General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe North American Man-Gun Love Association (NAMGLA)
The golden age of gunsby 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
4_TN_TITANS
(2,977 posts)About to go to the article, but it's already nailed it. To the wall.
Great post, thank-you!
Robb
(39,665 posts)Probably a breath of fresh air in Colorado Springs.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)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
Robb
(39,665 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)Bake
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)both of which but any Corvette to shame
Robb
(39,665 posts)See above.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)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)...and got righteously smacked down.
Which was surprising to no one but the gun nuts among you.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)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
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)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.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)BainsBane
(53,015 posts)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)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)Why would someone who supports background checks feel the need to do that, I wonder?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)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)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)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.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)Can't treat the disease if the patient dies before you can heal him.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And someone's self-destruction is not a reason to abrogate another person's right to self-defense.
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)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)Says who? How many of your rights do you allow 3rd parties to define?
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)...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.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The Earl o Sammich
(3 posts)Google is your freind.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The Earl o Sammich
(3 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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?
Robb
(39,665 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is hard.
The article fetishizes AR-15s even though they are a sub-set of the least deadliest firearm available.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Do you even listen to yourselves any more?
mac56
(17,564 posts)They learn their lines and recite on cue. Pavlovian, actually.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)mac56
(17,564 posts)It appears you're familiar with the concept, though.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)you'd break the internet. You guys should formulate a counter argument or concede the point.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)the military and used in various configurations world-wide is less effective than...?
Guess the military defense buyers of the world are all idiots.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How does this make sense?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)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)would have prevented those deaths and what guarantees to you offer the people who want to exercise their rights?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)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)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)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)threat to themselves or others.
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.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)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)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)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)This statement is self-contradicting. Perhaps you meant something else but I would have to make unfounded assumptions.
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)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.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"it's not the 18th century anymore..."
frylock
(34,825 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)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)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)the only guns I'm around are in my home or when I go shooting (4 times in my entire life).
frylock
(34,825 posts)correct?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)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)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)do you have any stats regarding mass deaths caused by corvettes?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)"I guess you won't be happy until everyone can own their own nuclear weapon" canard.
frylock
(34,825 posts)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)http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2011/06/sports-cars-small-cars-deadliest-in-crashes.html
frylock
(34,825 posts)and ftr, this is an Aveo:
and this is a Corvette:
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)So when you account for that, they are immensely more safe then guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I read it on the internet.
Uuuh -- bon jour.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)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)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.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)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)if this is your money quote:
"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.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)200 innocents lost each year at the hands of a lunatic is way too many. Your callousness is breathtaking.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what do you make of that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)are you willing to ban and confiscate handguns to save the remaining 30,000 lives?
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)afraid to go on the record?
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)Just ones that have no place in civilian hands.
hack89
(39,171 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I suspect the only area we disagree is the AWB and registration.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)every rifle that isn't a bolt-action.
The AR's technology isn't terribly novel/unique.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)As prohis experience a more complete and (to their minds) legitimized hatred of the Other.
Expect more of this, esp. on DU.
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)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)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.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Here at DU, anyway...
LeftinOH
(5,353 posts)Patiod
(11,816 posts)The gun manufacturers and NRA do a super-duper job of it without our help.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)Patiod
(11,816 posts)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)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.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Every attempt at right-wing humor, ever, failed pathetically.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)"I know you are but what am I?"
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)kag
(4,078 posts)Truly excellent!
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)funny writing I guess (looking above) some folks fall for it
Initech
(100,040 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You can tell it touches a nerve - the prosthetic penis club is here in this thread wailing.
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)...squealing about how this spot-on OP hurts their tender little feelings.
hack89
(39,171 posts)by a fact free opinion piece? May.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Hurt feelings of Barbie-collecting delicate flowers.
Again: calling things what they are.
(Man, I love both Cracked and Tom Tomorrow. They're awesome.)
hack89
(39,171 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)watching this meltdown is entertaining as hell.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)NAMGLA it is.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)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)You lot are so bent upon culture war that you have forgone the chance to get anything.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)The culture war is the NRA's doing. Talk to them.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)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)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)about it.
"In fact, you lot are worse than the NRA"
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"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)This country is turning Blue. Better get used to it.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)More in keeping with its historical predecessor
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So have you managed to convince a single person yet?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)hepkat
(143 posts)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)I showed them this article - they got a good laugh out of it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"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)Recursion
(56,582 posts)SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)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)guns have stamps like cigarette warnings...hazardous to your health.
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Not sure of the figure but I'm sure there is one.
SunSeeker
(51,513 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)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.