Skip to main content

View Diary: What CAN we agree on? (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can we possibly agree (8+ / 0-)

    that people who have actually purchased guns, have used guns and have educated themselves concerning guns, know more about guns from a technical perspective than those who haven't?

    For example, there are some mean looking pieces out there that are in reality pretty tinker toy as far as firepower is concerned. I mean, some of these guns that are being targeted as "assault weapons" - and I've seen them on DailyKos pictured as examples of "overkill" - are pretty much a light weight hunting rifle with some impressive looking bits of plastic.

    I'm just suggesting that perhaps those who do keep and bear arms have invested a great deal of time and money in knowing what they are talking about. In order to craft something that makes the country safer, shouldn't their knowledge be respected?

    Or do we just want to demand that we only be shot with less scary looking guns?

    •  If I'm hearing you correctly. (14+ / 0-)

      I hear the complaint that people who are making the law don't really understand what they're regulating.  (Correct me if I'm wrong as to your criticism.)

      As a result we need to clearly and specifically delineate what we are attempting to ban, if we are going forward.

      The law needs to specifically address the capabilities, not model number, appearance, or any other factor, of the weapon.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:17:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (5+ / 0-)

        And understanding the implications.

        Many people don't know that a pistol can be fired every bit as rapidly as a semi automatic rifle, for example.

        And God forbid a speed loader should be explained!

        It's a moot point to ban a gun that has a little extra plastic and a couple of screws and let another more powerful firearm walk.

        That, and  the people who keep and bear arms are the people that know these things.

        •  A pistol (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north

          as in a revolver.

          •  If you're referring to a single action, yes. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phil S 33, Smoh, glorificus

            However, a single action revolver can only usually fire six times before you have to reload it.  ;)

            As we've seen from many of these mass casualty events, the reload period is when they get the perp.

            I personally think that a speed loader is not necessary for anything outside of very specific shooting events OR law enforcement/military purposes.

            Just my opinion, YMMV

            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

            by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:27:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which is why (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deward Hastings, 43north

              murdering lunatics almost always carry TWO handguns.

              I'm thinking a murdering lunatic may find a speed loader "necessary":

              http://www.policeone.com/...

              With this in mind, let's take a look at a few combat-reloading techniques.

              Revolvers:
              When I entered law enforcement in the mid-1970s, the speed loader was a fairly new device. In the academy, we were still instructed on how to load from dump pouches, which was a perilous endeavor at best.

              The speed loader corrected this problem and made reloading the revolver a much simpler task. This device lets you load all of the revolver's chambers at once, giving the wheel gun a reloading capability similar to that of a semiauto pistol. Carrying a revolver for police service and not having at least two to three speed loaders to recharge it is, well, less than wise.

    •  Perhaps (6+ / 0-)
      I'm just suggesting that perhaps those who do keep and bear arms have invested a great deal of time and money in knowing what they are talking about. In order to craft something that makes the country safer, shouldn't their knowledge be respected?
      But it seems to me by the same logic we would be deferring to the bankers to regulate the financial industry. After all they have invested a great deal of time and money in knowing what they are talking about too, right?

      It's a a generic issue across a wide range of interests. The flip side of greater knowledge is often  less objectivity and greater vested interest.  

      I agree that we should listen to the technical knowledge the RKBA'ers have to craft better laws.   But we have to ready and willing to cut ties with them when their vested interest diverges from what's needed to reduce the carnage. And I personally think history - and even the conversations here - shows it necessarily will.

      •  Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, Smoh, glorificus

        It's already getting a little heated in here, but I'm still gonna try.  

        And I'm taking a little flak from both sides already.  ;)

        We need to have a serious talk about capabilities, and why laws on manufacturing need to address those capabilities.  

        Sure people can put things together in their basement, but that doesn't mean we should make it easy on them.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:09:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or maybe that "problem" would be solved by making (0+ / 0-)

          it illegal to do so. Do you know which other contries put up with the same sort of gunnuttery that we do? The correct answer just happens to be that none do.

          (I don't mean to jinx you, but you're doing excellent work here, by the way.)

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:42:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Respect earned (7+ / 0-)

      Yes I respect the knowledge of shooting enthusiasts. I'm just waiting for the pro-gun crowd to start participating in discussions of responsible regulation instead of knee-jerk reactions and quoting the 2nd Amendment as scripture.  

      In practical terms, this argument sounds a bit like asking us to give all due respect to the wisdom of slave owners when discussing how best to end slavery in the antebellum period. I'm all ears here, but somehow I don't think these are the answers we're looking for.

    •  How about we agree that people who once did, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian

      and have moved on, know more about the subject than people who are still in the sway of firearms infatuation.

      To most people, all things firearm are a relatively boring subject, and it's boring not due to lack of intelligence and/or information, but, rather, because firearms are a relatively boring subject.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:38:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site