Skip to main content

View Diary: How not to talk about guns (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The more interesting part of (5+ / 0-)

    the show on the following night was when one of Piers' guests (NY Times columnist I think, can't quite think of his name at the moment) pointed out that "military style semiautomatic weapons" killed around 300 people in 2012, while there were a total of 11,000 or so total gun deaths. He said ban them and their large magazines if you like, but if you really want to tackle the large gun death rate here you'll have to "go after the handguns".

    Nobody else seems to have grasped that; once again we may be heading towards a feel-good solution that actually does nothing to solve the real problem.

    I also know why- the politics of the situation is barely adequate, if that, to allow discussion of this spectacular but small part of the problem. It is simply totally inadequate to tackle that larger part.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:33:17 AM PST

    •  many have grasped this..... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, theboz

      and many know there is a large amount of violence against gang members and viollence against women.  We should work harder to eliminate gang violence, but there have been some benefits from the existing efforts.  There are many who realize this has contributed to crime reductions.  We also need to repass the violence against women act.  That is why it is a commission on violence, not just guns.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:54:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's like losing your virginity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, Hey338Too

      or voting for a tax increase - do it once and you can never go back.

      Assault weapons ( spare me the semantics, we all know what we are talking about) are the weapon of choice for the spree killer, Sandy Hook,Aurora etc, and if the tide turns towards reducing their availability, then the NRA has popped its cherry.

      The real gains will be made with registration and tracking, and closing the private sale loophole.

      •  Are you talking about (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theboz, fuzzyguy, FrankRose

        an SKS with its original 10 round magazine? It only differs from an M1 Garand in holding two more rounds and in that its rounds are about half as powerful as the M1 rounds. It's the same design as a lot of other semi-autos that are not associated with the name "assault weapon". It's not even technically an assault weapon, they've never been made with selective fire or removable magazine, pistol grip, etc. You can get crappy 30 round mags for them on the aftermarket if you want to render them unusable, though. lol.

        It doesn't have the jamming potential, and would probably be more than an adequate substitute for, something with a pistol grip and a large magazine because it can be loaded with stripper clips.

        Rate of fire per appropriate unit of time would be a better criteria for banning things, not some arbitrary name or general description like "military style".

        Moderation in most things.

        by billmosby on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:54:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see you couldn't spare the semantics. (0+ / 0-)

          I am no expert, but I am sure that there are many out there, but I guess what we are talking about are M16/Ak47 knock offs copies, firing 223 or 7.6 mm military rounds, with the capacity to hold magazines of 30 or more rounds.

          Oh yeah, I forgot  they tend to be black, and have folding/adjustable stocks, flash supressors, etc.

          You know perfectly well what we are talking about, and think it is somehow clever to try and muddy the water by getting pissy on definitions. Why don't we let a few experts get together and issue a precise definition, and where it is unclear, lets err on the safe side and ban the fuckers anyway.

          •  So you wouldn't ban my SKS, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, FrankRose

            even though it is just as capable of causing the same mayhem as those others you mention.

            Pissy is not the word for what I am about, I'm about precision.

            I wouldn't mind giving up even the SKS along with my AK, if they fit into a plan that really solves the problem.

            You represent the know-nothing, "you know what I mean" faction.

            At least you say you are no expert. We've had a whole bunch of nonexperts trying to solve the problem for a long time now. It's time we cut out the crap and really do something about the problem.

            By the way, I mentioned elsewhere here that rapid fire rifles are only a tiny albeit spectacularly newsworthy part of the problem. The real problem is those other 11000 or so gun deaths that won't be diminished by a real "assault weapon" ban, let alone the cosmetic kind that's likely to be passed by nonexperts.

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:37:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So Mr Expert -why not tell us what we should ban (0+ / 0-)

              instead of being a pedantic ass.

              You do understand I hope that what most people are talking about would be fairly easy to define by someone with a certain level of knowledge and a will to contribute positively rather than making snide comments from the corner.

              So far you have just behaved in a stereotypical manner for a gun fetishist, with your overbearing, supercilious, unhelpful "so maybe my SKS (already banned in California) would still  be allowed"

              If you are not prepared to contribute in a positive fashion, then be prepared to have the new regulations made by people who do not know what they are talking about. And when they are seen to be inadequate, then they will add more, and more and more. Heh, maybe you will end up like the UK.

              •  I already did that. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy, slothlax

                Rounds firable in some reasonable time interval. Maybe 5 rounds rapidly and then some longer time interval to reload like 5 or 10 sec, like a revolver with a ban on speedloaders. Or a rifle with a 5 rd nondetachable mag. Good for self defense, sort of, but not for mass shootings. I'm a gun hobbyist which is different from a fetishist. I'm one of the calmer gun commenters here, so you can stuff your inflammatory hater rhetoric and if you want to make a positive contribution to a discussion on the subject talk to somebody who knows about it. I'll gladly, as I already said above, give up whatever guns I need to to participate in a national effort to end gun violence. But just doing it on my own would be an empty gesture.

                Moderation in most things.

                by billmosby on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:14:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  You also have to define "the fuckers" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, FrankRose

            in order to make a law that defines them. lol.

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:38:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site