Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Robb

(39,665 posts)
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:44 AM Apr 2013

The North American Man-Gun Love Association (NAMGLA)

The golden age of guns

by John Hazlehurst

(snip)

Consider the most desirable cars of the '50s, '60s and '70s. They were fast, seductively beautiful and dangerous to drivers, passengers, other vehicles and anyone who happened to get in the way. They handled badly in most conditions, were often grossly overpowered, prone to roll over, and not loaded down with sissy equipment like seat belts, airbags and rollbars. In a collision, you'd sail through the windshield or the engine would end up on your lap — either way, you were a statistic.

But they were sooo beautiful! Imagine yourself in a 1958 Chevy Impala convertible, top down on a summer day. That's life as it should be ... unlike our miserable daily commutes in one of today's safe and dreary sedans. That's why a '58 Impala convertible costs $300,000 today, or 150 times as much as it cost new. Love knows no boundaries.

High gas prices, foreign competition, a long recession and government regulations doomed the fleet-footed behemoths of mid-century America. We traded dysfunctional beauty for safety and reliability, and likely saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from untimely deaths.

Now we're in the golden age of firearms. Modern sporting rifles, most based on the Vietnam-era M-16, are the stuff of dreams: light, accurate, reliable, perfectly balanced, and loaded with testosterone. Guys buy them for the same reason guys bought L-88 Corvettes, GT-500 Mustangs, or Plymouth Superbirds — they're dangerous, beautiful and cool as shit.

And gun fatalities remain stuck at around 30,000 annually.

The NRA? It's the lineal descendant of the NHRA, the National Hot Rod Association. The organization ought to abandon its specious Second Amendment shtick and rename itself the North American Man-Gun Love Association. Most of us can't afford a '58 Impala, but we can buy a Bushmaster — an artifact to treasure and love, a bargain-priced substitute for a vintage Corvette....

Read More: http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/the-golden-age-of-guns/Content?oid=2659525
167 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The North American Man-Gun Love Association (NAMGLA) (Original Post) Robb Apr 2013 OP
Wow... just the excerpt is an incredible read. 4_TN_TITANS Apr 2013 #1
Yeah, he's pretty good. Robb Apr 2013 #2
Consumerism carried to the ultimate and deadly conclusion. freshwest Apr 2013 #83
The cited piece is patently absurd ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #3
Spoken like a man who's never owned a Corvette. Robb Apr 2013 #4
Corvettes are for compensating. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #6
My Supra left 'Vettes in the dust ... Bake Apr 2013 #162
I have owned and extensively ridden a Kawasaki Mach III and later a Ducati cafe racer ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #27
I believe Nuclear Unicorn has some manhood questions for you. Robb Apr 2013 #39
Only if they are Hardley-Davidsons ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #91
Oh, I see--you're the only one who can call something absurd without "impeding dialog." SunSeeker Apr 2013 #10
Imagine if you will that someone posted a piece about anti gunners ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #29
Yeah, you guys tried "anti-gun bigotry" already Robb Apr 2013 #34
Only in the mind of some of the more delicate flowers ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #89
You/the RBKA Group attack "anti gunners" all the time. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #37
You miss the humor in the "solution." caseymoz Apr 2013 #58
Just did not have the energy today to write a counter parody. Its on the list to do... ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #90
Perhaps you should consider this is not the best day to gloat BainsBane Apr 2013 #115
I wanted background checks to pass. ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #117
Yet you enter this thread to oppose those who support background checks BainsBane Apr 2013 #127
I entered this thread to comment on the piece of doggerel cited in the OP ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #137
I keep hearing about how unfair it is to compare cars to guns when citing cars kill more people Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #5
Way to miss the point, dude. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #7
Guns don't make people suicidal. Treat the disease, not the symptom. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #16
Guns make suicidal people 5 time more likely to kill themselves. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #22
If they've already made the attempt you already missed the opportunity Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #35
You're 5 times more likely to make the attempt with a gun in the house. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #42
"Not having an AR does not 'abrogate a person's right to self-defense.'" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #46
All of them. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #82
You want to enable the overwhelming minority Robb Apr 2013 #45
30,000 people are not killed by AR-15s Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #49
In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. The Earl o Sammich Apr 2013 #128
Were you replying to me or Robb? Honest question. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #131
Please excuse the noob. The Earl o Sammich Apr 2013 #163
How many of that 30K CokeMachine Apr 2013 #166
Whoosh. Robb Apr 2013 #9
The author, if the term can be put so loosely, isn't arguing anything Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #32
"There is no fetishizing of the AR-15." Robb Apr 2013 #38
Why do you focus on the AR-15s when handguns, shotguns and hammers kill more people? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #44
Wherein "Nuclear Unicorn" admits to not reading the article. Robb Apr 2013 #47
Clicking on the link... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2013 #63
. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #70
"Least deadliest firearm available." See "sort of pregnant." Robb Apr 2013 #84
No, Robb, they don't. mac56 Apr 2013 #99
There's a well-rehearsed,oft-repeated line. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #125
I wouldn't know. I don't parrot Astroturf talking points. mac56 Apr 2013 #130
If you googled "talking points" as a retort by pro-gun control advocates Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #132
Least deadly? You actually think that a semi-autimatic rifle chambered for .223, designed for Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #124
30,000 gun deaths, 400 of which are rifles, of which fewer still are semi-autos Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #126
Which one of those dead victims of gun violence are "less" dead? Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #129
You want to stop 300 guns deaths but ignore the other 29,700. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #133
Straw Man. It was you focusing on one segment of the total death toll by firearms. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #136
And what in the bill whose defeat you're so upset about Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #140
We'll never know now, will we? Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #143
As most of the 30,000 gun deaths are suicides Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #148
I will ask you another question, you didn't answer my first one. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #151
I have never had cause to contact LE about a person I believed to be a Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #157
But people intent on suicide by cop and taking others with them need more. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #158
You don't need a loaded gun to get the cops to shoot you. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #159
Sorry, gun crimes are committed by 'law-abiding gun owners' as well as the mentally ill. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #160
You have supporting data/argument for this assertion? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #161
Do your own work. You can't really be serious. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #164
It's not a researchable statement Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #165
Those who disregard basic rights have fetishized the AR-15 AlbertCat Apr 2013 #59
+++10000 marions ghost Apr 2013 #118
how many hours do your operate your car every day vs hours operating your gun? frylock Apr 2013 #48
According to those who disregard other people's rights Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #50
please answer my original question.. frylock Apr 2013 #53
Well, in the interest of full disclosure Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #56
so we can agree that cars v guns is a bullshit analogy.. frylock Apr 2013 #61
I don't necessarily agree with that. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #66
derpa derpa derp? frylock Apr 2013 #68
Your concession is duly noted. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #71
your space shuttle red herring really didn't merit much of a response.. frylock Apr 2013 #74
Weird. 'Cuz pro-rights advocates constantly have to confront the Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #75
yeh, it is weird that you would resign to a tactic you seem to abhor.. frylock Apr 2013 #76
Those that use that argument are impervious to being told it's absurd, so I demonstrated Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #77
any incidence of 26 people killed in one accident involving an Aveo? frylock Apr 2013 #79
Automobiles are used a million fold a day compared to guns. Arctic Dave Apr 2013 #64
But guns possess the minds of their owners turning them into trigger happy zombies Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #67
For a percentage, they do. Arctic Dave Apr 2013 #73
But you're arguing the wrong point. GaYellowDawg Apr 2013 #97
yep marions ghost Apr 2013 #119
Actually, they kill about the same number. (LOL, a gun fanatic getting facts wrong, whodathunkit!) DanTex Apr 2013 #121
Fixating on semiautomatic rifles is mind boggling hack89 Apr 2013 #8
Sexist too. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #11
An AR has no legitimate place in civilian hands. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #13
Yet Senator Feinstein says it is perfectly ok for me to own one. hack89 Apr 2013 #15
You are clearly willing to ban and confiscate semiautomatic rifles to save 200 lives. hack89 Apr 2013 #17
ARs have no place in civilian hands. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #19
Care to answer my question? hack89 Apr 2013 #21
No, I've already said I don't want to ban all guns. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #25
Pretty callous of you to ignore the deaths of tens of thousands. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #26
I don't; that is why I want strong gun control. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #31
So do I hack89 Apr 2013 #36
Such as? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #41
Everything the President proposed after Sandy Hook. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #43
This. Robb Apr 2013 #51
Any criteria you could use to ban the most popular center-fire rifle in the US could be used to ban AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #60
Fits rather nicely, actually. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #57
Wow. That comment sure affirms the point of the OP. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #85
I don't know, I'm not suffering from confirmation bias or projection here. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #86
The AR platform is the most popular center-fire rifle in the nation. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #55
So, you'd support banning handguns. baldguy Apr 2013 #24
No - I support single payer health care. hack89 Apr 2013 #28
The vast majority of people with mental health problems are not violent. baldguy Apr 2013 #52
Suicide is a mental health issue - and suicides make up the majority of gun deaths. hack89 Apr 2013 #62
There you go changing the subject, baldguy. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #30
Not really. baldguy Apr 2013 #54
Since I specifically told you I did not support banning handguns hack89 Apr 2013 #72
Sorry, that should have been directed at hack. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #134
Sounds like porno-perversion smear, typical of stigmatization approach... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #12
And yet you just can't quit us. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #18
Yep. A near-slanderous cheap-shot-by-implication. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #141
The unfortunate new dynamic in DU... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #146
The ideological totalitarians have all the momentum. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #155
Gun ads like this one appealing to the 'manhood-deprived' aren't subtle: LeftinOH Apr 2013 #14
We who aren't gun worshippers don't need to "porno-perversion smear" Patiod Apr 2013 #78
Thank you for sharing how wacka-doo the gun haters have become. aikoaiko Apr 2013 #20
Did you see the ad in post #14, speaking of wacka-doo? Patiod Apr 2013 #80
Looks like a sexist joke of a marketing campaign to me. aikoaiko Apr 2013 #81
NAMGLA. Perfect. Arugula Latte Apr 2013 #23
The OP just screams for a parody response. Not sure I am up to it, but I may try ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #33
You are not. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #104
You must be a very delicate flower... ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #109
And you must be Pee Wee Herman. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #113
LOL. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #135
Correct. Because for humor to be funny, it must be based in fact. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #142
Love it! kag Apr 2013 #65
Too fucking funny. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #138
what an idiot LOL snooper2 Apr 2013 #40
NAMGLA - love it!!!! Initech Apr 2013 #69
From now on, it is NAMGLA! backscatter712 Apr 2013 #87
"Prosthetic Penis Club" SunSeeker Apr 2013 #139
Kick. Robb Apr 2013 #88
And right on cue, the "RKBA" crowd bobs up from the swamp that is the Gungeon... apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #92
Hurt feelings? hack89 Apr 2013 #93
Yes. Hurt feelings. That's why they are. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #95
Ok. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #98
Please share the jury results. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #103
Why would I alert for that? hack89 Apr 2013 #116
Love it. I will no longer refer to that entity as NRA. I like to call things what they are. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #94
Me too. The "RKBA enthusiast" and pro-NRA crowd is so morally despicable in any event, and apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #96
Protip: The jibes of politically inept moralizers like yourself carry very little sting. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #100
Stung enough for you to respond. laundry_queen Apr 2013 #101
Telling, isn't it? Spot-on post - wish we could recommend individual replies. +1,000. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #105
Protip: being on the wrong side of history always stings those ridiculed in subsequent generations apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #102
"My" NRA agenda? I despise the NRA as much as I despise you antigun culture warriors. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #106
Poor, poor Gungeoneer...trapped on the wrong side of history by his own doing and mad at the world apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #107
Is that you, Billy Sunday? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #110
The time of your NRA pals and their odious, bloody agenda is coming to an end, Gungeoneer. apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #111
Dude. Use the correct name. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #112
The time of your distiller pals and their odious, bloody agenda is coming to an end, Saloonkeeper. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #114
LOL. You've repeated the "culture war" talking point about 20,000 times now. DanTex Apr 2013 #122
How well has all the bile directed at gun owners worked to get what *you* want? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #156
Gun Owner Death Cult hepkat Apr 2013 #108
Not sure where my wife and daughter fit into this organization hack89 Apr 2013 #120
i like the writers idea--"make guns butt ugly" marions ghost Apr 2013 #123
How about the "Hello Kitty AR-15"? SunSeeker Apr 2013 #144
That one would even be legal under the proposed AWB... (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #145
I'd also have the stock say "The user of this weapon is a fucking idiot." SunSeeker Apr 2013 #147
good idea marions ghost Apr 2013 #149
Also, "WARNING: This weapon increases your risk of suicide by 5 times." nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #150
And WARNING: This weapons increases your family members risk of death by ( ) times marions ghost Apr 2013 #152
Yes, any of these... SunSeeker Apr 2013 #153
Considering the fact marions ghost Apr 2013 #154
guns kill people... ileus Apr 2013 #167

4_TN_TITANS

(2,977 posts)
1. Wow... just the excerpt is an incredible read.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:08 AM
Apr 2013

About to go to the article, but it's already nailed it. To the wall.

Great post, thank-you!

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
3. The cited piece is patently absurd
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:31 AM
Apr 2013

The silly asumptions and reasons given for gun ownership as only exceeded by the authors proposed solutions which are assinine

This kind of nonsense impedes any change of effective dialog

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
27. I have owned and extensively ridden a Kawasaki Mach III and later a Ducati cafe racer
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:12 AM
Apr 2013

both of which but any Corvette to shame

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
29. Imagine if you will that someone posted a piece about anti gunners
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:14 AM
Apr 2013

and compared them to WCTU or a national anti gay group and claimed their objections were selfish and mean spirited? Would that be helpful or contribute meaningfully?

Robb

(39,665 posts)
34. Yeah, you guys tried "anti-gun bigotry" already
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:17 AM
Apr 2013

...and got righteously smacked down.

Which was surprising to no one but the gun nuts among you.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
89. Only in the mind of some of the more delicate flowers
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:37 PM
Apr 2013

It is not that hard to go tit for tat...and my skin is quite a bit thicker than some of the more delicate flowers

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
58. You miss the humor in the "solution."
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:19 PM
Apr 2013

His "solution" was humorous, and if you missed that, it then explains why you would miss the fact that his comparison was spot on. If there's a reason why people buy semi-automatic rifles in mass numbers, it doesn't have to do with personal safety.

No, I don't believe the Sandy Hook shooting made people feel so unsafe, so in need of personal protection, that they bought out the exact gun model used in the killing. What you have are collectors wanting the hottest, kewl item. Another apt comparison would be collecting Barbie dolls, which is one of many observations this humorous article makes:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns_p2.html

But I think the NAMGLA reference was a low-blow.

BainsBane

(53,015 posts)
115. Perhaps you should consider this is not the best day to gloat
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:23 AM
Apr 2013

You have corporate backers, big money, the senate, And the NRA, aka criminal protection league, on your side. What more do you want? Mind control? So 90% of Americans don't think their desire to stockpile WMD trumps Human life. It's not like we live in a country were the views of voters actually count.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
117. I wanted background checks to pass.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:57 AM
Apr 2013

Supported that for many years.

What many have not noted is the DiFi amendment lost 40-60. That was a good thing IMNSHO

I see nothing gloating about treating inanity with parody. I did see where AH did exactly that in another thread...polarity reversed of course. I am sure you thought it was just fine.

I have no backers and disagree with the NRA clearly more than half the time.

Your usual hyperbole is noted

BainsBane

(53,015 posts)
127. Yet you enter this thread to oppose those who support background checks
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:12 AM
Apr 2013

Why would someone who supports background checks feel the need to do that, I wonder?

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
137. I entered this thread to comment on the piece of doggerel cited in the OP
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:56 AM
Apr 2013

I supported Manchin's amendment. However, the Pink Pistols site pointed out a problem with it I had not considered when taken in the context of current Federal law, in this case DOMA. http://pinkpistols.org/?q=node/5 I hope a cleaned up version of UBCs will pass without those issues.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
5. I keep hearing about how unfair it is to compare cars to guns when citing cars kill more people
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:44 AM
Apr 2013

by several multiples.

The standard retort is cars have a utility whereas a gun is designed exclusively for the act of killing. OK, let's take that (specious) argument at face value.

A car is designed with seat belts, airbags, safety glass, crumple zones, traction control, anti-lock brakes, engineered traffic control systems, civil ordinances, drivers exams, computer assisted this and specially designed frames that. And yet, even after all that engineering and regulation they still kill more people than a tool we're told possesses no purpose except to kill.

What's up with that? Why are car drivers so much more dangerous than gun owners?

SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
7. Way to miss the point, dude.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:50 AM
Apr 2013

Oh, and really? Cars are more dangerous than guns? Tell you what, when owning a car increases your chance of suicide 5 times, get back to me.

SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
22. Guns make suicidal people 5 time more likely to kill themselves.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:08 AM
Apr 2013

Can't treat the disease if the patient dies before you can heal him.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
35. If they've already made the attempt you already missed the opportunity
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:18 AM
Apr 2013

And someone's self-destruction is not a reason to abrogate another person's right to self-defense.

SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
42. You're 5 times more likely to make the attempt with a gun in the house.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:22 AM
Apr 2013

And that attempt is more likely to be fatal, unlike other suicide methods.

Not having an AR does not "abrogate a person's right to self-defense."

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
46. "Not having an AR does not 'abrogate a person's right to self-defense.'"
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:26 AM
Apr 2013

Says who? How many of your rights do you allow 3rd parties to define?

Robb

(39,665 posts)
45. You want to enable the overwhelming minority
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:25 AM
Apr 2013

...who someday might use their guns for self-defense.

I want to protect the 30K+ who are actually victimized.

And yet you claim my efforts defy logic.

163. Please excuse the noob.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:45 PM
Apr 2013

My first post. I was just reading through that and the 30,000 number seemed WAY off from what I recalled so I looked it up. To answer your question I'm replying to whom ever will read it. No offense meant to anyone, ...in particular.

 

CokeMachine

(1,018 posts)
166. How many of that 30K
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:44 PM
Apr 2013

are victims of their own choice (suicide)? also how many of those suicide deaths were committed with AR type rifles? With ~400 deaths by rifles of all types I'd guess it's pretty low.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
9. Whoosh.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:51 AM
Apr 2013

If grandpa's duck gun is the Chevy Malibu, the AR-15 is the GT.

The author doesn't argue against the utility of the duck gun, but rather the fetishizing of the AR-15 as a poor man's GT -- and how that lust for the loud and dangerous has effectively hamstrung gun safety legislation.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
32. The author, if the term can be put so loosely, isn't arguing anything
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:16 AM
Apr 2013

The "author" assigned a term and little else. It's not an argument, it's name-calling.

There is no fetishizing of the AR-15. Those who disregard basic rights have fetishized the AR-15 as the thing they want to seize in the name of public safety even though it's risk to the public is minimal in comparison to many other things -- including cars, duck guns and fists. If those who defend their rights have drawn a line it is because those who disregard rights have yet to declare the bright line that they will not cross in recognition of the rights of others.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
38. "There is no fetishizing of the AR-15."
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:19 AM
Apr 2013

I'm sorry, can you say the rest of your paragraph again? Because we were all still laughing at that part and might've missed the rest.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
44. Why do you focus on the AR-15s when handguns, shotguns and hammers kill more people?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:23 AM
Apr 2013

The article you cited gives its blessing to "duck guns" and yet shotguns kill more people annually than rifles (of which semi-autos are a sub-set).

So why do you fetishize the AR-15?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
70. .
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:50 PM
Apr 2013
Now we're in the golden age of firearms. Modern sporting rifles, most based on the Vietnam-era M-16, are the stuff of dreams: light, accurate, reliable, perfectly balanced, and loaded with testosterone. Guys buy them for the same reason guys bought L-88 Corvettes, GT-500 Mustangs, or Plymouth Superbirds — they're dangerous, beautiful and cool as shit.


The article fetishizes AR-15s even though they are a sub-set of the least deadliest firearm available.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
84. "Least deadliest firearm available." See "sort of pregnant."
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:39 PM
Apr 2013

Do you even listen to yourselves any more?

mac56

(17,564 posts)
130. I wouldn't know. I don't parrot Astroturf talking points.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:32 AM
Apr 2013

It appears you're familiar with the concept, though.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
132. If you googled "talking points" as a retort by pro-gun control advocates
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:36 AM
Apr 2013

you'd break the internet. You guys should formulate a counter argument or concede the point.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
124. Least deadly? You actually think that a semi-autimatic rifle chambered for .223, designed for
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:02 AM
Apr 2013

the military and used in various configurations world-wide is less effective than...?

Guess the military defense buyers of the world are all idiots.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
136. Straw Man. It was you focusing on one segment of the total death toll by firearms.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:54 AM
Apr 2013

I responded.


I never ignored anything, those are your words and you attach them to me.

I want to stop THEM ALL.



A question:

Have any members of your family ever been murdered in cold blood by a 'law-abiding gun owner'?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
140. And what in the bill whose defeat you're so upset about
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:00 PM
Apr 2013

would have prevented those deaths and what guarantees to you offer the people who want to exercise their rights?

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
143. We'll never know now, will we?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:21 PM
Apr 2013

How specifically does a background check keep people from execising their rights? The NFA is far more restrictive in that matter, yet do you argue against it?

You are arguing a negative.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
148. As most of the 30,000 gun deaths are suicides
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:37 PM
Apr 2013

waiting periods, background checks and magazine capacities would be useless. Most gun crimes (4/5, IIRC) are committed by repeat offenders who are, for the most part, forbidden from owning guns. We need better mental healthcare intervention services and we need to enforce the laws already on the books.

Would you not agree that when the law already requires people such as Loughner and Holmes to be reported but those laws are not enacted upon that those we entrust with our public safety have shown themselves derelict in their duties? We don't need more laws for them to ignore in our name. They need to enforce the laws we have already told them to enforce.

And we need to expand mental health services to get people who might otherwise lead happy, productive lives to get the help they need. One man's suicide is no reason to disarm the single mother fleeing the abusive ex. We need to reach out to the men and women who are hurting inside before things get that desperate.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
151. I will ask you another question, you didn't answer my first one.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:53 PM
Apr 2013

Have you, personally, ever contacted law enforcement of any kind with your concerns for the mental state of anyone that you know, and if so, what was their response?

I have, in seperate instances.

Unless you have no problem with LE infringing on another person's civil rights, you have no clue as to just how difficult it is for anything to be done as long as that person is not a threat to themselves or anyone else, even though they are clearly mentally troubled.


Not arresting someone for potential future crimes is a law that is already on the books, and that keeps LE from acting.




Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
157. I have never had cause to contact LE about a person I believed to be a
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:19 PM
Apr 2013

threat to themselves or others.

Unless you have no problem with LE infringing on another person's civil rights, you have no clue as to just how difficult it is for anything to be done as long as that person is not a threat to themselves or anyone else, even though they are clearly mentally troubled.

Not arresting someone for potential future crimes is a law that is already on the books, and that keeps LE from acting.


People who are suicidal aren't going to be saved by magazine capacity limits. They only need 1 bullet.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
159. You don't need a loaded gun to get the cops to shoot you.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:38 PM
Apr 2013

Merely pointing a gun is sufficient.

But since you broached he subject, what are the stats on suicide-by-cop rampages?

I would also add, you presumably want to deprive these individuals of the means to act on their mental illnesses. But previously you mentioned you believed intervention would be an infringement of civil rights (in disregard to the civil rights of others) but if your scheme were to work as you imagine (I doubt it would, people being resourceful and all) then the violently mentally ill remain at large. Treatment is the only thing that is going to deal with those who are violent. They certainly can't be left untreated. it is only a matter of time before they fabricate the means to hurt people. No one will feel better if they switch to some other means of acting on their ideations.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
160. Sorry, gun crimes are committed by 'law-abiding gun owners' as well as the mentally ill.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:09 PM
Apr 2013

Even if every criminal and every mentally ill person in this nation was under lock and key, there would still be gun crimes committed.

And that is the problem your side refuses to accept as reality.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
165. It's not a researchable statement
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:18 PM
Apr 2013
Sorry, gun crimes are committed by 'law-abiding gun owners'...


This statement is self-contradicting. Perhaps you meant something else but I would have to make unfounded assumptions.

Even if every criminal and every mentally ill person in this nation was under lock and key, there would still be gun crimes committed.


There is, of course, an assumption that new criminals continually emerge. Such is the state of humanity. But this is also a pro-RKBA argument: the authorities are incapable of providing a safe society and as such individuals are entitled to self-defense and no one has the right to demand they stand passively by as victims until the authorities arrive well after the crime has begun.

With these points in mind I'm not even sure what it is you're driving at.

It's also disingenuous because as soon as I or any other pro-rights advocate makes an assertion the calls for citation are instant and unrelenting. If it is a courtesy you would one day assert it is a courtesy you should extend.
 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
59. Those who disregard basic rights have fetishized the AR-15
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:20 PM
Apr 2013

How about stop fetishizing the 2nd amendment... which clearly states...1st thing... at the very beginning.... before any "rights" are even mentioned...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Obviously, the amendment means "you can have a flint lock in case we need to call you up again to join a militia to fight the British again"... which they did in 1812.

These things are not written in a timeless vacuum, y'know. And it's not the 18th century any more. That's why Congress must make laws to mitigate the change in technologies over the centuries.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
50. According to those who disregard other people's rights
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:32 AM
Apr 2013

Having a gun makes a person a trigger-happy lunatic who looks for every opportunity to use a gun. Are you asserting guns are predominantly used only when needed or for planned recreational/sports purposes?

frylock

(34,825 posts)
53. please answer my original question..
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:08 PM
Apr 2013

how many hours per day do you operate your vehicle vs how many hours per day you OPERATE, not just carry, but actuate the trigger of your gun?

in the interest of full disclosure, I own 3 guns. I am not a gun grabber. I am in favor of common-sense gun laws.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
56. Well, in the interest of full disclosure
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:18 PM
Apr 2013

the only guns I'm around are in my home or when I go shooting (4 times in my entire life).

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
66. I don't necessarily agree with that.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:45 PM
Apr 2013

While I see you point that time-behind-trigger vs. time-behind-wheel would show a different result the raw fact of the matter is cars kill and maim far more people than guns -- in spite of the engineering and regulation.

We accept the risks because of the utility of cars: we need them for work, shopping and the occasional trip for health treatment. But much of what cars are used for is recreational. This very thread alludes to this fact. How many hours are cars on the road for unnecessary reasons? Couple this with the fact they are so much more deadlier than guns by raw numbers and I think an argument could be made to restrict recreational driving on the same grounds so many argue to end self-protection rights.

Does anyone need a Corvette or a speedy little motorcycle? Do you need a car when other modes of transport are available? Where is the constitutional amendment declaring a right to own a car? I suppose if people think they can own a car nothing is to stop them from owning their own space shuttle. What about military grade cars such as Hummers and Jeeps?

frylock

(34,825 posts)
74. your space shuttle red herring really didn't merit much of a response..
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:36 PM
Apr 2013

do you have any stats regarding mass deaths caused by corvettes?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
75. Weird. 'Cuz pro-rights advocates constantly have to confront the
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:52 PM
Apr 2013

"I guess you won't be happy until everyone can own their own nuclear weapon" canard.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
76. yeh, it is weird that you would resign to a tactic you seem to abhor..
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:11 PM
Apr 2013

i'll check back later for those stats regarding mass deaths caused by corvettes that i'm sure you're busy compiling.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
77. Those that use that argument are impervious to being told it's absurd, so I demonstrated
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:21 PM
Apr 2013
Small cars like the Chevrolet Aveo and sports cars such as the Nissan 350Z have the highest rates of death in accidents, according to a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety of registered vehicles from the 2005-08 model years.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2011/06/sports-cars-small-cars-deadliest-in-crashes.html

frylock

(34,825 posts)
79. any incidence of 26 people killed in one accident involving an Aveo?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:48 PM
Apr 2013

and ftr, this is an Aveo:



and this is a Corvette:

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
64. Automobiles are used a million fold a day compared to guns.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:30 PM
Apr 2013

So when you account for that, they are immensely more safe then guns.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
67. But guns possess the minds of their owners turning them into trigger happy zombies
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:46 PM
Apr 2013

I read it on the internet.

Uuuh -- bon jour.

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
73. For a percentage, they do.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:52 PM
Apr 2013

And another percentage treat them as religion.

Another percentage treat them as talisman.

Another percentage treat them as a great way to commit crime.

Etc etc etc.

GaYellowDawg

(4,446 posts)
97. But you're arguing the wrong point.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:29 PM
Apr 2013

The author isn't comparing the operation of cars to the operation of guns. He's comparing the love of cars to the love of guns. And he does argue pretty well that when the emotional connection died back, cars got a whole lot safer and a whole lot more sensible. It'd be great if the country got a whole lot more sensible about guns.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
121. Actually, they kill about the same number. (LOL, a gun fanatic getting facts wrong, whodathunkit!)
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:22 AM
Apr 2013

And also, the obvious point is that cars provide massive benefits to society as well as accidents, whereas guns not so much.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
8. Fixating on semiautomatic rifles is mind boggling
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:50 AM
Apr 2013

if this is your money quote:

And gun fatalities remain stuck at around 30,000 annually


"assault weapons" kill perhaps 200 people a year. Handguns are the killers. And considering that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, the author's "solution" ignores the biggest cause of gun deaths.

Another fact free, emotional rant.

SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
13. An AR has no legitimate place in civilian hands.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:57 AM
Apr 2013

200 innocents lost each year at the hands of a lunatic is way too many. Your callousness is breathtaking.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
17. You are clearly willing to ban and confiscate semiautomatic rifles to save 200 lives.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:03 AM
Apr 2013

are you willing to ban and confiscate handguns to save the remaining 30,000 lives?

SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
25. No, I've already said I don't want to ban all guns.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:10 AM
Apr 2013

Just ones that have no place in civilian hands.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
60. Any criteria you could use to ban the most popular center-fire rifle in the US could be used to ban
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:20 PM
Apr 2013

every rifle that isn't a bolt-action.

The AR's technology isn't terribly novel/unique.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
55. The AR platform is the most popular center-fire rifle in the nation.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:18 PM
Apr 2013

200 criminal mis-uses (More than that, counting injuries, rather than just fatalities, keeping it honest.) out of upwards of 20 million rifles in circulation, callousness aside, isn't even statistically noticeable.

That fact that you state it has "no legitimate place in civilian hands" illustrates that you have no idea what people actually use them for, for lawful purposes.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
28. No - I support single payer health care.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:13 AM
Apr 2013

suicide is a mental health problem.

I would hammer criminal use of weapons - use a gun in a crime and you get put away for a long time.

I would let the vast majority of gun owners who will never harm anyone get on with their lives.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
52. The vast majority of people with mental health problems are not violent.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:07 PM
Apr 2013

And the vast majority of violent killers don't have mental health problems, but they do have access to guns.

The problem we're dealing with here is access to guns.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
62. Suicide is a mental health issue - and suicides make up the majority of gun deaths.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:23 PM
Apr 2013

It is no coincident that suicide rates remain stubbornly high since we have cut back on funding for mental health care.

I have no problem reducing access to guns by violent felons short of gun bans. Universal background checks, adequate funding for background checks, quadrupling the size of the ATF, cracking down on the illegal gun trade, legalizing drugs.

SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
30. There you go changing the subject, baldguy.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:15 AM
Apr 2013

I can see why. There really is no justification for civilians owning ARs.

I never said I support banning all handguns; I have no problem with revolvers, so long as the owner has passed a thorough background check and is insured for any damage caused by his gun. I do support a ban on high capacity magazines.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
54. Not really.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:09 PM
Apr 2013

Robb: Assault weapons are like sex toys.

hack89: Handguns are the killers.

baldguy: So, you'd support banning handguns.

hack89: (Changes subject.)

hack89

(39,171 posts)
72. Since I specifically told you I did not support banning handguns
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:51 PM
Apr 2013

it is hard to say I changed the subject.

Those that think bans are the solution are the ones that need to be logically consistent. I don't think bans are the solution.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
12. Sounds like porno-perversion smear, typical of stigmatization approach...
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:54 AM
Apr 2013

As prohis experience a more complete and (to their minds) legitimized hatred of the Other.

Expect more of this, esp. on DU.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
141. Yep. A near-slanderous cheap-shot-by-implication.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:01 PM
Apr 2013

I wonder how long my posting privileges would last if I cranked out the obvious (and equally idiotic) tit-for-tat response? Something along the lines of gun controllers forming the National Society for Defense Against Pistols...

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
146. The unfortunate new dynamic in DU...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:29 PM
Apr 2013

The controllers can dump crap at will, and it is almost always: LEAVE IT. It has become almost ritualistic and legitimate, and utterly fills GD. Ironic, isn't it? The controller/banners have 3 groups from which to open fire, and now are pushing an agenda of stigmatization not only of gun-owners, but "fellow" progressives as well. And that is being legitimized as well.

BTW, I don't alert anymore; it's a sucker play.

Patiod

(11,816 posts)
78. We who aren't gun worshippers don't need to "porno-perversion smear"
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:47 PM
Apr 2013

The gun manufacturers and NRA do a super-duper job of it without our help.

Patiod

(11,816 posts)
80. Did you see the ad in post #14, speaking of wacka-doo?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:50 PM
Apr 2013

An actual ad from an actual gun manufacturer?

Seems way crazier to me than a parody calling gun obsessives on being obsessed with their guns

aikoaiko

(34,163 posts)
81. Looks like a sexist joke of a marketing campaign to me.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:54 PM
Apr 2013

But not very different from a lot of products marketed toward me.

Have you seen the latest Diet Dr. Pepper ad campaign? Also a silly joke.



backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
87. From now on, it is NAMGLA!
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:45 PM
Apr 2013


You can tell it touches a nerve - the prosthetic penis club is here in this thread wailing.

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)
92. And right on cue, the "RKBA" crowd bobs up from the swamp that is the Gungeon...
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:42 PM
Apr 2013

...squealing about how this spot-on OP hurts their tender little feelings.


2ndAmForComputers

(3,527 posts)
95. Yes. Hurt feelings. That's why they are.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:16 PM
Apr 2013

Hurt feelings of Barbie-collecting delicate flowers.

Again: calling things what they are.

(Man, I love both Cracked and Tom Tomorrow. They're awesome.)

2ndAmForComputers

(3,527 posts)
94. Love it. I will no longer refer to that entity as NRA. I like to call things what they are.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:09 PM
Apr 2013

NAMGLA it is.

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)
96. Me too. The "RKBA enthusiast" and pro-NRA crowd is so morally despicable in any event, and
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:18 PM
Apr 2013

with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American on their hands in service of their filthy agenda, that we are quite justified in calling things what they are, just as you say.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
100. Protip: The jibes of politically inept moralizers like yourself carry very little sting.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:48 PM
Apr 2013

You lot are so bent upon culture war that you have forgone the chance to get anything.

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)
102. Protip: being on the wrong side of history always stings those ridiculed in subsequent generations
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:58 PM
Apr 2013

for it. A generation from now the "RKBA enthusiast" cause will be as roundly mocked as those pictures of racists "blocking the schoolhouse door" in the Jim Crow South of the '50s & '60s.

And that's just how it will be, as MLK put it, as the "arc of history bends towards justice." Your "cause" and NRA agenda is already obsolete, sport, and you don't even know it.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
106. "My" NRA agenda? I despise the NRA as much as I despise you antigun culture warriors.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:20 PM
Apr 2013

In fact, you lot are worse than the NRA, as the NRA is not hellbent on dragging the Democratic Party
along with it.

Will you tout the oncoming even more lopsided defeat in the House as 'proof that gun control is advancing apace'?

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)
107. Poor, poor Gungeoneer...trapped on the wrong side of history by his own doing and mad at the world
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:25 PM
Apr 2013

about it.

"In fact, you lot are worse than the NRA"

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
110. Is that you, Billy Sunday?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:18 AM
Apr 2013


"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."


Or perhaps Wayne B. Wheeler?


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Wayne-B-Wheeler-The-Man-Who-Turned-Off-the-Taps.html

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)
111. The time of your NRA pals and their odious, bloody agenda is coming to an end, Gungeoneer.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:24 AM
Apr 2013

This country is turning Blue. Better get used to it.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
114. The time of your distiller pals and their odious, bloody agenda is coming to an end, Saloonkeeper.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:43 AM
Apr 2013

More in keeping with its historical predecessor

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
122. LOL. You've repeated the "culture war" talking point about 20,000 times now.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:25 AM
Apr 2013

So have you managed to convince a single person yet?

 

hepkat

(143 posts)
108. Gun Owner Death Cult
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:34 PM
Apr 2013

That's what I call it... I actually use an uglier term a lot of the time. But everyone is politically correct on here and I don't want to be offensive.

They need to be crushed.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
120. Not sure where my wife and daughter fit into this organization
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:22 AM
Apr 2013

I showed them this article - they got a good laugh out of it.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
123. i like the writers idea--"make guns butt ugly"
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:32 AM
Apr 2013

"Here's a first step: Require that all assault weapons be chartreuse or pink, and that they be named after really bad cars: the Citation, the Pacer, the Vega and, worst of all, the Yugo! So not cool ..."



SunSeeker

(51,513 posts)
147. I'd also have the stock say "The user of this weapon is a fucking idiot."
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:33 PM
Apr 2013

The other side of the stock would have a picture of a Newtown victim. You know, like cigarette package warnings.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
152. And WARNING: This weapons increases your family members risk of death by ( ) times
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:56 PM
Apr 2013

Not sure of the figure but I'm sure there is one.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
154. Considering the fact
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:16 PM
Apr 2013

that a large number of gun owners seem unaware of these facts, I think it's a good idea.

Engrave these facts on guns.

Manufacturers must mark other potential hazards--except this.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The North American Man-Gu...