NRA -are they Serious?!?

[moosetracker]

I see CalicoPenn & even Packsaddle have done a good job restating my position on the issue. Thanks guys.. I have really nothing to add since they defended it well..

 

The only thing I have to add is the personal attack on my diction/spelling by JoeBob in some misguided notion I am a college professor.. And I guess I must be an English professor at that.. Well I had already stated I am not, a college professor but I will restate it again.. To put the whole rumor to bed, I am a IT professional, it is well known that the better programmers are those with the worst spelling, and we are use to writing in cryptic form as program language is not straight English writing..

 

So thanks JoeBob for the compliment..

 

[Beavah]

Yah, hmm...

 

Fine points on both sides, but here's da thing. Racism is by no means confined to da south (I reckon it falls on urban/suburban/rural lines in the sense that the more yeh are exposed to different sorts of people the less likely yeh are to harbor those views). However, institutional and political racism is largely a southern phenomenon. Not surprising, sociologically. That was da heart of black chattel slavery in da world, and culture only changes slowly, eh? Look at da animosity between Sunnis and Shiites, and that's more than a thousand years old. It takes very brave and holy souls to work against da "power of place" in a culture.

 

So what we see is that da same districts and groups who supported southern racist democrats are now da same districts and groups that support southern Republicans. When da Dixie Democrats retired, their heirs were da modern Republicans who were never a part of da legacy of Lincoln and da Grand Old Party. A few like Thermond actualy switched, but in most cases their districts voted Republican as they retired. Those modern Republicans were a minority of da party who was mostly paid lip service durin' da Reagan years, as Reagan talked states rights while he expanded da federal government. They're still a minority, but possibly a plurality in da party in the extent to which they're hijacking things at present. Da frothing at da mouth they do over President Obama is quite telling.

 

Is there reverse racism against black conservatives? Well, yeh only have to look at Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain to see da extent of it. It's real, but it's also of da same sort of nature of how trial lawyers will question a trial lawyer who supports conservative style tort reform, eh? Or how a Christian might question another over supporting a candidate who isn't strongly pro-life, or a lad who grew up on a farm supported by farm subsidies being against farm subsidies. It's seein' group identity as being real, and it's an argument that their positions are against group interest.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

Good points Beavah.. Except I am not sure so much if the (I reckon it falls on urban/suburban/rural lines in the sense that the more yeh are exposed to different sorts of people the less likely yeh are to harbor those views).

 

I have lived in small to mid-sized cities, close enough to Boston to consider it Boston, and in the rural areas of NH.. I agree with you on the small to mid-sized cities, people are intermingling pleasantly enough with the exception of one or two strays.. But, if you get into the inner cities, there would be more mistrust (at least when I lived there.) The gangs didnt help with intermingling.. Perhaps this generation is different, one can only hope. Here in the country, especially in NH where there are not many blacks or immigrants, I really dont know. I would like to think it is not here. My husband had one story of a store clerk who showed prejudice against a customer who had just walked out by her statements, other than that, though there are few black or immigrants in NH, the few social gatherings where they have been present, I have never felt any racial tension, they seemed as welcomed as everyone else.

 

Grant it, just my observations.. But I always thought of prejudice as something that had to be taught from generation to generation. Luckily with each passing generation it seems less, or it eases up on one group to come down on another. But, it continues in other ways for people who must feel superior to someone. Besides prejudice for blacks the American culture has moved from prejudice for Irish to Italians to Catholic to Chinese to Japanese to Mexican/Latino to Muslims etc. etc. etc. But in order for prejudice to work the group you want to be prejudice against, kind of has to be around for you to stomp on in order to make you feel superior. Mind you I am not saying they are not in your neighborhood because they are not welcome in your neighborhood, but in the group for some reason is just naturally rare in the area.

 

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with the NRA. One armed guard could have prevented the Sandyhook incident.

 

A wise many once said "An armed society is a polite society".

[JoeBob]

Back to the OP:

 

"If the media were honestly looking for solutions to gun violence, they should have jumped on the San Antonio to show the difference a good person with a gun can make."

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14071-the-san-antonio-theater-shooting-the-media-ignored

 

"the recent San Antonio theater shooting should be more than enough to persuade all but the most hardened and determined enemies of the Second Amendment that the best thing is for more people to be armed and enabled to resist threats like these, rather than fewer. But the media aren't listening. Those incidents dont fit the narrative."

 

And:

 

"Mass shootings in schools increased five times after the legislation mandating gun free zones around schools was enacted in 1990.

 

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/magnolia/news/congressman-introduces-audit-the-fed-act-safe-schools-act-to/article_96d036c2-579b-11e2-b588-0019bb2963f4.html

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

 

[Beavah]

Yah, JoeBob, I don't reckon anybody is particularly against off-duty police officers intervening with an active shooter. But let's be honest, eh? Da positive intervention was a result of da presence of those police officers, not random, untrained citizens with guns in a crowded mall.

 

And da positive result was enhanced by da fact that Garcia didn't have an AR-15 knockoff, and apparently couldn't shoot straight with a handgun.

 

So "this incident doesn't fit the narrative" that you are tryin' to make.

 

Beavah

 

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

"And da positive result was enhanced by da fact that Garcia didn't have an AR-15 knockoff, and apparently couldn't shoot straight with a handgun."

 

Really? How did his not having an AR-15 knockoff help? (many of the "knockoffs" are as good and as pricy an the "real" thing BTW)

 

He had a Glock-23. See one in action here:

It's chambered in .40 whereas the AR-15 is chambered in .223. The .40 would likely be more effective at the distances he'd have been shooting (indoors and up relatively close). From further out the AR-15 would be more effective because it's long gun whereas the Glock-23 is a pistol and because the .223 is a higher velocity round.

 

There's no appreciable (and to my knowledge no, period) difference in the rate of fire between the two weapons. In closer quarters the Glock-23 would likely be easier to maneuver with.

 

So for the scenario we're discussing the only appreciable increased capacity the man would have had with a .223 semi-auto rifle rather than the .40 semi-auto pistol he used, would be that he'd have had to change magazines about half as often since most AR magazines take 30 rounds and you can get the Glock-23 with 13,15, or 17 rounds magazines.

 

But it doesn't take that long for a practiced individual to swap magazines - watch someone do it at relaxed pace here:

 

And therein lies the real independent variable you touch on in the "couldn't shoot straight part" of the comment (maybe it was actually "wouldn't" shoot straight - maybe he was an unstable person in a violent rage rather than a calculating psychopathic mass murderer).

 

The real issue is the shooters, not the weapons, and we've already got laws against shooting people.

 

[Papadaddy]

If thugs and nuts are intent on murder, they will find a way, laws or not.

[JoeBob]

Admittedly a right wing source; but their argument is still valid: "it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on or just recently coming off of psychiatric medications."

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

 

Where are the conspiracy guys comparing the profits of the drug companies to the profits of the gun industry?

[Beavah]

Yah, Callooh, you said it. Easier for someone to shoot straight with a rifle.

 

JoeBob, I agree with yeh. Da biggest issue here is da mental health one. Mental health in general is a mess, and has been for a while. Societally we should probably do somethin' about that, not because of da risk of violence but because it's the right thing to do for kids and families.

 

I reckon we also have to admit, though, that it's just a bad idea to have a situation where folks with mental health issues are afforded easy access to guns in a culture where gun violence is considered romantic, or people fantasize about defendin' themselves with firepower against da evil state or the invading hordes. The vast majority of guns used in these mass killings were legally obtained; most of da rest were taken from close family members where the perpetrator had easy access.

 

We're always goin' to have some folks with mental health issues. We're always goin' to have more of 'em in periods of economic stress and high unemployment. Those are both hard nuts to crack. We seem deeply attached to our firearm fantasies. So what's left is we have to find a way of limiting access to such folks.

 

Beavah

 

[WasE61]

"Actually, I'm inclined to agree with the NRA. One armed guard could have prevented the Sandyhook incident. "

 

Funny, that did not work at Columbine....or Aurora.

[Brewmeister]

Neither did an "assault weapons ban" in place at the time which included a ban on "high capacity magazines," which didn't stop the shooters from having over a dozen 10-round magazines in a carbine rifle at Columbine.

 

 

[Beavah]

Neither did an "assault weapons ban" in place at the time which included a ban on "high capacity magazines," which didn't stop the shooters from having over a dozen 10-round magazines in a carbine rifle at Columbine.

 

Yah, da assault weapons ban was always a bit of a politician's farce.

 

Yeh can interpret that in at least two ways. One is that "nothing will work" by way of legal restrictions. Da other is that Congress should tell the special interest lobbies to go take a hike and write a piece of legislation which is actually sensible.

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Beavah, what parameters would 'reasonable legislation' include for you?

 

I'd be willing to forego 30 round magazines. I can't defend them, except on principle. 20 rounds was plenty back in the day. I can see 20 rounds getting winched further down to 10.

 

If you want to completely ban full-autos and drop-in sears, I can certainly agree to that.

 

I'll even be willing to talk about returning to the failed 'assault weapons' ban.

 

--BUT--

 

I'd only be willing to surrender those rights in exchange for legislation that would

 

1- Guarantee that this is as far as it goes! (Gun control advocates have a proven history of mission creep: today, assault weapons, next, high-powered ammo, then semi-autos... etc.)

 

2- Contain some useful items, like allowing concealed carry by school personnel. You know, something that might actually achieve a result.

***

 

When Lanza was turned away trying to purchase a gun on his own the week before, I think some sort of notification should have gone out: "Crazy kid tried to buy a gun; somebody check it out!"

 

[SSScout]

 

You've got to be taught

To hate and fear,

You've got to be taught

From year to year,

It's got to be drummed

In your dear little ear

You've got to be carefully taught.

 

You've got to be taught to be afraid

Of people whose eyes are oddly made,

And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,

You've got to be carefully taught.

 

You've got to be taught before it's too late,

Before you are six or seven or eight,

To hate all the people your relatives hate,

You've got to be carefully taught!

 

= Rogers and Hammerstein =