic Walther P-38. It doesn't matter if you're 8, 18, or 88. It's not legal for me to sell you this toy if you live in the US.

But you could go into plenty of strip malls in the US and buy a REAL Walther P-38. Along with ammunition for said gun. Perfectly legal.

The reason I got my old TFs out of storage was in anticipation of the reissue of Fortress Maximus. I love that goddamn figure. It was my holy grail for a long time, and when I finally got one (in Japan), I got it for such a great price that I couldn't help but sell it (12,000 miles of airfare is how much it sold for). The same thing happened a few more times over the years. I'd get my holy grail and, for one reason or another, I'd sell it. But, with the reissue coming out, I can finally have one to sit in my permanent collection.

I nearly had the chance to buy one, brand new, in the US. It was supposed to be released in the Robots in Disguise toyline, exclusive to FAO Shwartz stores. But, a few months before it was set to hit shelves, the release was cancelled. Fort Max didn't pass the "drop test." Which meant that small pieces of the toy could, in rare but possible circumstances, pose a danger to children. For that reason, Fortress Maximus has not been available, at retail, since 1988 in the US.

A toy that, in rare but not impossible circumstances, may break in such a way that a child could, theoretically, be hurt was cancelled. Huge release for Hasbro. Just scrubbed. But a device that is intended to fire a small projectile and hurt/destroy/kill whatever that projectile touches is sold at tens of thousands of retail outlets, and has been available at retail for hundreds of years, without pause.

Transformers toy that looks like a gun: ILLEGAL IN THE US
Transformers toy with small parts that might pose a threat to kids: NOT FOR SALE IN THE US.
Intentionally lethal projectile weapon used in the murder of dozens, if not hundreds of children every year: CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED IN THE US.

****.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:19 pm

Look at the history of the Second Amendment, I say.

A well-regulated militia?

When was the last time the US people needed a well-regulated militia? Our standing army has been a monstrous juggernaut since World War II. Hell, Bush went off and started an extra war partially because he could. Because the massive operations in Afghanistan weren't occupying the whole of the military.

That sound like a country protected by a militia?

Now it used to be, in the late 1700s, that militias served an important role. They fought unfriendly Indians every other week. And they were, arguably, one of the flag-waving US Pridezor Things used to disguise the naked lust for Indian land by the "Founding Fathers." Send the militia and burn the Wampanoags cuz uh... law and defense!

They were useful tools for the landed men who sought to throw off the British and establish a republic. And they could be incorporated into the military in various ways.

These days, we have a National Guard. We are not surrounded by enemy nations of British, French and Spanish colonization. I can tell you that the US quite resoundingly smashed the enemy Indian nations and if it weren't for a few brave activists in the 50s and 60s, we wouldn't even have a reservation system or tribal governance at all.

When do you need to raise and regulate a militia? We have cops. Lots and lots of cops. SWAT teams. National Guard. The Coast Guard.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Your right is not to keep and bear them WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY. Your right is not infringed if you are required to take extensive testing and training.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:06 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:The time to put up a fight about the rights of the individual? That time was up a LONG time ago. But, maybe allowing the US military budget to inflate to more than that of the entire rest of the planet combined will have that effect, won't it? And it's the same people. The same people who want to keep their guns in case they ever need them to "protect themselves from the government" are the same people who fought like hell every time it was suggested that maybe some of the money the US was spending on developing new and more powerful weapons could have been spent elsewhere. That is some truly delicious irony.

Good point.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:00 am

I thought of a few more things I'd like to say about guns, gun violence, and gun control. So, I'll dump them here.

I don't want to label all gun owners in any way, shape, or form. I don't want to paint them with the same brush. With so many guns in circulation across the US, that'd be impossible. It'd be like trying to generalize people based on species. But I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of gun owners have never and will never use their firearms to hurt or kill people. So, I'm just gonna put that out there.

That said, I keep getting caught up with the whole "We need guns in case we need to rebel against the government" thing. Earlier, I mentioned why that was not going to work out well for the rebels (In much the same way that the right to have a stick won't protect you, physically, from the powerful person with an Abrams tank). But I want to now go one step further.

What, exactly, could the government do that would warrant "rising up against them?" Because, I don't know if anybody remembers the last decade or so, but Americans have put up with some REALLY shady crap from the government. Crap like invading a country and all-but destroying it at a cost of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives...because it's where the terrorist that attacked the US was based. Or, you know, that OTHER war? The one that every available shred of evidence shows the US entered into under demonstrably false pretenses? The one that, again, wrecked an entire region, and killed scores of people? THAT wasn't a good enough reason to "rise up against the government" beyond a few (perfectly legal) protests. Protests that, and I can't stress this enough, were not supported by a lot of the usual "gun owner' type demographics.

So, sending a whole bunch of soldiers to fight and die for no reason beyond money and politics? Not a problem. What IS a problem that would get gun owners, literally, up-in-arms? "Taking away our freedoms?" That's been happening for years. Remember when the government couldn't lock somebody up indefinitely without a trial because that person was a "suspected terrorist?" Or when the government couldn't target and kill US citizens without, again, some form of due process? Or when TORTURE wasn't a part of the US' defense strategy?

I'm serious. What could the government do that would warrant an (admittedly doomed-from-the-start) insurrection from gun owners?

Ok. There's that out of the way. This next bit is going to be a bit harder to swallow.

I do not mean to take anything away from the horrible events in Aurora, or the unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook. BUT the US has something like 90 gun-related deaths every day. And, as terrible as these "maniac with a gun opens fire in crowded (insert place here)" stories go, they're not the main problem with guns in the US.

When you see a supporter of gun rights saying that there are always going to be crazy, murderous people, that person is right. We had a guy in Akihabara use a rental car and a knife to kill a dozen people. Every now and again, we get some random nut who goes on a "stabbing girls in the ass" spree. Crazy people do crazy and dangerous things. And you can increase help for the mentally ill, but people will slip though, and they will do bad things.

Wait a second. I'm still not saying that guns aren't a factor in the possible body count these people can amass. Obviously the Dark Knight massacre would have gone differently if the guy had smoke bombs and knives instead of a personal arsenal of firearms. And China shows us how less severe a knife-wielding maniac attacking an elementary school class can be when guns are taken out of the equation. Obviously. But these (fairly) rare instances aren't the main problem.

The main problem is the OTHER 70 or so people killed with guns every day. The gang members killing each other for drugs. The escalation of domestic violence. The suicides. The hunting accidents. Etc.

So, when people like me say that they are in favor of more gun regulations, and we inevitably get "nothing will stop crazy people from doing crazy things" thrown back in our faces, we already know that. We're not suggesting passing legislation based on what crazy people MIGHT do. We're suggesting legislation based on what people of reasonably sound mind CONTINUE TO DO. If the only times that guns were used to kill people were instances of random, crazy, acts of violence, I'd call that a MAJOR win. As sad as it is, I'll take living in a country where, every once in awhile some crazy attacks a random group over a country where nearly 100 people EVERY DAY die through the use of guns.

You know that old story about boiling a frog? If you drop the frog into boiling water, it'll jump out of the pot. But if you put the frog in warm water and slowly raise the temperature, the frog will stay in the pot and cook. That's the gun problem in the US. Sandy Hook drops the frog into the boiling water. But 4 or 5 times as many people die every day through the use of guns. And the temperature is slowly rising.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:44 pm

I'm just going to recite your posts to gun junkies because I couldn't have said it any better.

Oh, and Beeep.....beeeep....beeeep, this just in:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... chool?lite

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:28 pm

Please let me know what they say.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:18 am

I actually wound up having a pretty good discussion about gun rights with a few friends last night on Facebook (before we got distracted by He-Man...long story). We went back and forth and my WAY pro-2nd amendment friend said that he, "like any sane person," supports background checks, mental health screenings, and licenses for gun owners. To which I pointed out that those perfectly reasonable things would get him labeled as a "hatchman of the new world order" by certain conservative radio hosts.

Another friend pointed to the rights given under the US constitution being absolute. Which I kind of had to laugh at. Just the idea of it. Rights are absolute. Sure they are! Like the right to freedom of expression. 1st amendment.

You'd think that people who say that they'll fight to the death to uphold the rights spelled out in the constitution would have a bit of respect for somebody exercising one of those rights. But, I guess not.

"That guy in the media says something we disagree with! DEPORT HIM!"

That is such an absurd missing of the point of "constitutional rights" that it almost HAS to be intentional. But if you're willing to ignore the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment, I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility that certain other bits escape notice as well.

Imagine that being used at any other point in history.

You want to give blacks, women, and poor people the right to vote!?! I disagree! Shut up! I'LL HAVE YOU DEPORTED!

You want alcohol manufacturing and consumption to be legal? It's banned IN THE CONSTITUTION! How DARE you petition to have a constitutional amendment repealed? GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY!

Where would the limit be? Apparently some on the "fringe right" think that "liberal" talk show hosts should be deported for their political views. Can we turn that around? I disagree with (and can demonstrably prove wrong) pretty much everybody on the FOX NEWS channel. Can we put them all on a boat and revoke their citizenship? OF COURSE NOT!

But, fine. I'll bite. Rights under the constitution are absolute. And there are certainly no exceptions. Which is why I always start my day by shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, mailing a handful of threatening letters, and wagging my dick at traffic. And since that's how I express myself, it's perfectly legal!

Oh, wait! No, it's not! Because responsible accepted that the right to freedom of expression did have some SMALL restrictions in place.

You have the right to express yourself. You don't have the right to express yourself in such a way that presents a physical danger to other people. You can protest at a funeral. You can't protest by pissing your manifesto in the snow outside of an elementary school. See the difference?

You want the right to bear arms? Absolutely not willing to give that up? For whatever reason. Maybe you want to defend your home. Maybe you want to hunt. I don't know. But there have to be some reasonable restrictions in place. For example, carrying a loaded weapon in public? No. Obviously, no. What in the blue hell are you going to do with a loaded weapon in public? Stop a robbery? What are you, Batman? No. You want your weapon in public? It goes, unloaded, into a locked case until you get to your destination. Worried about muggers? Get some pepper spray. Or a taser. Or one of any number of defensive weapons that don't put nearby people in the path of deadly, flying, metal projectiles.

Hey, maybe that dick wagging thing was on the money. Think of your firearm like your dick. At home, or certain approved areas, you can pull it out and do whatever. But in public? Lock it down.

And people will say, but those kinds of restrictions wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter. And they're right. But they may have stopped a few of the other 6 dozen gun related deaths that happened that day. And every day.

But what do I know? I just live in a country with an average of EIGHT gun deaths per year because of their strict gun regulations. So it's not like I've seen the results of such regulations being in place for awhile, or anything like that.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:56 am

In addition to most of what you have said above, one point I stress to gun junkies are the number of people killed accidentally by a firearm they purchased for protection. How many stories have we heard about the kid who went rummaging through his parents closet, found that box on the top shelf, and accidentally blew his or some friends brains out with it?

There is far too little emphasis on the accidental deaths and injuries that occur from firearms. Everyone wants to talk about the lunatic, but no one wants to talk about the more than likely far more common scenario of accidentally killing someone.

Hell, I get nervous simply walking into a room with a gun, not because there might be some crazy who might pick it up, but because I understand the nature of dangerous accidents.

I need to research the statistics, or maybe you already have Smooth, but I'm willing to bet a family is more likely to kill one of their own than an assailant.

Case in point. Watch this. Every gun owner should see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

Now, here's a cop, someone who is supposed to be an expert and have plenty of experience with a gun. The dip**** brings the thing to school to teach students about the danger of guns...only to shoot his ass in the leg. Then he proceeds to bring out another gun only to have parents flee from the room.

And are you sure there were only eight gun deaths? That's incredible. What more of an argument does one need?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:10 am

The latest statistics show that you are more than twenty times more likely to accidentally shoot a family member (or yourself) than an intruder. So for every instance of a gun protecting a family from a home invader, more than twenty mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters wound up shot.

The eight gun deaths thing is, admittedly, an average. In 2011, for example, there were 11. Total. In a country of 100 million people. There were, by the way, a total of 582 homicides (TOTAL) in 2008. That's what the US goes through in about a week. The HIGHEST gun deaths total in Japan (in recent memory) was 56 back in 2001. Otherwise known as what the US goes through in about 18 hours.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:19 am

Professor Smooth wrote:The latest statistics show that you are more than twenty times more likely to accidentally shoot a family member (or yourself) than an intruder. So for every instance of a gun protecting a family from a home invader, more than twenty mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters wound up shot.

There you go.

The eight gun deaths thing is, admittedly, an average. In 2011, for example, there were 11. Total. In a country of 100 million people. There were, by the way, a total of 582 homicides (TOTAL) in 2008. That's what the US goes through in about a week. The HIGHEST gun deaths total in Japan (in recent memory) was 56 back in 2001. Otherwise known as what the US goes through in about 18 hours.

That's incredible. It's mind-boggling, really. Even if you told me there would have been 100 I would have been impressed. But in the teens?

America needs to be willing to look out at the rest of the world and take what works from it. We need to put this "We're number 1!" mentality behind us, study different nations, and take the best aspects out of them and incorporate them into our own. But that won't happen.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:36 am

Yaya wrote:

America needs to be willing to look out at the rest of the world and take what works from it. We need to put this "We're number 1!" mentality behind us, study different nations, and take the best aspects out of them and incorporate them into our own. But that won't happen.

Wasn't that the whole POINT of the US for awhile? Figure out what worked in a bunch of other countries and then bring it all together? That worked pretty damn well for awhile. The whole "Great American Melting Pot" thing. Foods, traditions, and cultures from the homelands of an entire nation of immigrants.

Then, at some point, they apparently decided that the melting pot had reached perfection. That the current composite was better than anything anyplace else had to offer. And stopped not only adding to the mix, but stopped stirring the existing ingredients.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:33 am

Do you sometimes feel that a great many people are dishonest with themselves? I find that it's very difficult to have a real conversation about certain topics because if people won't be honest with themselves, then they CAN'T be honest with others.

Jon Stewart did a bit on the NRA last night. It was interesting enough that it made it into the headlines of Yahoo News.

One of the comments said something along the lines of "Liberals insult people for getting their news from FOX while they get their from a comedian?"

And, I wonder where the person who wrote that actually stands.

He could just be trolling people (and if, as I sometimes suspect, a LOT of internet and TV comments are going for that) I guess.

But, is it possible that he (and others. This has come up before.) honestly do not see the difference between FOX and the Daily Show?

FOX is (and I'll argue this) a propaganda network. I don't know if it exists in order to push the Republican agenda or just to take money from viewers who want a news network to tell them that they (and their side) is always right. But that's FOX. Republicans ALWAYS good. Democrats ALWAYS bad. Even if it's something that Republicans have argued in favor of, if Democrats jump on board, it's BAD. PURE propaganda. Very, very few exceptions that are almost always shut down VERY quickly.

It's not a "bias." It doesn't LEAN right. It exists to, as often as possible, support Republicans and criticize Democrats.

So, that's FOX. A network that's on the air 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Then, there's the Daily Show. A show that's on 22 minutes a day, 4 days a week, and takes something like 3 months of vacation over the course of a year. And, despite the fact that while it DOES often criticize Republicans, it does so because they've done something that's worth being criticized. They do it with Democrats, too. But less, because, in all honesty, Democrats are not doing as much worthy of criticism.

Never does the host make it a point to show bias in favor of one side or the other. The Daily Show does what ALL news programs should do. Point out when one side or the other does something worthy of being criticized.

You can't treat both sides like they're equal. And you can't devote as much time to criticizing BOTH SIDES if one side is disproportionately "worse" than the other. Drew Curtis (of FARK.com) calls this "equal time for idiots" and it is SERIOUSLY hurting American news.

But, to boil it all down, let me put it this way. The Daily Show doesn't criticize Republicans BECAUSE they're Republicans. And he doesn't support Democrats BECAUSE they're Democrats. If your "side" takes up 85 out of 88 minutes criticism on a news/commentary show...then the problem is probably with your side, not with the host and writers of the show.

This thing with the NRA? The Daily Show isn't slamming them because they are backed by (more) Republicans (than Democrats). It's slamming them because their proposals are transparently based on getting as much money funneled into the gun industry as possible, regardless of how many people are hurt or killed. If the NRA came right out and said that, it might not merit much coverage. But for them to send out the message to everybody within earshot that the best way to prevent future gun violence is to go out, buy more guns, and arm EVERYONE (and don't forget to keep upgrading!)? They SHOULD be called out on that.

They SHOULD be called out on that...by EVERY GODDAMN NEWS OUTLET IN THE COUNTRY. The "comedian" should not be the only one sticking his neck out by speaking the truth.

But, apparently, he is. And because of that, he gets saddled with the label of "biased" and dismissed as "just a comedian."

And it makes me want to claw my face and scream, because that should be VERY obvious. And if it's not obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, then there has to be a bit of intellectual dishonesty and/or willful ignorance at play.

Sunyavadin · Post by **Sunyavadin** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:11 pm

The worst example of Fox is how if a Republican does something monstrous (convicted of paedophilia, etc) they almost always refer to them as say "The DEMOCRATIC senator for...." But tend to get it correct when referring to Democrats who do bad things. There are actual statistics on this which highlight the split in their errors and how their "mistakes" show about an 80% bias in favour for Republicans.

But what do you expect? Murdoch's one of the co-owners of right wing parties around the world. Hell, when Blair got in in 1997 it was with a MASSIVE kingmaker job by Murdoch, and in return Labour shifted hugely to the right, bringing us closer to the US status quo of an extreme right wing party, and then a party that escaped from a lunatic asylum, to the right of those.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:44 pm

So you're saying the people that can't see a difference between political difference and racism, the people that can't see a difference between gun regulation and despotism, the people that think if blacks had guns they wouldn't have been slaves, the people that can't see a difference between female sexual agency and asking to be raped, the people who don't see a difference between armed guards at all schools or armed guards for the First Family can't tell the difference between FOX and The Daily Show?

In other news, water is wet. Seriously though, I do agree that there is a difference in those two things, but I also agree that liberals should not be relying on TDS as a news source. At best TDS is an appetizer for a main course of you educating yourself or watching actual news. TDS will get you part of the way there, but then instead of going all the way, they end on a poop joke because after all, this is comedy.

I do disagree with this however:

And it makes me want to claw my face and scream, because that should be VERY obvious. And if it's not obvious to anybody familiar with the subject matter, then there has to be a bit of intellectual dishonesty and/or willful ignorance at play.

But that's the most fascinating thing about humanity, ideology, and politics. It's not obvious to everyone, and everyone who it isn't obvious to isn't intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant. There are millions of rational, loving, honest, knowledge-valuing human beings who have antithetical beliefs to your own. We simply start with different ideas and assumptions about what's good, true or possible. That's not to say "let's all jump into a giant vat of moral relativism" (although I probably have less problem with that sort of bath than most), it's simply to say that by going "My position is logical/moral/informed, and therefore ANYONE against my positions MUST be illogical/immoral/uninformed," there's no room for communication.

Most likely, we ALL are dishonest with ourselves on some issues; the subconscious and the process of socialization are strange beasts that do not leave tracks easily traced. Your Joe Six Pack American Gun Owner isn't thinking "Hmmm, this notion of government as all in my business and a problem is related to my white privilege and not wanting to be bothered by such things. In fact, my status as a white, male, heterosexual middle class guy has me a bit unnerved with the social progress over the last twenty years. Isn't there some sort of echo chamber where we can go back to imagining that other people don't have the right to exist on their own terms, where my needs and concerns are still first, second, and third, where people tell me what I need to hear to maintain and reinforce my own notions of how the world is ordered? Hey, that's right, I can watch FOX News!" But that doesn't mean they're being dishonest with themselves, because they likely have never thought through their assumptions, needs, and social positionality like that in the first place.

Anyway, sorry to get off topic and overly broad. We now return you to your regularly scheduled OMG NRA SUX rants.

TransFans.co.uk

The NRA Are A Bunch of ing , Eh?