Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

[rdowns]

After today's press conference, I think the NRA is their own worst enemy.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I fully anticipate a ban of some type to pass within the next year. I bet it will be comprehensive, and will ban most everything except for bolt action, lever action, and single shot weapons. In large part it will be the fault of my fellow gun owners themselves.

I don't expect such significant legislation to pass. There might be a proposal, but ultimately the actual legislation will be whittled and limned down to something as toothless and stupid as the AWB.

...1) Gun owners are divided. I am on many different gun forums. Some cater more towards EBR's (Evil Black Rifles), some are more political oriented, and some cater to what are known as Curios and Relics. This last group consist of older firearms, including semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. Lastly, there are the Fudds..er I mean hunters. Those people that bring out their bolt action rifles once a year.

What I am seeing is alot of division amongst the various groups I mentioned above. There is no support across these different groups. C&R collectors seem to not care what happens to EBR's as long as they get to keep their antique rifles. Hunters don't care what happens to either of the other two groups as long as the can keep hunting.

What neither of these two groups (hunters and C&R folks) realize is that once the Dems get done with EBR's the next time someone uses a hunting rifle in a mass shooting, they will be coming for them.

I think you overstate the animus that "Dems" have for guns. While there are certainly contingents that would like to ban guns entirely, this is a small group. Most want some real action and limitations, but not an outright ban and hunting rifles currently fit the balance between utility and danger in a way that "Evil Black Rifles" may not.

...2) Apathy. Anti-gun advocates are highly organized and more driven than your typical gun owner. They hold rallies, gatherings in DC, etc...Gun owners are fairly apathetic. Many make no effort to contact their elected officials about gun issues, and they rely too much on the NRA to do their work for them. If every person in America who owned a gun at risk of being banned wrote to their elected officials we would not be facing more gun legislation.

Gun owners might be apathetic, though I don't think this is true, the gun industry has enough money and lawyers to make this a serious fight. The NRA alone has a budget of $440 million and while it's only spent $4 million in 2012 on lobbying, I'm sure that relationship would change quite quickly if there was a serious ban on the table.

...3) Gun owners are unwilling to compromise. I and a few other recognize the need for background checks, no sales to people with a history of violence or diagnosed mental illness, and maybe even mandatory training and safety courses for first time gun buyers. However many more feel that the Second Amendment should have no limitations, this includes no background checks, guns for mentally ill people, etc...some compromise is needed.

Here, I agree absolutely. Gun owners need to be more honest in their arguments (so anti-gun advocates) and they need to look for compromise and for realistic solutions. So, if the AWB was bad, how do we write a good bill? How do we include the "right" guns and not subsume every gun imaginable?

That's what the AWB was, an attempt to compromise which failed, but failed precisely because gun advocates wanted it to. They took a horse, cut off two legs and then wondered why it couldn't run.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by hulugu

I think you overstate the animus that "Dems" have for guns. While there are certainly contingents that would like to ban guns entirely, this is a small group.

I don't want to ban guns.

I want people to wizen up and realize they can live without them.

I'll give it another million or so years.

I'm patient.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Given the extremism today and the refusal to compromise, the only solution that I see to this problem is a Constitutional Amendment to delete the Second Amendment. Ratification will be tough. A few states like Texas may have to be expelled from the Union to get the required supermajority of states. What's the "smilie" for cynicism?

Oh By The Way, a .30-06 bolt action is perfectly adequate for deer hunting or any other legal and sane activity. As far as I am concerned, anyone needing to exercise their Second Amendment Rights with an AR-15 should move to Somalia and see how they actually like it in real life.

Just sign me tired and sad.

To me, an AR15 is a sporting rifle for shooting paper. If someone wants to hunt larger game with an AR, that is IMO cruel and unusual punishment as the most common caliber it is chambered in is not for large game like a 30-06, 308, 303 Brit, other 30+ caliber centerfire rifles, etc.

I've said I am more than willing to revisit gun laws and I think most gun owners are. I'd like to see an attempt of incrementalism in that less extreme measures should be tried before more extreme ones. I'm really not sure how that would work tho given the NRA doesnt seem interested. However, let's revisit media as well. Games like Grand Theft Auto where the goal is to essentially shoot police officers, or music that Eminem makes about torturing women is surely not making the issue any better.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by rdowns

After today's press conference, I think the NRA is their own worst enemy.

Having just watched Wayne LaPierre on Meet the Press, I can confirm, he is the NRA's own worst enemy.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by dime21

Playing devil's advocate here, lets say they do enact such legislation. What is their plan for the hundreds of millions of semi-autos that are already out there? That boat has already sailed.

I DO hope you remember that point next time you are on an anti-gay marriage tirade. That boat has already sailed as well and won't be called back anymore then the guns you mention.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I DO hope you remember that point next time you are on an anti-gay marriage tirade. That boat has already sailed as well and won't be called back anymore then the guns you mention.

Even though I am pro gay rights I think that taking away a legal distinction is much much easier and safer than trying to physically take away guns from people. Poor comparison.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Even though I am pro gay rights I think that taking away a legal distinction is much much easier and safer than trying to physically take away guns from people. Poor comparison.

Really? You think taking rights away from people goes down easier then taking guns away. Try it and see what happens. It won't be pretty either way.

[12dylan34]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

When you live in a rural area you more likely than not have a gun hanging in the back of your truck window or behind the seat.

I can attest to that. My grandfather has two in the back window. Also, the first thing that you see when you walk into his house is a gun cabinet. For some people, it's a way of life. Also, his collection is so large that it wouldn't fit in the largest of average sized gun safes.

You can get small locks that go through the chamber of the gun, preventing it from being fired, though.

[chrono1081]

Speaking of gun owners being their own worst enemy, I'm glad these kids were smarter then the person who owned this gun...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/20...iref=obnetwork

That being said I posted this on facebook and a bunch of my idiot friends are trying to defend this guy and think I'm a jerk for suggesting that this guy lose his concealed carry permit.

I personally don't agree with concealed carry permits since you never hear about them saving anyone, you only hear about accidents caused by them.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Speaking of gun owners being their own worst enemy, I'm glad these kids were smarter then the person who owned this gun...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/20...iref=obnetwork

That being said I posted this on facebook and a bunch of my idiot friends are trying to defend this guy and think I'm a jerk for suggesting that this guy lose his concealed carry permit.

This is evidence that education saves lives. It's also evidence that lack of training results in situations as such as the fool who couldnt keep track of their own friggin' firearm.

[Phrygian]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I fully anticipate a ban of some type to pass within the next year.

stopped reading there.

I'm all for gun laws, but that is not happening

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Phrygian

stopped reading there.

I'm all for gun laws, but that is not happening

No? You are not the first person who didn't think it wont happen or that people won't try it, but look at what they tried to do in Illinois.

Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms
Quote:
“The ISRA has learned from a credible source that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton [above] will introduce a so called ‘assault weapons’ ban on Wednesday when the legislature returns for its ‘lame duck’ session. Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday.

If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police . . .

“Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Pump action shotguns would be banned as well.

This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called ‘assault weapons’ but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols.

There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...inois-gun-ban/

They failed, fortunately, but this is a perfect example of what those on the left would like to see happen.

[cambookpro]

I live in the UK, and we have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.
This isn't because we have totally banned them - of course, you can only really buy a shotgun, and even then you have to wait 6 months for your licence and the police come to your house to suggest places for a gun safe, where to keep ammo etc.

The thing I don't get, is most Americans keep banging on about this second amendment. Surely if guns were banned, there'd be a lot less deaths per year. Isn't that what everyone wants? Sure, cocaine and heroin may have been legal at one point, but times change and laws have to adapt.

If America introduced some kind of regulations or ban on firearms, wouldn't it make it a lot safer country? Of course, with the millions in circulation, it would be hard, but not impossible.

Just my take on it.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by cambookpro

I live in the UK, and we have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.
This isn't because we have totally banned them - of course, you can only really buy a shotgun, and even then you have to wait 6 months for your licence and the police come to your house to suggest places for a gun safe, where to keep ammo etc.

The thing I don't get, is most Americans keep banging on about this second amendment. Surely if guns were banned, there'd be a lot less deaths per year. Isn't that what everyone wants? Sure, cocaine and heroin may have been legal at one point, but times change and laws have to adapt.

If America introduced some kind of regulations or ban on firearms, wouldn't it make it a lot safer country? Of course, with the millions in circulation, it would be hard, but not impossible.

Just my take on it.

Actually you guys have not totally banned them:

"A Welsh-based firm is advertising a Ruger SR-22 semi-automatic as a “clone” of an AR-15, the gun loner Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people."

"Other weapons on offer include a Colt M4 Carbine semi-automatic rifle for £550, a Kalashnikov AK47 for £500 or a GSG5 MP5 Clone Anniversary Edition for just £400."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...in-the-UK.html

As far as banning guns, the fact of the matter is all that will do is affect law abiding citizens. The people who are "good citizens" will by and large do what their government tells them to do and surrender their weapons. Criminals will not...so there will still be many guns out there in the hands of criminals while law abiding people are now left defenseless.

One thing I would like to point out when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, is that there are literally MILLIONS out there in the hands of law abiding people..If they are so terrible, why do we not hear more stories about mass killings?

I'll answer that for you...because statistically they seldom occur. They are like airplane accidents. Horrible to look at, read about, etc. because of the high death rate, but still rare.

Also, I doubt bans would make us any safer. Eventually, a generation or two down the road death rates by firearms will be reduced, but I don't think we would be any less safe as a society. All I need to do is point out the assault rate in GB vs the U.S. to make that point:


G.B. U.S.
Assault victims 2.8% 1.2%


http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Also, I doubt bans would make us any safer. Eventually, a generation or two down the road death rates by firearms will be reduced, but I don't think we would be any less safe as a society. All I need to do is point out the assault rate in GB vs the U.S. to make that point:


G.B. U.S.
Assault victims 2.8% 1.2%

Figures for assault are notoriously hard to compare because of the very different criteria used by each country. Anyway, I would rather be assaulted than shot, frankly. Personally, I have never even been subjected to a threat of violence.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by skunk

Figures for assault are notoriously hard to compare because of the very different criteria used by each country..

Ok...to use the every popular MR quote...got facts/references to back that up or is that anecdotal?

Originally Posted by skunk

Anyway, I would rather be assaulted than shot, frankly. Personally, I have never even been subjected to a threat of violence.

I have...each time I was in an area of Philadelphia that was supposedly safe...One time I am fairly certain I was going to be thrown in the back of a van that had been following me for a block or two.

The other time I was held up at gunpoint at an intersection. Having a gun pointed at ones head is not a pleasant experience.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Ok...to use the every popular MR quote...got facts/references to back that up or is that anecdotal?

Well, yes, actually:

Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. “

Quoted from the UK Daily Telegraph.

And:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...and-wales#data
As you can see, the above includes assaults "without injury", which in many countries would probably not even be included.

I have...each time I was in an area of Philadelphia that was supposedly safe...One time I am fairly certain I was going to be thrown in the back of a van that had been following me for a block or two.

The other time I was held up at gunpoint at an intersection. Having a gun pointed at ones head is not a pleasant experience.

I can believe that. Did your personal firearm help?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by skunk

Well, yes, actually:Quoted from the UK Daily Telegraph.

I can believe that. Did your personal firearm help?

at those I times I was not yet old enough to carry...In the first case (with the van) it certainly would have.

In the second case, admittedly there was nothing I would have been able to do had I been carrying.

[jeremy h]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Actually you guys have not totally banned them:

Absolutely true, in fact as I've mentioned before on here, there's quite a few guns in circulation. Last time I looked it was around 1.8m. You can pretty much get a a licence for anything firearm wise - .22LR, .223, .308, shotgun rifled slugs etc etc if you can justify a need. (Shotguns are classed differently to firearms - they don't need to be justified - as long as you fulfil security requirements etc the police have to justify denying you one.) Legitimate use for firearms include pest control, deer stalking, target shooting etc.

You won't get a licence for any anti-person use. Self-defence for example is not considered a legitimate use. That principle informs what can be licensed as well. For example self loading shotguns are limited to 3 cartridges. The only reason I can think of to have more shells available would be in some sort of military situation.

Our firearm laws have been reactive in that restrictions have been imposed following crime or tragedies. For example - if you're over 18 you can actually just walk into a shop and buy a crossbow. Crossbows aren't generally used in crimes or mass killings so there's no legislation to speak off despite the fact that over 20 yards or so they're probably far nastier than a shotgun loaded with legal cartridges.

On the assault thing - I suspect that if we had open access to firearms we would probably be a lot more polite to each other - less road rage, pub punch ups, muggings and burglaries. But - I'm certain our murder rate would absolutely soar...

Incidentally - I've been the 'victim' of two muggings - both of which ended up as shaky standoffs and bit of emotional shock at the time that passed in a day or so. On the second one had I been 'carrying' I'm absolutely certain someone would have got shot. As it was they ended up just as wry stories and a couple of minor crime figures.

You pay your money and take you choice as they say...

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by glocke12

No? You are not the first person who didn't think it wont happen or that people won't try it, but look at what they tried to do in Illinois.

They failed, fortunately, but this is a perfect example of what those on the left would like to see happen.

So, then by this logic, you are suggesting that those on the right believe that women can protect themselves from "legitimate rape", or that pregnancy by rape is "God's will" because one (okay, sorry...several) wackadoodle Senator says so? I mean, he's on the right, so that must be the way the right feels.

Any brainchild of a Senator can introduce a bill for any number of insane things...that does not mean that their entire base wants that. I know heavily Democrat people who are rabid gun nuts (as in the "I will arm myself for government tyranny" types), and I know heavily Republican types who have close gay friends. There is no "the left feels this way and the right feels that way" about everything.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, then by this logic, you are suggesting that those on the right believe that women can protect themselves from "legitimate rape", or that pregnancy by rape is "God's will" because one (okay, sorry...several) wackadoodle Senator says so? I mean, he's on the right, so that must be the way the right feels.

Any brainchild of a Senator can introduce a bill for any number of insane things...that does not mean that their entire base wants that. I know heavily Democrat people who are rabid gun nuts (as in the "I will arm myself for government tyranny" types), and I know heavily Republican types who have close gay friends. There is no "the left feels this way and the right feels that way" about everything.

Can we make this a Sticky?

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by skunk

Can we make this a Sticky?

I'll accept a slow clap.

[NickZac]

If you want to see what I consider to be a level-headed discussion on the issue...
http://video.foxnews.com/v/207986988...intcmp=related


People on both sides are going crazy. I think the discussion of the possibilities with consideration of both what they may or may not do is pretty smart.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I personally don't agree with concealed carry permits since you never hear about them saving anyone, you only hear about accidents caused by them.

In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.

Three dead.

In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.

Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Two dead.

In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two dead.

In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.

One dead.

Now you have heard of it. Seems the only mass shootings that end only when the shooter has had enough are the ones in gun free zones... need me to post some of those numbers for you?

And let's not get started on the UK. They tried to ban kitchen knifes too!