Gun lobby goes ballistic when newspaper mis-identifies component of rifle.

[Scuba]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172105918#

[Cerridwen]

1. SOP talking points as catapulted by r/w org.

Listen at 7:33

He believes, that if he can show one reporter using language about firearmes that isn't strictly technically accurate, then he can discount, to his membership, everything that the American news media might say about guns.

He wants to show n.r.a. members a flash of his pretend ballistics expertise by making fun of the idea that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers.

"Most vile fundraising letter": 15:47

About what would happen if Barack Obama was re-elected president of the United States: "The night of nov 6, 2012, you and i will lose more on the election battlefield than our nation has lost in any battle, any time, anywhere in the history of our nation."

[Recursion]

2. When both media and politicians are repeatedly unable to identify the actual features being banned

that should at least cause us some concern, no?

[jberryhill]

4. That gets worked out in the legislative process

LaPierre doesn't want the discussion to proceed.

[Recursion]

6. It sure as hell didn't in '94

What makes you think that will happen now?

[jberryhill]

12. If you had no problem with the '94 bill, then there is no problem is there

Yes, yes, if at first you don't succeed, give up. Been there, done that.

We continue to have a legislature which continues to revise laws all of the time. You can be a part of the discussion or just stand there screaming "No".

[Recursion]

14. I had a *huge* problem with the '94 bill: exhibit A is that Lanza's rifle was legal under it

And that under the proposed bill, it will be legal once the manufacturer redesigned its grip.

The AWB simply does not do what proponents think it does. It does not say "you cannot have a rapid-firing weapon". It says "if you have a rapid-firing weapon, it cannot look like this..." That's an absolutely stupid idea.

[jberryhill]

17. No, it's not an absolutely stupid idea

You can go on all you want about aesthetics. However, I'm going to guess that the field of industrial design, and how it interfaces with psychology, is not something you've ever really spent a whole lot of time with.

The objective is not to "ban Adam Lanza's gun".

There will be guns, and there will be shootings. As the NRA and others often point out, the problem is one of behavior. Behavior and design - that which is often derided as "mere aesthetics" - have a more complex relationship than apparently you have never paid much thought.

Meanwhile, companies which make all kinds of things, spend millions of dollars on designers who do give a lot of thought about how humans interact with utilitarian objects in terms of what the design of an object - yes, the way it looks - inspires or motivates a user to do, or how the object's design itself is suggestive of its function.

You can go on all day about what you think is stupid, and I imagine we could appoint you to cut a lot of waste out of industries all over the world by informing them that "what something looks like" has no relationship to how people are motivated or predisposed to use it. The problem is that the economic results of having recognized how industrial design affects behavior, are a very strong counterargument to mere posturing.

[Recursion]

19. Well, given that I've taken two graduate-level classes in industrial design

I'd have to disagree with you there about my ignorance of the subject.

And I've used guns most of my adult life, and the actual UI difference you're claiming I'm ignoring I know very well, and I know them well enough to know that they are significantly smaller than you think.

Actually banning black guns might do something, but that would sound so stupid that nobody would propose it.

[jberryhill]

22. Cool, then tell me...

I want to give each of 10 million teenagers a car for a year. I am going to give each teenager the same car

I have a choice between this car:



and this car:



They are both 2010 Honda Civics.

At the end of the year, and based on your familiarity with design, would you expect there to be any difference in outcomes, over that population, in speeding violations, injuries or fatalities or other safety metrics?

It's the precise reason why cars are offered with different option packages - to appeal to different mindsets and user expectations.

Take a 1973 Dodge Dart. IMHO, that car sucked ass aesthetically. It is one crusty looking vehicle which says "Hey, little old lady in Pasadena, take me to church":



This fine "muscle car" is not:



...and it says something entirely different.

It's the same car, but you will get entirely different user behavior out of it over a large population of users.

That goes for a lot of things, including the manner in which it is advertised and marketed.

A Camel cigarette is a Camel cigarette is a Camel cigarette. But, hey, use a cartoon character to sell it and, waddya know, people who respond to cartoon characters - i.e. youth - get interested.

The "just the way it looks" argument doesn't really get at why looks matter.

[Recursion]

23. Actually red exteriors are associated with most negative driving incidents among young adults

So, in your particular first example, you have half of a point, but it's not what you think.

That's why I said banning black rifles might do something. Unfortunately it would sound too stupid for anybody to try it.

[jberryhill]

24. All other factors being equal, that's true

However, there are a lot of design factors in play in the example I gave.

But you get the drift.

[Recursion]

26. And you're still ignoring the UI issue that the pistol grip we want to ban makes guns safer

Drops are less likely, control is better.

Compare the deaths by gun accident vs. mass shooting. Even if, for argument's sake, pistol grips increase mass shootings, their decreasing of accidents saves a lot more lives.

[frylock]

25. yes, it should.

[madville]

3. It irritates me as well

Whatever the topic, whichever side one takes, people disseminating information should be factual. It seems to be one of the worst when it's related to firearms. The people proposing the laws and the media get it wrong all the time, if you're trying to regulate or restrict whatever at least know what you are talking about, is it really too much to ask?

Two negative consequences are it weakens the credibility of the argument and people take the false information as facts and now they are misinformed. That's not good for any topic.

[jberryhill]

5. Do you know the chemical structure of dioxin?

[Recursion]

8. Is he trying to ban dioxin while leaving dioxane legal? (nt)

[jberryhill]

10. Please show me the proposed statutory language under discussion

Show me the language in the bill and I'll tell you what is attempting to be banned.

Until you do that, you are just talking out of your ass over language which is not in any proposed piece of legislation.

What words in the bill are incorrect, in your view?

[Recursion]

11. We don't have the bill yet; the relevant change is in Feinstein's press release

"changing from a 2-feature ban to a 1-feature ban"

Though the rumor mill says that the bayonet lug (which is not what's pictured) will be allowed again.

[jberryhill]

13. Number of the bill, please

[jberryhill]

15. Oh, a "rumor" and a "press release"

When either a "rumor" or a "press release" comes up for a vote in the House or Senate, do let us know.

[Recursion]

16. Sigh

Sorry, I didn't realize we weren't supposed to actually read Senators' press releases about bills they are writing.

If you don't trust her to actually write the bill she claims she's writing, that's your issue...

[jberryhill]

18. And it will never go to committee or amendment...

I'm not sure we are both talking about the same legislative process.

[Recursion]

20. The flaw is not in the details but in the central concept

And amendment and committee aren't going to change that.

This is not a bad implementation of a good idea. Quite the opposite.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. They should be sued for "liable"!

[Agschmid]

21. From Bob's hide

At Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

was it necessary to make a post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2251713

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is a nasty personal attack.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:23 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Learn civility, then speak.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Lay off the personal attacks, bwb. It's ugly, shallow and juvenile.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: bob needs a nap? Who cares, bob?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: To backwoodsbob... I do not like guns, I want them gone. However this was a but OTT of a reply. If you look the posts are in different forums and some people *ME* don't go to RKBA that often/ever so this was something that got cross posted in GD for all to see. Nothing wrong with that in my book. Voting to HIDE the OTT response.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

27. typical nt

[Xithras]

28. You have to admit that it's a pretty funny misidentification.

It's a loop where you place a simple cloth strap to carry the rifle over your shoulder when walking with it. Every modern hunting rifle on the planet has one.

The newspaper identified it as the mount point for a grenade launcher

[villager]

29. As do many gun violence apologists here. Dead kids? Who cares!? Misidentified single piece

... on a personal weapon-of-mass destruction? Now that's cause for alarm!

[bowens43]

30. Its all they have

they cannot rationally defend their belief that guns are good and holy things and that guns play no role in gun violence so they try to use this kind of nonsense to obscure the real issue, that guns are the problem.