Oh SHit!

[MichaelHarris]

Gun guys go nuts because Olberman said shotgun instead of .22, wait for it....

[BigBluenoser]

1. Well... in his defence you can buy "shot" for a .22

But that would be shitty reporting imho (I didn't see it, TV is far too slow a way to get info). We know you think guns are tools of the devil, but keep pushing man, we might get converted by you yet.

I can lend you a soapbox...



(I'm leeching the image)

[MichaelHarris]

2. No need man

I own guns.

[BigBluenoser]

3. Deleted because it was snarky...

And I really hate snarky. If you want to know what it said (OP), send me a pm.

[NewMoonTherian]

5. I don't think anyone's gotten around...

to asking you nicely about your guns, Michael. Out of curiosity, what kinds do you have? Do you hunt, target shoot/plink, CCW or just collect?

[MichaelHarris]

6. I have

3 muzzle loaders that I built, an H&R .45/.410, a .22 mag long rifle scoped with a bull barrel, it's a real nice plinker. In my life I've had a Mini 14, and HK-93, Colt 9mm and .45, and a Ruger 9mm. There was probably more but not anything special. I shot trap and skeet so I had an 870 and an 1100. I don't hunt at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Did you have all those weapons melted down because you were one step away from mass murder?

or Did you sell them and join the ranks of all of the firearms proliferators here?

[MichaelHarris]

8. now that

just a stupid response.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. That's often the argument made by gun grabbers here, I'm glad you think it's stupid.

[MichaelHarris]

10. yeah?

show me those posts where DUer's are calling for your guns to be melted down and saying DU gun owners are inches away from mass murder.

[Xela]

11. Anyone...

Anyone using the arguments of the Bradys, the VPC, IANSA, et al, falls right into your parameters.

No need to dig too deep.

Xela

[MichaelHarris]

12. OK

show me the posts here

[Xela]

13. Did you miss that class in grade school?

Do your own homework.

Xela

[MichaelHarris]

14. The one

where, when you don't have an argument you resort to personal attacks?

[Xela]

15. I don't know what you're talking about...

...I don't even know you and you already strike me as a great fella.

Xela

[MichaelHarris]

16. so

why the personal attacks? It's your argument so show me the DU posts.

[Xela]

17. Seriously?

Come on Michael.

Do a little clicking, and a little reading. It's really not that hard.

By the way, pardon the belated: welcome to the Gungeon.

Xela

[MichaelHarris]

20. you want me

to research your argument here at DU?

[Xela]

25. Nah. I don't expect anything from you.

By all means, do as you please.

I see enough evidence on a daily basis on my end.

Xela

[MichaelHarris]

30. Well

Dave looked it up, see below. I'm not going to look up your evidence for you, you have to do a little work to support your argument.

[pipoman]

32. Wow, pot meet kettle...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x228323#228495

[MichaelHarris]

35. Something in

there where I said take all the guns, melt them down and everyone with a gun is going to kill someone? Did you use the right link because I sure don't see it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Here you go.

The message here is that there is no such thing as the NRA’s “law-abiding gun owner.” There is no such thing as a person who buys a gun and is guaranteed not to use it for violence. Guns are designed to kill, and that’s what they do, no matter who’s holding them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x123976



Yeah, the man who killed my neice was law abiding and had a gun to protect

his home. That was really important to him. Funny thing was, he had a drinking problem. And one night he got drunk and started shooting, killed my neice instantly and wounded her mother and grandmother (his wife) then he killed himself. My neice was 24 years old and a newlywed. The pallbearers at her funeral had been ushers at her wedding 4 months earlier...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2870636#2876946



It only takes a split second to turn a "law-abiding" gun owner into a killer.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x32906


but was the shooter a "law abiding gun-owner" ? (at least until he wasn't anymore) n/t


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3593413#3593431


He's a murderer.

A dead one at that. But he may very well have been law abiding until he started shooting.

and

Everyone is law-abiding

until they commit their first crime.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x196218#196668



It is often argued here that we need to control all guns because the "law abiding" so often snap and kill everyone around. Gun rights advocates are often accused of gun proliferation here simply for arguing for the 2nd Amendment. You seem to have mixed the two questions.

David

[MichaelHarris]

21. The first

one is off base but are you seriously wanting to debate this guys claim?

"Yeah, the man who killed my niece was law abiding and had a gun to protect his home. That was really important to him. Funny thing was, he had a drinking problem. And one night he got drunk and started shooting, killed my niece instantly and wounded her mother and grandmother (his wife) then he killed himself. My niece was 24 years old and a newlywed. The pallbearers at her funeral had been ushers at her wedding 4 months earlier..."

This is where the gun guys go way off, you should be in agreement with this person, gun violence killed his niece. Your blind defense of the second caused you to miss a golden gun owners opportunity, acknowledgment of a problem. Do that and you gain respect and a platform, your precious NRA can't even do that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Yes and you a gun owner are a split second away from killing your family. I should agree with that?

[MichaelHarris]

26. No

and that poster didn't say that, that poster told a story about what happened to him. Did he use the words, "every gun owner will snap and kill someone?" Jesus man, he told a personal story and your 2nd Amendment blindness caused you to miss that? You really need intervention man, no one wants your guns, most of us just want you to acknowledge a problem and work for a solution as a responsible gun owner. Remove the NRA sponsored 2nd Amendment blinders man.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. When did I say anyone wanted my guns? I routinely acknowledge gun violence is a problem and offer..

solutions. You seem to have me confused with someone else.

In regards to her post, it was in response to this post,

"Hypothetically its possible that I may need to use my gun to protect the people I care about, that is a very important matter, why should I trust or give the government any control over that process. My family is very important to me, why should I give someone the chance to veto my defending them when I dont have to right now.

The government makes mistakes, and sometimes people in power act in criminal or negligent ways. Who is to say that my "papers" wont get lost or delayed, thus increasing the hypothetical risk to my family. Or even worse, what if someone with a bias had me denied for whatever reason, maybe they didnt like my skin color, my religion, my sexuality, or even my politics. Yes its likely could all be sorted out eventually but in the meantime I'm not able to effectively protect my family should the worst happen. The worst is not very likely to happen but the pain I would feel if it did would be tremendous, which is why I would not voluntarily choose to allow others to decide how I protect those I care about."


You see she is relating what her drunk abusive nephew did with the honest concerns of a law abiding man. You being a gun owner are suspect in the exact same light. Does that seem rational to you? I'm sorry for her loss, it's truly terrible. I've discussed that event specifically with her at length in other posts.

David

[MichaelHarris]

29. I just don't see

her saying it could happen to anyone but you know, gun violence does show it happening to a lot of people. Husbands finding out about unfaithful wives, road rage incidents, white supremacists with a felony record clean for 30 years reacting to a black President. Do you truly know your snapping point? Are you so in control of your emotions that you won't snap? In court when a father confronts his daughters rapist? That's not just a Samuel L. Jackson movie, it did happen. Do any of know our breaking point?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. All gun deaths are tragic, even the self defensive cases I post about.

In regards to people suddenly snapping. What would you do to prevent it? Should we take away rights because of the most miniscule chance that they'll injure or kill someone. We haven't chosen to do so with young and elderly people driving even though statistically those pose a much larger threat. Regardless some of the cases you speak of are actually decreasing.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/family.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Unfortunately the FBI data is lacking in many regards but they may put some things in perspective.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html

Just so you table 10 is one of the place the 3% figure comes from.


Here a link to some ideas I proffered the other night.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3914215#3918131

You'll see if you read the whole thread my ideas were summarily dismissed and misrepresented. I guess that's supposed to pass as honest discussion to some people. I've enjoyed the discussion tonight, hopefully it won't deteriorate. My apologies if you've felt I've been overly harsh, it's the nature of the gungeon unfortunately, I'll try and behave in future discussions.

David

[MichaelHarris]

36. No way too prevent it

There are ways to lower the numbers but they aren't NRA approved.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. I don't know I'm not a member. They supported the NICS and the ban on felons owning guns though.

If felons were prosecuted for firearm possession more often it would reduce gun crime. I'm open to other ideas like opening the NICS to private citizens. I have only sold to family, very close friends or licensed dealers though so it wouldn't affect me much. I don't plan on selling anything I currently possess. Unless AR-15's go over 2 thousand that is.

David

[MichaelHarris]

41. They don't

support stopping unlicensed sales at gun shows. Read the post above to the moderator of the forum where I wrote about 10 to 20 guns a year to felons from gun shows. How many crimes will be committed with those guns? How long will it take to get them off the street? Responsible gun owners should want to see that "loophole" closed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Those 20 sales would have just taken place somewhere other than a gun show.

Opening the NICS and even requiring it for all private sales would be fine with me. There are some Constitutional issues with regulating private sales of any property between citizens though, at least so I have been told. So that idea might have to be litigated. No one including the NRA wants criminals or mentally ill people to have access to firearms, the best ways to prevent that without infringing on the Rights of the common citizen will be a never ending debate. Many here want to take away the 1st Amendment rights of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. I find myself in disagreement with them. The US is very unique in it's freedom, history, racial make up, penchant for violence of all types and the amount of privately held firearms unfortunately those factors will always result in a higher gun violence rate than many other countries, although continuing the fairly steady downward trend from the highs of the early to mid 1990's would be nice.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Here are some gun proliferation examples and some other assorted insults.

If one were to want to "stop active killers" -it might pay to look at a policy that actually worked

as in, a country that adopted a responsible firearms policy and has had no mass shootings in the 12 years since.

I know, that's not really what you want to do- more fun to play Johm Wayne and pretend that advocating gun proliferation doesn't leave blood on your hands.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5733260&mesg_id=5733678


You most certainly ARE responsible

Edited on Thu May-07-09 03:33 PM by depakid
for the consequences of policies you advocate.

But like most- you will never admit it- even to yourself.

Yet another resason why I tend to see the issue in terms of cowardice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=446485&mesg_id=446545


Support for gun proliferation is nothing less than promotion of mass shootings

Edited on Tue May-12-09 08:11 PM by depakid
and family killings.

They're the inevitable and undeniable consequences of the policies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=141&topic_id=34250&mesg_id=34272


And neither do gun-promulgaters like yourself! Thanks for underscoring that.

Free weapons for all!, or whatever the NRA is telling you to think.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x164974#164998


"even if this is true, so what?"

t means gun proliferation is a BAD DEAL -and the cowardly types that support it "for self defense" or other irrational reasons are responsible for thousands of unnecessary tragedies.

and

Bottom line is that people who support gun proliferation tend to live in fear

which does indeed make thenm cowardly types.

And speaking of statistics, people who keep guns in their household are many times more likely to be involoved in a violent rime or a tragedy- or have members of their household involved in tragedies- than those who don't. So purchasing one out of fear or the "need to proitect yourself or your family," in most instances endangers them further!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x446485#446539


You can save your outrage over my inability to divine which gun owners are murders and which aren't. You don't have to agree with me or even respect my views. You've got a gun.

Evidently enough women don't die from gun violence to suit you. Your plan to put firearms in the hands of every woman across America will take care of that. None of us nasty feminists to worry about then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3371852#3384392


No, it's "fear of attacks" that gunnuts are using to destroy our society.

They try to limit the rights of communities to defend themselves through gun control, and to limit the rights of the rest of us to walk the streets without the fear of nutcases toting guns.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x214376#214381


It's too bad that other gun owners are the ones walking in and shooting innocent people.

Maybe you should convince them to only shoot snakes too. Cause frankly, their actions really are making you personally(a gun nut) look bad.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3805914#3806006


This is typical gun lobby obfuscation
Posted by depakid on Fri Apr-03-09 01:48 AM
Let's make it simple:

This is a hunting rifle- its purpose is to take deer (hopefully in season)

This is an assault rifle- its purpose is to wreak havoc on human populations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=389&topic_id=5380867

[Hoopla Phil]

47. Damn Dave. That is some library of past posts you keep there.

I am VERY impressed!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Just the results of searches. I only keep the very special ones.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. So you do realize there are those here who think you are a coward for owning firearms?

[MichaelHarris]

31. Don't care

I don't own weapons because I'm afraid of anything. I'm 51 years old and have never had to defend myself. I've been on some dark streets in some mean cities, never once needed a weapon. If I was CWP holder I would think myself a coward. Not every shadow has a villain in it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. I don't care either but I find the argument intellectually dishonest and unnecessarily provocative.

There was a wheelchair bound poster here that had a CWP, he had to collect rent in very bad neighborhoods. I don't believe it's a good idea to judge others solely on my perceptions of their circumstance. I don't have a CWP either. Haven't carried a firearm tactically since I left the military 16 years ago. I haven't had to defend myself but I have had to defend my wife, I wouldn't have used a gun if I had one in my possession when it happened. Anyhow :toast: !

David

[MichaelHarris]

40. I'm not

rallying against CWP at all, some do need them, a large majority doesn't. It is their right to have it, that's not the issue. The issue is fear, and in some cases a desire to "be in a situation" to use their weapon. Look, I came from a gun culture, you know the weapons I owned, I was one of the "nuts". I have friends who are still "nuts". I hear them talk about their desire to get into shooting situations. There is a "craziness" involved. What will happen in Idaho now that CWP is allowed in bars? Is that a smart move? We know cars and drinking don't mix, what about weapons and alcohol? When will the blind protection of the 2nd Amendment stop? How far is too far?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. There isn't blind protection of the 2nd, there is debate about what restrictions are reasonable.

We'll see what happens in Idaho and Tennessee (I think). I seriously doubt the new laws will cause a statistically significant shift in gun violence although we'll hear about it forever if one incident happens. My understanding was that the CWP holders weren't allowed to drink while armed, that it was more about restaurants that also served alcohol. In that regard did you see my post about the CWP holder that stop a mass murder in progress at a bar in NM if memory serves. You know some interesting folks I know lots of CWP holders and I have never heard one talk about a desire to use their firearm. I'm not sure about the culture you came from. I used to shoot a lot, lived 3 minutes from the range. I shot with white folks, black folks, rednecks, PhD's, Repubs, Liberals. They always respected the rules of the range, never handled weapons while someone was downrange and proved themselves to be an incredibly responsible lot. There has been one "accident" at that range in 30 years. A wife "accidently" shot her cheating husband in the ass with a .410 shotgun with bird shot in it. I like firearms, shooting is a lot of fun, I have never bought a firearm out of fear. Now I play golf and fish 10 times more than I shoot, out of convenience and cost more than anything. I do keep a handgun accessible in my home (my wife and I don't have any children and children aren't allowed to ever be unsupervised while in my home), home invasions have been increasing in my community and, while I have taken steps to make it extremely unlikely that my home would be targeted, having the means to defend my home seems prudent and not overly dangerous to the public.

David

[Hoopla Phil]

48. The firearms that you built, did you serialize them and notify the ATF of the serial numbers?

[rl6214]

4. WTF

Are you talking about?

[Tejas]

44. giggling schoolgirls aren't always coherent

Just another anti claiming to be a gun-owner but posts nothing but anti-RKBA drivel.

Imagine that!

[rrneck]

19. I've got waaaay more important things to worry about. nt

[MichaelHarris]

22. velocity and impact damage?

[rrneck]

33. You're a nice kid. Now go play. nt

[MichaelHarris]

37. hahahahahahaha

good one

[benEzra]

45. Well, if he is aiming for credibility, talking about cutting "argon dioxide" emissions

in the context of global warming would make him seem less credible, yes? Or is that just a "minor detail" that only "pedantic chemists" would care about?

Now, Olberman is more a commentator than a journalist, and I don't know if his mistake was germane to the discussion (it probably wasn't). But in OTHER stories identification of the gun is often key to the argument that the journalist (or person quoting the journalist) is making. For example, if someone says that a crime committed with an "assault weapon" is proof that the 1994 Feinstein ban needs to be reinstated, and the gun in question WASN'T an "assault weapon" under the Feinstein ban, then yes, that blows the whole argument.

But to the broader meta-debate (and I'm not talking about Olberman here), there is a deeper problem with journalists and technical/legal issues than whether or not they get details straight. If I can tell by reading that a journalist couldn't be bothered to spend two minutes on Google to get the most basic facts straight about a topic I know well, why the HELL should I trust that journalist to get the facts straight on other topics that I don't know well? Laziness on the part of journalists/bloggers reporting on guns is no different from laziness on the part of journalists/bloggers reporting on anything else.

[spin]

46. I often use a journalist's comments on gun control to judge...

his comments on other issues.

Firearms are a fairly simple subject When a journalist can't understand and use the correct terminology, or when a news program discusses a ban on "assault weapons" which are semi-auto, BUT shows people firing fully automatic assault rifles, then I tend to distrust anything they say on the economy etc.

Needless to say, I don't trust the media very often.