NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[Wells]

you want me to concede as fact something that is YOUR opinion.. Guns are tools, Cars are tools. Misuse either and they have the potential to be lethal. What is so hard to grasp about that? Since you want to insult me after I defended you against insults we really have nothing further to say. Enjoy trying to find folks to agree with you when you insult them.

You do know we regulate the ever living shit out of cars right?

[Beavis]

Yeah we're pretty lax on the modifications you can do to them. Which I think is fine. I'm just worried about the venue at which these guns can be taken.

I'm sure I've mentioned the "limit military-grade weaponry to firing ranges only" idea, but I really do think it's a good idea. Gun enthusiasts still have the opportunity to fire them, they just don't own them. So the only logical argument against this would be "because I can" or "because I want one".

I think "I want one" is good enough. We don't prevent people from buying cars that can hit 210 mph, even though that's incredibly dangerous in the wrong environment. Why? Because doing that is already illegal and we have decided that we can trust most citizens to respect the law and not jet around at 3 times the speed limit. And if they do? They get arrested. Why should we regulate guns any differently? Why should law abiding citizens who happen to have a particular hobby be penalized for the acts of the mentally unbalanced? Really, it's actually kind of offensive. Some lunatic shoots up a place and I'm not allowed to buy something? I'm not a lunatic and 99.999% of the other people who buy ARs aren't lunatics either.

This conversation would be completely unacceptable for booze, which is way more damaging to society than high cap mags and semiautomatic rifles. But way more people like booze than high cap mags and semiautomatic rifles, so there you have it.

[Wells]

8775 people died in the US to gun related homicides in 2010, 272,000,000 guns... same year, 243,000,000 cars resulted in 32,885 deaths.
So, Sir. before you make something up at least make damn sure that you havent gotten the attention of someone that has the facts on their side, which, Sir. you do NOT.

You have a citation for these facts?

[Beavis]

Guns are weapons, they are designed will the explicit intent to kill. Are you really going to deny this ?

Not all of them. Some are designed with the explicit intent to shoot inanimate objects.

[Deleted]

you want me to concede as fact something that is YOUR opinion.. Guns are tools, Cars are tools. Misuse either and they have the potential to be lethal.

Your logic is flawed in so many ways. Guns are tools and their only purpose is to kill or harm as much as possible the target you are shooting at. The car is a mean of transportation, it can be lethal if you hit someone but that's not intended and or it's proper use.

One thing US citizens don't and will prob never get is that the "right to defend yourself" does not require the "right to bear arms". You are not "entitled" or to be frankly not even "worthy" of owning a gun unless you have proven yourself to be up to the task in hand. Because by owning a gun you are given the right to possess and own the most lethal weapon type out there, in terms of power and easy usage.

You want protection? No problem, use one of the non-lethal weapons out there, that might be lethal if you overuse it (normally, duh...). It is never justifiable to murder another person even if it's in self-defence when by using another mean or weapon you could just harm him into being submissive in a way so he won't be a threat anymore.

But hey that's just my rational "human being" opinion of a citizen in a 21th century democratic country, if you still want to live in the wild west with dozens upon dozens of guns, then you will eventually pay the price when a bad person will harm unarmed people.

[Deleted]

Why should law abiding citizens who happen to have a particular hobby be penalized for the acts of the mentally unbalanced ?

Why should people die because a few others just want a little fun in their free time ? Does that sound fair to you ?

This conversation would be completely unacceptable for booze, which is way more damaging to society than high cap mags and semiautomatic rifles. But way more people like booze than high cap mags and semiautomatic rifles, so there you have it.

Indeed. Democracy works that way.

EDIT:

Not all of them. Some are designed with the explicit intent to shoot inanimate objects.

What's the name of that thing ? Sounds interesting.

[Seranthor]

Your logic is flawed in so many ways. Guns are tools and their only purpose is to kill or harm as much as possible the target you are shooting at. The car is a mean of transportation, it can be lethal if you hit someone but that's not intended and or it's proper use.

One thing US citizens don't and will prob never get is that the "right to defend yourself" does not require the "right to bear arms". You are not "entitled" or to be frankly not even "worthy" of owning a gun unless you have proven yourself to be up to the task in hand. Because by owning a gun you are given the right to possess and own the most lethal weapon type out there, in terms of power and easy usage.

You want protection? No problem, use one of the non-lethal weapons out there, that might be lethal if you overuse it (normally, duh...). It is never justifiable to murder another person even if it's in self-defence when by using another mean or weapon you could just harm him into being submissive in a way so he won't be a threat anymore.

But they that's just by rational "human being" opinion of a citizen in a 21th century democratic country, if you still want to live in the wild west with dozens upon dozens of guns, then you will eventually pay the price when a bad person will harm unarmed people.

I was going to write a nice, polite, well reasoned response to you. However, I've come to the realization that isn't what you want, its more important to you to insult, flame, and otherwise denigrate anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion. Which means I'd be wasting my time to say anything more than I just said to you.

[Beavis]

You'd probably be right on that. I never thought about it from that perspective. However, banning hand guns, in this country, in this age? Not gonna happen. And even then, I'm not sure I want it to happen, considering that I don't have a problem with private ownership of hand guns. Besides some of the outliers(Glocks with 17 round clips!), most hand guns are meant for short altercations without taking up a lot of space.

Oh yeah, it would never happen, but I kind of wish it could. The most common weapon in homicide is the pistol by an order of magnitude.

[Holofernes]

8775 people died in the US to gun related homicides in 2010, 272,000,000 guns... same year, 243,000,000 cars resulted in 32,885 deaths.
So, Sir. before you make something up at least make damn sure that you havent gotten the attention of someone that has the facts on their side, which, Sir. you do NOT.

i dont kow where u have your numbers from. i have mine from a report from an us authority, and 9 k homicides is VERY LOW compared to the numbers that came from a us authority report. The report says, it is 5 times higher.

[Deleted]

I was going to write a nice, polite, well reasoned response to you. However, I've come to the realization that isn't what you want, its more important to you to insult, flame, and otherwise denigrate anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion. Which means I'd be wasting my time to say anything more than I just said to you.

Due write it if you find something "wrong" in my logic. But I do think you came to the realization that your comparison is bad and you should feel bad also. It's not about the opinion standpoint, look up the definition of a "gun" if you still don't understand.

[Seranthor]

Yeah I guess we don't. It's a shame. It's bizarre that you think I'm "spinning". If you want to call a gun a "tool", and tell me about all the precautions you take to make sure that "tool" is used properly, you sure do spend a lot of time ensuring that a "tool" stays a harmless, inanimate "tool".

Basically, you're avoiding conversation because of semantics that you don't want to admit is true.

Meh, I'll try one more approach to see if you understand my point.

Why do you own a gun, if it's just a tool? Since tools have uses, what use do you get out of them?

If you are going to continue to tell me what I think, how I feel and the like, what exactly do you need from me? You have already decided that you know everything about me.

[Beavis]

That's just it. You can't buy a car that hits 210 MPH, without doing so illegally. If you're caught on the road with a non-street legal car(i.e. one that goes 210 mph), you go to jail.

Sure you can.



This baby will break 210 no problem.

Yeah but booze can be consumed and make parties more enjoyable, most of the time. Guns at parties just make things weird.

You're just not going to the right kind of parties.

[Seranthor]

You have a citation for these facts?

Sure I have them... NHTSA and the FBI is where I got them. You want them, go get them.

[Dillon]

While I agree that most gun owners are responsible, the problem is the ones that aren't can cause tremendous harm, as we see every day in the news. It's not so much a matter of trust as it is about public safety. Guns have one purpose. You don't shave with them, eat them, drive them, dig a hole with them(well maybe that ). You fire bullets out of them. Bullets that were created to cause damage. Just because it's become a sport to a lot of gun owners doesn't reduce the impact of what they are. They've been called inanimate objects already in this thread. Compared to spoons, pencils, cars, you name it. This is apples and oranges here. It's cheesy, but, with great power comes great responsibility. And we as a nation suck at that last part.

Of "assault weapons"? Why not? All guns? I never have and never will propose that as a solution.

The last AWB ban had its issues, and like most people do, they worked around the laws based on those factors you talked about. And an AR-15 is deemed more dangerous than a semi-auto Glock because it can hold 30 rounds and recoils like a kitten compared to a Glock.

I disagree totally on determining the lethality. If it's determined by the user, why was the M-16(and the civilian AR-15) ever invented? Did our soldiers decide to become more lethal? Incorrect. Our war department found a way to be able to fire more bullets at more enemies in a shorter amount of time, with less reloads and less physical wear to the shooter, because it made an individual soldier more lethal than one with a .45 pistol.

Yeah, full auto's is pretty bizarre. Private ownership banning makes sense. Having the ability to go shoot one at the firing range? I'm all for it.

I don't think we're far off. I think it's just the perception that any resistance to one's opinions means that other person is vehemently anti-gun or vehemently pro-gun. Thanks for at least going the rational discussion path(looking at you, bellabulldog!)

We're not far off from each other, to be honest. At least I don't see it in your posts.

Well before continuing, I suppose rather than focusing immediately on debate I should probably state in a concise manner what I'm about (I don't like talking about me, but I think it might give perspective into my arguments).

Generally, I try to, especially on subjects of intense debate (if I haven't personally nailed something down I'm 100% certain about), err on the side of more freedom as apposed to less, simply because I would rather own up to the consequences of abuse of rights rather than answer to someone who asks me why I won't let him do something. Things like abortion, gun ownership, burning flags, offending people, etc., I prefer the consequences, rather than justifying why someone can't, because I don't feel like I have a good enough reason. Rather than why allow it, I much prefer why not, and I often find it much more satisfying to live and let live with my fellow creatures.

Semi-automatics in long-gun form, I could understand further regulation in the form of comprehensive background checks, criminal history, maybe a psych-eval, magazine size limits (I seriously question the effectiveness of this). Things like you said, have better controls on who can get their hands on these, I might be okay with.

On lethality, I probably worded that poorly. I mean, bullets don't hit harder out of an M-16 vs AR-15, because if you're doing precision targeting, control is more important than a bullet hose. That's why three-round burst/semi-auto is much preferred over their auto/semi counterparts. The point is, where the bullet goes is more important than the gun it comes out of (subjective because barrel length affects velocity blah blah blah).

I won't pretend than a rifle isn't potentially more lethan than a pistol, because that's obviously why armies carry them instead of having four glocks all the time. On the issue of the school shooting and ownership in general, my concern is much more who gets these weapons and what their mental health status is.

In another post you made, you mentioned licenses. At least federally, I'm unaware of any license requirement for any specific type of weapon, except for the most dangerous destructive devices (above Class II weapons). Every weapon purchase is subject to a background check at proper institutions, unless I believe, you have a concealed weapons permit, because of the checking done for it.

Then why choose an AR-15 instead of his two handguns?

It's not a scapegoat. It's an attempt to turn a gun into a harmless thing. They're not, and any self-respecting gun owner would admit to that in a heartbeat. Otherwise, why do many gun owners talk with pride about making sure they are dealing with all the precautions of gun ownership?

Holy fuck I don't even remember making that post. I remember vaguely the glock weight thing but not anything else. Whatever, anyway...

Well, he was probably a better shot with the AR. Pistols are inherently more difficult to aim because the shorter barrel and stuff. The AR is accurate anyway.

Scapegoat, scapegoat.. well I think in reference to "assault weapon", I believe I would have meant the usage of the term itself. The focus didn't seem to be on his obvious lack of mental well-being, and having access to these weapons. Rather, because he used a long gun, there's a frenzy about "assault weapons", and because it's a scary black rifle. If the story is correct about what he did, I don't think the death-toll would have differed much if he had chosen pistols instead.

And I think oddly enough, it was reported that the rifle was in the trunk, but the medical examiner stated the wounds were long-rifle. I'm still going wtf about that.

[Deleted]

Sure you can.
This baby will break 210 no problem.
You're just not going to the right kind of parties.

Guns are tools and their only purpose is to kill or harm as much as possible the target you are shooting at. The car is a mean of transportation, it can be lethal if you hit someone but that's not intended and or it's proper use.

Read up and stop trying to trivialize the "gun" to "it's just a tool that we use for self-defence".

[Seranthor]

i dont kow where u have your numbers from. i have mine from a report from an us authority, and 9 k homicides is VERY LOW compared to the numbers that came from a us authority report. The report says, it is 5 times higher.

if you dont know where my numbers came from then you aren't paying attention... go back in the thread and look, Sir. Or, better yet... check out the FBI and NHTSA for the information, since you are infinitely more intelligent than I, then certainly you can find them.

[Beavis]

Why should people die because a few others just want a little fun in their free time ? Does that sound fair to you ?

If guns were the only bits of fun that resulted in people dying, you might have a point. But there are a handful of other things people do for fun that result in innocent. Drinking being the most obvious.

Indeed. Democracy works that way.

The tyranny of the majority isn't something we should lauding.

EDIT: What's the name of that thing ? Sounds interesting.

It's a Pardini target pistol. They're designed for Olympic target shooting.

[Deleted]

So , the NRA is trying to monetize this tragedy by offering training.
Didn't expect anything else from them ....
What's next when one of the 'guard' decide those kids are a bunch of bastards and starts shooting ? offering to train guards to watch the guards ?
here is the solution : Just ban bullets and blackpowder or tax those to hell so they cost to much to waste and/or put those behind permits , the Second Amendment does not cover ammunition ....

[Deleted]

Guns are tools and their only purpose is to kill or harm as much as possible the target you are shooting at. The car is a mean of transportation, it can be lethal if you hit someone but that's not intended and or it's proper use.

The intent by the way, was to counter the argument that says "Cars kill more than guns why don't you forbid them first ?". It's also wrong because cars are used way way more than guns - that 272M guns figure should probably be replaced by the 45M gun owners, and I assume they don't go out to the range / hunt twice a day.

[Deleted]

The intent by the way, was to counter the argument that says "Cars kill more than guns why don't you forbid them first ?". It's also wrong because cars are used way way more than guns - that 272M guns figure should probably be replaced by the 45M gun owners, and I assume they don't go out to the range / hunt twice a day.

Used in what? "Mass murder" by car? Almost all the car fatalities are due to car accidents where the gun shootings are not done by accident just a very few fraction of them. So you care comparing car crashes (accidents, unintended) vs gun shooting victims (inteded as someone 9/10 inteded and pulled the trigger as such) and you consider them the same. Another flawed logic.