The NRA has gone too far

They don’t carry guns. Clearly they are defensless. I don’t know how they manage with all those swords hanging on every wall*.

  • Everything I know about England was gleaned from Ultima 6.

Assault weapon is an entirely cosmetic definition, legally speaking, as illustrated in the 1994 assault rifle ban. It hinged entirely on a rifle with a removable magazine with any of at least two of the following traits: a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. None of those were motivated by a high incidence of crimes with them as a factor. They were based around the fact that they look scary, and could thus be used to confuse an ignorant electorate into setting precedents for banning guns for no particular reason. As opposed to, for instance, restrictions based around use in crimes, such as handgun laws, which while certainly of questionable effectiveness are at least based in reality.

Automatic rifles are a separate issue which can cross-section with assault rifles, but are already covered by existing laws. And, as noted above, they are hardly a big deal in police deaths or, for that matter, crime generally. Even assault rifles as a whole including semi and selective fire rifles amount to much less than one percent of all firearm related crimes.

armor piercing rounds,

NRA opposition to these bans is similar to their thinking on the above. Armor piercing rounds are very rarely a factor in crimes. You don’t need them at all to get through a regular police vest, which is calibrated primarily to handgun rounds (since that is almost all of the threat).

and concealed carry laws places officers in serious fucking danger

No, they don’t. There is absolutely no correlation between the two. That must be why Vermont is chock full of copkillings and DC is such a great place to be the law, right? While certainly there are strong arguments around the concealed carry issue, protecting cops is at most tangential to the issue. The existence of concealed carry restrictions and bans only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying weapons, not criminals. I don’t necessarily buy the argument that concealed carry laws objectively benefit society in a statistical sense, but there has definitely not been a demonstrated down side. In which case, of course, I would err on the side of individual liberty and reasonable right to self defense, but that’s just me. Either way, you have nothing as far as an anti-cop NRA argument there.

The rank and file membership may be pro-cop, but the “cold, dead, hands,” leadership is not.

You managed to turn a cute blunder in a press release into some pretty weak trolling. There are certainly reasons to dislike the NRA’s leadership, but hostility to police officers is about as farfetched as it gets.

He was defining them as they were described in the 90’s effort to outlaw them. I am fairly sure he took as a given that automatic weapons were already tightly regulated, and certainly never a part of the NRA’s advocacy programs.

Those are tightly regualted everywhere and not very available.

So are tanks, F-16’s, and nuclear weapons. What else do they have in common? None of them are advocated for by the NRA.

If they were commonly available, the incidents of them being used on police would go up.
You seriously underestimate the priorities and knowledgeability of criminals, the effectiveness of automatic weapons in criminal undertakings, and the tactical wherewithal of police.
For the first: Criminals know what they want from guns, and only cretin gangbangers looking for flashy weapons would think an automatic weapon practical for their purposes. Concealability is always the first feature cited by most criminals, for instance.
2: As noted above, automatic weapons have very limited applications, practically.
--------warning--------------story time--------------------warning
Even in, say, Fallujah, we think of the “Full Auto” selector choice on an AK as our best friend. It guarantees our enemy will run out of rounds quickly and hit practically nothing he was aiming at, and insurgents know a hell of a lot more about guns than most American criminals. Our automatic weapons consist of crew served machine guns and man portable automatic rifles, both of which are used primarily for suppression and require a good amount of training and experience to apply effectively. A good machinegunner is right up there with a good sniper in terms of value, and even he would not be able to do much with an Uzi or Mac 10.


Returning to America, despite what movies may portray, automatic rifles are practically nonexistent in crime statistics. This is not, as the modification website demonstrates so handily, because they are hard to come by. It’s because they are hard to use.

All that said, the NRA does not advocate private ownership of automatic rifles. It was mobilized against the assault rifle ban because the only possible motivations for it were as a foothold move in gun bans or ignorance. Neither of those make for good laws.

I am always fascinated by how people otherwise completely hostile to any incarnation of the Man are so willing to turn over their ability to protect themselves to Him.

Side note: One element of the “cop killer” bullet scare was the confusion - in some cases, deliberate - of what happens to bullets when a Teflon coating is applied to the exterior of the round. Teflon reduces the damage caused by the lead bullet rocketing through the gun barrel, which prevents fouling and prolongs the “accuracy life” of the gun in question. (It also reduces the lead dust that often accumulates at closed-roof or indoor shooting ranges.)

Despite the obvious fact that this Teflon-coating process has nothing to do with improving penetration vis-a-vis body armor, it became wrongfully equated with Super-Duper, Eee-vil Cop-Killer Ammo in the minds of many people. You can find, to this day, gun control “information” sites that warn of this extra-deadly, phastasmagorical ammunition.

(All this is not to say that NRA doesn’t peddle its own brand of bullshit…)

This reminds me of a story from my cousin, who is a cop. As part of academy training he and his class were taken to a rifle range where they watched their instructors mount several types and configurations of body armor on poles and even clothing mannequins (like Keanu Reeves). The instructors then blasted away with pistols, shotguns and rifles. The armor blocked the pistol rounds and shotgun blasts pretty reliably - but only the weakest of the rifles.

The instructors made a point of emphasizing that the type of body armor he and his classmates would be wearing as cops was of scant use against most rifles. Even the stock, bolt-action Remington hunting rifle they used defeated the vest. The message: Don’t get cocky. Don’t assume.

Outlawing knives would in fact make things safer for police.

You know what else would make police safer? A nationwide 24 hour curfew!

Again correct. Also RFID tags placed into all citizens and computers linked to cameras with blanket coverage of all urban areas would be a step towards improved police safety as well.

Yes

[SIZE=“1”](in five words or more…)[/SIZE]

Yes, it just so happened that the copper jacketed steel cop killer pistol rounds that do not deform and thus penetrate protective vests were teflon coated to reduce soft metal deposits in the barrel.

It also happens that there are readily available weapons that fire rounds capable of penetrating the vests issued to police. They are called rifles.

That does not mean that there is any good reason to sell vest penetrating pistol ammuntion.

Yes, many of the characteristics of an assault rifle are cosmetic.

Also conceded is that some people lawfully possess weapons capable of fully automatic firing.

Third, of course someone will run out of ammo quickly and will not have the accuracy required to guarantee a lot of kills when firing into a crowd.

This does not mean that everyone with $500 should be able to acquire automatic weaponry. Lots of other highly deadly things are difficult to use properly.

If you have to carry a pistol around with you all day, you are neither free, nor safe, nor very manly.

Concealed Carry weapons permits count on society to be made of cool headed, responsible people.

Eventually. But this is not about RAH duel-enforced politeness, it is about a mugger’s risk/reward analysis.

Stop jacking off to the thought of shooting muggers.

Defamation makes me a sad panda.

If you look at the data, it supports the theory that the people who apply and carry are indeed, as a rule, cool headed responsible people that are a benefit to their society.

Your opinions betray a bias the stereotypes reasonings and justifications for carrying a firearm. It isn’t some swaggering machismo. Some of us are comfortable accepting the responsibility inherent in carrying a gun and confident in our ability to make life or death decisions in crisis situations. Furthermore, I am comfortable with my fellow citizens being able to make that determination for themselves.

They may be a benefit to society because they pay taxes and work, but as far as they want to go around threatening high schoolers with their pearl handled fandydandies, they are quite the drag.

As long as you are human, you are one of the creatures that experiences a flight or fight response when threatened. Unless you have training to control that, I don’t trust you to try and dial 911, let alone to decide who lives and who dies.

I let the surgeons do the cutting, I let the engineers design the cars and I let the police officers do their job.

Really? Because I’ve known a lot of people who got concealed-carry permits and they’ve always been, without fail, either PI’s or paranoid lunatics. Obviously, that’s just anecdotal, but “I can’t wait for some nigger to try and mug me now” was way more common than “cool headed responsible.”

Whereas, the point being what the NRA and most gun advocates promote, it is resolved that exactly none of those things are armor piercing rounds for handguns. Add to that the fact that was being pointed out, which is that armor piercing options are already available, and the obvious point arises that, regardless, few criminals choose them. Why? Because the armor piercing characteristic is largely unnecessary for their occupation, which rarely involves an additional benefit for killing a cop vs hurting or suppressing.

2.Yes, many of the characteristics of an assault rifle are cosmetic. Also conceded is that some people lawfully possess weapons capable of fully automatic firing. Third, of course someone will run out of ammo quickly and will not have the accuracy required to guarantee a lot of kills when firing into a crowd.
This does not mean that everyone with $500 should be able to acquire automatic weaponry. Lots of other highly deadly things are difficult to use properly.

Which, once again, neither the NRA nor any mainstream gun advocate is pushing for…the points you list where merely to demonstrate the further irrelevance of the issue, and its existence as a scare tactic. To which I would add that many bona fide military “assault” weapons are designed with a surprising number of factors in addition to or with precedence over lethality per se. Just because it seems ridiculous on the surface but makes a lot of sense from a strategic point of view.

  1. If you have to carry a pistol around with you all day, you are neither free, nor safe, nor very manly.

If you are unable to defend yourself in a manner that adequately addresses possible threats, the same three wholly subjective statements could be made. Concealed carry does not mean mandatory carry, and it does not presume a lessening of penalties for gun homicides and crimes. I fail to see how it is a disadvantage to those who choose to remain unarmed that law abiding citizens be permitted to do so…only irrational phobia and hatred can explain your position. If you think guns are icky and should go away, that’s fine. Don’t bother bogging down in second rate hypothesizing about the psyches of those who disagree with you, and don’t pretend the origins of your dislike are based on more than emotion.

They may be a benefit to society because they pay taxes and work, but as far as they want to go around threatening high schoolers with their pearl handled fandydandies, they are quite the drag.

How does that fit in with the profile of a concealed carry permit owner? Do you even have anecdotal stories to back that? You might as well postulate that gun ownership translates directly to child molestation and scientology.

As long as you are human, you are one of the creatures that experiences a flight or fight response when threatened. Unless you have training to control that, I don’t trust you to try and dial 911, let alone to decide who lives and who dies.
Actually, training a person to effectively defend themselves with a handgun is pretty easy. Beyond that, humans have been defending themselves successfully without training for years. Once again, your arguments dictate more of an gun phobia on your part than any rational objections.

I let the surgeons do the cutting, I let the engineers design the cars and I let the police officers do their job

Unless you also advocate a police state as a corollary, the last does not belong in that list. Police officers are not your personal bodyguards. You can elect to rely on them entirely, but many of us would rather you not make that choice on our behalf as well.

Unless that is wildly exaggerated even from an anecdotal perspective, I think the real problem is that you hang out with a bunch of assholes. And, of course, private detectives, which is just kind of wierd. Either that or your sample of cc people is really small even for a throwaway comment. But, by all means…

So let’s summarize. So far we’ve exonerated the NRA of supporting private ownership of automatic rifles, supporting armor piercing rounds for handguns, promoting baby skullfucking as a national pastime, etc. Then we’ve heard both the mighty “guns are scary” argument added to the venerable “I knew a guy who owned a gun who was a dick”. Pretty underwhelming.

I think the biggest problem is ignorance of firearms. Of course, I understand if regarding them as inherently sinful prevents you from learning about them firsthand, but virtually every amicable argument I’ve had about it in real life has been settled by a bet and a trip to the gun range.

Poow me, I think that distributing deadwy weapons amongst the iwwesponsible to be ill -advised so I must be a fwaidy-cat. I guess it is only fate and the particular circumstances of my childhood trauma that leads me to fear and hate guns as opposed to clowns.

You haven’t exonorated the NRA of shit. I watched the NRA oppose the assault weapons bans, which has a lot of good provisions and boo fucking hoo if you can’t have a grenade launcher. I personally recall the the television news coverage of the flap surrounding the NRA’s support of armor piercing rounds, and it did not center on the red herring of teflon. I furthermore recall that I have seen no reliable studies demonstrating an increase in safety as a result of concealed carry permits.

If you need a gun to feel safe conducting your daily business in America you should move. If you are not in a high crime area and you still feel desirous of a hidden pistol to ensure your personal safety, you are fucking batshit. End of story.

I don’t have anything against guns, they are just tools. I agree that with the exception of the accidental shootings of children, the fault always lies entirely with the shooter. So that people kill people. But I know that people who kill people use guns to kill people, and some people, if they didn’t have the gun, would not have killed the person. If you create opportunities for easy hot blooded murders, they will happen. The people who are shot during arguments with a pistol carrying citizen that loses their temper will be dead forever and the shooter will go to prison. That is not what I want for America. That is not what anyone should want for America.

Honestly, stop jacking off to the thought of shooting a mugger. Stop it now.

You could start with the (in)famous study by John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Yes, I’m aware that his methodology has come under serious question, but at least it’s a starting point. And most of the criticisms I’ve seen haven’t said there’s no crime decrease associated with conceald carry laws, but rather that Lott vastly overstates the quantity of that decrease by failing to control for other variables. And I’ll admit it’s been some time since I looked at the issue, so I’m open to hearing the latest developments on this front.

But more to the point, is this the right standard? Shouldn’t we err on the side of individual liberty if there are no adverse societal consequences? In short, shouldn’t the standard be “if concealed carry does not increase crime, it represents a good policy choice”?

Right, because folks who live in high-crime areas often have enough disposable income to pick up and move at the drop of a dime. Rolling eyes smiley.

Well, Todd McFarlane has the clown thing covered.

Also, try to keep your own side of the story straight. Here is what you wrote:

  1. If you have to carry a pistol around with you all day, you are neither free, nor safe, nor very manly.

No qualifications about “irresponsibility” or distinctions between cops, civilians, security guards, or anything else.

There are two brute, immutable facts which must be faced for any sort of “gun control” discussion to be anchored in reality:

(1) The police have neither the practical ability nor the legal responsibility to act as your bodyguards.

The police are, overwhelmingly, ex post facto responders to crime. They “prevent” very little. Unless you’re in some kind of special protection program, with officers following you around, armed police chauffers driving you and a patrol car parked outside of your home at night, the police aren’t going to “protect” you from jack shit.

If violent crime comes your way and you’re able to call them, they might - repeat MIGHT - be able to arrive in time. Still, the chances of a timely police intervention in time to prevent you from being hurt are vanishingly small.

The bottom line is that the cops can’t help you if they’re not around, and most of the time, they aren’t. Most of the time, you’re on your own.

(2) There are plenty of times when private citizens are in FAR more danger than your average cop walking the beat.

The restaurant manager who closes the register for the evening. The cab driver working a graveyard shift. People who work in jewelry shops or who handle any kind of small, highly valuable items. The lone woman walking through the parking lot late at night. The truck driver hauling a load of plasma-screen TVs ($5000 a pop and up). People who live in remote areas.

There is nothing theoretical about these perdicaments. In most cases, the police will not be there to protect them.

None of this means we can’t have reasonable gun laws. I’m not one of those “every home an arsenal” types. But let’s be clear that most people who wish to acquire and train with a firearm for (possible) self-defense are not “gun nuts” or paranoid or any kind of antisocial thing. They’re simply confronting the fact that when trouble comes a’knocking, chances are you’ll be on your own.

You haven’t exonorated the NRA of shit. I watched the NRA oppose the assault weapons bans, which has a lot of good provisions and boo fucking hoo if you can’t have a grenade launcher.

Grenade launcher? Which BATF FFL class is that?

I personally recall the the television news coverage of the flap surrounding the NRA’s support of armor piercing rounds, and it did not center on the red herring of teflon.

And nothing’s as reliable as memories of 20-yr old TV news reports, right?

The law in question - HR 3121 - was initially sponsored by Mario Biaggi (D-NY) in 1982 and finally passed in 1986. The NRA itself helped draft the final version, which banned

“…a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium,”

Notice how this focuses on how the bullets are designed and what materials they are constructed from? Biaggi’s original idea was to ban ammo based on a performance metric - one so broad that it would have included a wide swath of commonly-used rifle ammo. That is what NRA (and others) opposed.

Now if you think I’m being selective or dishonest in my posts, then check it out for yourself. The history of the whole “cop killer bullet” thing is not some Freemasonic secret locked away in a hidden vault. All this info is publicly available.

Honestly, stop hiding your politics behind half-assed psychoanalysis. Stop it now.

I will tell you what. There is a chemical plant near my house. They make all sorts of crazy shit. I know a couple guys that work there, they give tours and can get us in. We’ll go to the room with the super powerful magnetic field (the one where you can fly nuts and bolts on a string, like a kite.) I’ll throw some chemicals on you, you throw some chemicals on me, we’ll hold hands, jump up, and grab an exposed line. The superpower origin I am proposing is more likely to save you from violence than carrying a gun.

It’s not a half assed psychoanalysis. I’m not putting any ass into it at all. I call em like I see em, if you want to walk around with a gun all day, you’re an old timey chickenshit jonesing for a formative event to prove your manhood. Don’t try to doubt that shit, I’ve got nuts and a cock, I know how we think.

I’m calling you out on this because your support of concealed carry laws means you are making a real effort to have the fantasy you have where you save everbody at McDonalds from Al Qaeda and then fuck the hot chick in line behind you come true. That shit is not going to happen. Please, for everyone’s sake, pick another fantasy and work towards that. The money you would spend on a gun and the permit is better spent on getting two chicks into a hot tub full of lemon jello at the local Hilton. Better yet, save up for a year or two, approach the night manager of McDonalds and bribe him to let you bring in your friends and a couple strippers so that you can act it out. Why not go try to learn some ancient kung fu crap, or go cast wiccan spells in the fucking woods. It’s sad that you wait at stoplights wishing that someone would try something so that you could fly out of your car and dispense justice and control the situation. It’s sad that your parents made you watch Crocodile Dundee with your pants down. I’m sorry that you won’t have a chance to live your dream, but don’t worry, not everyone’s perfect fantasy is a legal one.

If you want to hang on to your dream, I guess I can’t stop you, hell, we couldn’t stop NAMBLA. However, I can tell you what will happen. You are going to have a gun, you are going to have a gun drawn on you, and either you are going to get yourself shot in the stomach and bleed out in a dirty alley or you are going to be fortunate enough to have an extremely forgiving mugger take your gun and just shoot you in the kneecap with it. Best case scenario? You murder a poor person trying to get some cigarettes and diapers.