Balkinization  

Monday, December 17, 2012

Gun Control: The Missing Movement

Jason Mazzone

Given the renewed calls for Washington/Democrats/Obama to do something about firearms, I recommend Kristin Goss's 2008 book, Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Goss (a colleague from when we both worked at Harvard for Robert Putnam and now a professor at Duke University) explains persuasively why there has never been an organized and effective gun control movement in the United States. Goss's account is rich and complex and it will give pause to anybody who thinks that all that is needed to enact stricter gun laws is to overcome the political influence of the NRA in Washington. Goss shows that a mixture of institutional and historical factors explains why the gun control movement has been "missing." Two factors are especially striking. First, Goss shows, there has been a historical shift in where reformists look to for resources. A century ago, well-organized women's groups led and financed social reforms, often in conjunction with churches. Today, and since the end of the twentieth century, reformers depend much more heavily on professionally-staffed foundations for resources. Foundations, however, are reluctant to take on risky high-profile political movements like gun control. In sum, professionalization of reform undermines transformative endeavors. Second, Goss shows, gun-control leaders in the 1970s made a disastrous error of calculation. They focused their efforts on a single goal of a federal ban on handguns. In so doing, they failed to develop a grassroots network of engaged citizens in state and local chapters to pursue localized reform. Focusing on handguns also alienated vast numbers of Americans who might otherwise be inclined to volunteer in efforts to secure more modest goals. In other words, by going big at the federal level, reformists overlooked the possibility of incremental reforms and local successes. By the time gun control reformers had dropped their focus on handguns and learned the value of local organizing, the NRA had filled the void by successfully pursuing state laws that prohibit local regulation. Read Goss to understand how we got to where we are now and to identify the background factors that work against any simple reforms.          

Comments:

"Foundations, however, are reluctant to take on risky high-profile political movements like gun control."

This seems to me to be a peculiar explanation for the relative lack of success of the gun control movement compared to the NRA and allied organizations. After all, as a simple matter of history, the gun control movement DID get substantial support from foundations and wealthy individuals, while the gun rights organizations had to make do without it. All else being equal, the gun control organizations should have had the advantage.

An alternative explanation is that the gun control organizations were little more than an extended exercise in astroturf, and demonstrated the limits of money in advancing a cause fundamentally lacking in public support, even with extensive media help.

Not a particularly happy explanation for the minority of people who genuinely support that cause, I suppose. But I think it fits the facts.
 

Grassroots and small steps sounds appropriate.

Talk about "abolishing the 2A" etc. is unproductive while many more limited regulations are supported [and passed for that matter], even by many gun rights advocates. After all, Heller cites a lot of legitimate regulations.

And, pick a cause, supporters rarely are absolutists.
 

Most Popular and Famous Vehicles, Latest Speed Cars, Sports Cars Info and Pictures.
worldlatestvehicles.blogspot.com
 

I'd like to amplify on my remark: Take a close look at gun control organizations, compared to gun rights organizations. They are fundamentally different SORTS of organizations. Always have been.

The NRA, while I have to admit it has fallen a bit short of being a perfect democracy, (It's leadership thwarts democracy in order to be more moderate than the membership likes!) is a membership organization. It has a board of directors elected by the membership, members can nominate candidates, propose and carry through on changes to the bylaws. Members pay dues, and the organization derives substantial financial support from those dues. Other sources of funding are advertising revenue in the members' magazine, and sales of NRA branded merchandise, all conspicuously dependent on people wanting to be part of the NRA. Without the members, the NRA does not exist.

None of the gun control organizations look like this. They have been, without any exception I'm aware of, run from the top down, with 'members' having no real input into the organization's governance or goals. Unelected boards, all. Reliant on sources of funding other than the membership, particularly those foundations you mentioned.

They are, in short, classic astroturf, and never have been anything else.
 

Brett's amplification with his precis of the NRA includes this:

"(It's [sick!] leadership thwarts democracy in order to be more moderate than the membership likes!)"

Perhaps if Brett could tell us what "the membership likes," we could be in a position to understand how the NRA is "more moderate."

Let's consider concealed and open carry of guns and the types of guns. Concealed carry may accommodate small guns but not the type of gun used in the CT tragedy. [Consider Mae West joke on concealed carry.] So perhaps open carry laws are necessary to accommodate the type of gun used in the CT tragedy. As noted recently by Judge Posner, self-defense is not limited to the home. Thus, courts may have to address types of weapons in addressing Second Amendment rights to both concealed and open carry. But imagine being in a public place where the law permits open carry with weapons such as used in the CT tragedy being openly carried. Some might suggest that the First Amendment Speech Clause protects open carry with its message. I can assure you that if I observed such an open carry, I would get the message. [Feet don't fail me now!]

So is the NRA moderation Brett suggests a means of NRA mob control of what its membership might really, really like,?

Perhaps we need more amplification.
 

A century ago, well-organized women's groups led and financed social reforms, often in conjunction with churches. Today, and since the end of the twentieth century, reformers depend much more heavily on professionally-staffed foundations for resources.

The former is how the Prohibitions I (alcohol) and II (drugs) were imposed on the country.

The latter is how an elite minority attempts to lobby the government to impose its positions on the people.

The latter only works when the people do not punish their elected officials for such impositions.

Because a supermajority of the people support the right of the law abiding and mentally competent to possess and to a lesser extent carry firearms, and majorities in most states are willing to vote out elected representatives for abridging that right, the latter lobbying cannot work here.

Like their authoritarian brethren in past years, firearm prohibitionists need to convince a political majority to amend the constitution and enact laws.
 

Baghdad, the supermajority does not appear to think that you should have access to assault rifles. And laws to ban them probably won't require changes to the Constitution.
 

I don't know the organizational model of groups as a whole though various institutions that support gun regulation (let's say some churches) are "membership organizations" as are the political parties and so forth that pass local and national gun regulations.

If it is a question of organizational modeling, fine. There are plenty of people out there who want to regulate guns, including a smaller subset that would actually do the "banning" Brett continuously raises as a specter. It is not like there isn't a base there. Like the anti-slavery base, it might be a minority, but it's out there.
 

Does our yodeler recognize that the mentally incompetent may also have a natural right to self-defense? How might such persons exercise such a right, as compared to the mentally competent? Or must they rely upon the concept of third person self-defense? Self-defense is, to a certain extent, dependent upon state of mind. Who is mentally competent and who is mentally incompetent at times is difficult to distinguish, and competency may shift with circumstances or events that take place. But the common danger is the lethal aspects of guns (and other arms. One who is mentally competent and not restricted under current gun laws may accommodate one who is mentally incompetent.

Perhaps it is not necessary to amend the Constitution. A re-examination of the Second Amendment may change the 5-4 Heller and McDonald decisions, reinstating the Militia clause. Of course, it would then be necessary to better define self-defense in light of changed circumstances and technology over the years.
 

bb:

Tell it to all the Democrats fired in 1994.
 

Tell it to all the Democrats fired in 1994.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:34 AM


It's not 1994 any more, sunshine.
 

As Prof. Akhil Amar argues, and McDonald v. Chicago referenced, there was a changing view of the 2A by the time of the Civil War. By then, many saw the RKBA as more of a personal right of self-defense, a "privilege" of citizenship.

Amar still respects the "militia" concept and as with regulations of jurors and voters, it underlines there is a republican responsibility here. Like those, e.g., a ten year old can be banned the right to buy a gun. Ten year olds are not blocked from buying violent comic books.

The proper regulations here as with Scalia/Roberts' references to regulating certain types of guns is part of the 2A/14A. Our rights are rarely absolute. A full respect of what is involved can result in a sane policy.
 

The local sports talk radio morning show features a pair of racist gun nut anti-Obama a-holes. Even they are in favor of banning assault rifles now. Turn out the lights, it's over.
 

Dream on, we won't even be having this converstation two weeks from now; The media are only capable of sustaining an emotional orgy like this for so long, and you lose the moment people start thinking with their brains again.
 

Brett, while I'm sure you'll have no trouble forgetting the mass murder of little children, it's not going to be so easy for actual human beings to do the same.
 

Brett's view of the NRA is pretty odd. The NRA is an industry lobbying group. Their constituents are the manufacturers and retailers. Their sole and entire purpose is to facilitate the sales of guns and increase revenue to their clients. People like Brett are simply the tools they use to accomplish that goal.
 

Mark Field said... Brett's view of the NRA is pretty odd. The NRA is an industry lobbying group. Their constituents are the manufacturers and retailers. Their sole and entire purpose is to facilitate the sales of guns and increase revenue to their clients. People like Brett are simply the tools they use to accomplish that goal.

That is like saying the AARP is a lobbying organization for Medicare supplemental insurance providers.

NRA provides a wide array of member services for its 4+ million members that go beyond lobbying. Indeed, they provide most of the firearm safety and training for concealed carry.
 

Mark, unlike, presumably, you, I am an actual (Life) NRA member, have attended the national convention, spoken with people like Tanya Metaska. I am intimately familiar with how the NRA operates, and I assure you it is nothing but a fantasy on the part of anti-gunners that the NRA works for the firearms lobby.

I can understand your desire not to believe there really is a membership organization as large as the NRA, representing real gun owners. It makes it hard to dismiss the NRA as a fringe group when it's got several million real members, and well over 10 million people who will tell you they're represented by it.

However, your not wanting there to be a mass movement like the NRA doesn't make it somehow unreal.
 

Medicare supplement insurance has providers other than through AARP; such insurance is aimed at providing for the health of seniors. Does training for "concealed carry" provide similar protection for other than the carrier who may use it to destroy the health of another? As for "firearm safety," consider the number of gun deaths as illustrated by Mayor Bloomberg on Charlie Rose last night. Our yodeler has the knack of whistling Dixie past the graveyards of those fallen by guns.

In any event, Brett is not a sock puppet of our yodeler (or is he?) and may deign to respond for himself to Mark's observation - and my earlier comment on NRA moderation versus what the membership really wants.
 

OOPS! Brett surfaced as I prepared my comment. But Brett avoids telling us what the NRA membership really wants from the moderate hierarchy.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], the alleged mass movement that Brett claims is the NRA, contributes to many going to Mass in CT.
 

Shag from Brookline said... Medicare supplement insurance has providers other than through AARP; such insurance is aimed at providing for the health of seniors. Does training for "concealed carry" provide similar protection for other than the carrier who may use it to destroy the health of another?

It is enough that the carrier of the firearm can use it to defend herself and others. A pity that no one was armed at that elementary school to destroy the health of Adam Lanza before he slaughtered those children.

As for "firearm safety," consider the number of gun deaths as illustrated by Mayor Bloomberg on Charlie Rose last night.

When Bloomberg disarms and dismisses his security detail, then that busybody can talk.

Eliminate the prohibition of drugs and the vast majority of criminal abuse of firearms will disappear.

Arm and learn how to properly defend yourself and most of the remaining firearm violence will disappear.
 

Arm and learn how to properly defend yourself and most of the remaining firearm violence will disappear.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 3:46 PM


Only a complete fucking imbecile would think that the solution to too many people being killed by guns is more guns.

Bart, they tried your idea in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan's tribal regions. It isn't working.
 

A quick search brings up a Wiki that includes this statement:

"A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun."

This suggests the NRA only "represents" (using Brett's figure) a small segment. This would include all this "anti-gunner" talk from someone who thinks Heller is weak tea and is "anti-gunner" itself.
 

Comparing the size of the NRA to, say, every gun control organization combined, I'd have to say that, if the NRA only represents a small segment, gun controllers only represent a microscopic segment.

A microscopic segment vastly over-represented among political and media elites, granted, which gives the movement clout all out of proportion to it's size. But still, far more deserving of being called "fringe" than 2nd amendment activists.

Were that not the case, YOU'D have the 800 lb gorrilla lobby, not us, you'd be repealing RKBA amendments, instead of us passing them, you'd be rolling back concealed carry reform, instead of us advancing it, you'd be enacting duty to retreat, instead of us enacting stand your ground.

Every objective piece of evidence says we are much less fringe than you.
 

I'm not concerned with "repealing RKBA amendments" especially since Heller and McDonald, though you find them quite disappointing, allows lots of regulations.
 

There's a bit of a difference between saying that gun control is unpopular and that it is politically unpopular. Until recently majorities supported stricter gun control, but it was a loser at the polls. This was likely due to the role of strongly single issue voters.

"A pity that no one was armed at that elementary school to destroy the health of Adam Lanza before he slaughtered those children"

Nancy Lanza was very well armed...
 

Mr. W:

Lanza was a seriously disturbed young man who was likely in a manic state and probably had no particular training in the use of firearms.

Such people are not particularly competent in firefights.

That is why armed civilians generally prevail over disturbed mass shooters like Lanza.

Indeed, an unarmed civilian with a chair who keeps his or her head and gets the drop on a shooter can prevail.
 

Yes, yes, a chair going up against an assault weapon. Let us believe that.

Let us blame everything else. Let us pretend that "armed civilians" are what we want.

Let us sell more guns and bring more profits to the industry.

Let us shift the focus away from the facts of what actually happened. Let us talk in soft generalities that don't mention dead bodies.

Let us ignore facts. They're inconvenient.

And let us employ the credibility of a guy who gets it wrong again and again and again. Oh wait; again.
 

Our yodeler demonstrates, with this:

"Indeed, an unarmed civilian with a chair who keeps his or her head and gets the drop on a shooter can prevail."

that he has been to too many circuses, explaining why he is a clown.

Although it is possible that our yodeler bases his claim on a personal experience of his, in which case he was probably the shooter.
 

Our yodeler's description of shooter Lanza:

"Such people are not particularly competent in firefights."

demonstrates his state of mind. "Firefights"!? Our schools, our nation is a battlefield? Is that the liberty of the Second Amendment? Should all adults (who are mentally competent, of course) be trained for "firefights" as the standard for self-defense by civilians?

Or maybe our yodeler is just clowning around. (Let's hope he isn't closned.)
 

"jpk: Yes, yes, a chair going up against an assault weapon. Let us believe that."

If you ever find yourself in one of these situations, your life may depend on believing that.

I am deadly serious.

After the CO theater attack, I posted on how to survive a mass shooting, featuring a Houston instructional video they provide to public employees and other interested parties. Read the post, watch the video and learn something: https://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/how-to-survive-a-mass-shooting/

I can tell you from hours of urban combat training that maneuvering alone around a building filed with people ready and willing to stop you is no easy task.

For example, if you enter a room carrying a firearm in front of you, it is a rather easy task for an unseen person inside to grab the barrel and snatch the rifle away from you. Or grab the rifle to keep you from aiming at him while he pounds the snot out of you with his fists or an object.

You really only have two choices in combat - win or die.
 

Shag:

The nation is not a battlefield. Mass shootings are extremely rare and your chances of being in one are less than dying from an insect bite.

That being said, if you lose life's lottery and find yourself in a situation where you are defending your life and maybe that of some small children under your care, you better be prepared.

You obviously are not.
 

The nation is not a battlefield.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:23 AM


It will be if nutcases like you have your way. Fortunately I think people are now aware of the threat you pose.
 

Mass shootings are extremely rare and your chances of being in one are less than dying from an insect bite.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:23 AM


A quick search of the stats would indicate that you have about the same chance of being killed by a gun as you do of being killed by a drunk driver. Are you in favor of repealing all drunk driving laws?

Keep in mind that Bart would probably starve if drunk driving laws were repealed, so he is probably biased.

 

Our yodeler is careful to reference his "combat training." But that's different from actual "combat."

In any event, our yodeler says: "BE PREPARED!" Does this mean by means of concealed or open carry out in public as well as in private at all times, because the "boogie-man" may confront you or others, so you are prepared for self-defense. Imagine that type of fortress mentality. Maybe our yodeler with a clown costume wouldn't be noticed and like a superhero would be able to defend others as well as himself, a reincarnation of TV cartoon fame Quick Draw McGraw (whose sidekick referred to as "Quickstraw").
 

Bart

I don't think you got what I was saying. In response to your, and others, comments that if only more people were armed this tragedy could have been limited or averted I pointed out everyone seems to forget that there was a key person who was armed: that Nancy Lanza was a heavily armed person, and what it got her was killed and then her weapons used to carry out the murder of dozens. I think you mistook me for talking about her son being well armed and then you went off on a discussion about how such an armed killer could be dealt with (I have to say your account fairly reeks of overconfidence, when I read you write "if you enter a room carrying a firearm in front of you, it is a rather easy task for an unseen person inside to grab the barrel and snatch the rifle away from you" I could not help but think, as easy as it is to predict an election?).

To put it another way, we already had one person that was really well armed in this tragedy, and look how that turned out. Why suppose the principal or a teacher, if armed, would have done something heroic rather than what Nancy Lanza did (which was to furnish killing machines for a madman)? That is, after all, what actually happened.
 

Mr. W:

Your analogy is flawed.

Being armed is carrying, not just owning, a firearm.

There is a rather significant difference between Lanza taking his mother's firearms stored in the home, which means the mother was not armed, and Lanza encountering a police officer or an teacher carrying a firearm at the school.
 

Baghdad, if she was carrying she would still be dead. She was probably asleep in bed when she was killed.

"More people carrying guns would solve our 'too many people being killed by guns' problem" might be the dumbest idea in the history of mankind. Logic obviously isn't one of your strengths.
 

Bart

So it is not enough to be armed, one must be carrying at all times for this 'more guns, less crime' thing to work? It appears we will have to issue no-doze to gun owners in order to get effective gun carriers!

The point is that heavily armed people are not always on their guard and often all there arms bring them are death by those same arms, and then those arms are used to kill others...
 

On the other hand, arming teachers would probably help them with collective bargaining.
 

Mr. W: So it is not enough to be armed, one must be carrying at all times for this 'more guns, less crime' thing to work?

Once again, you are not personally armed merely by owning a firearm which is kept someplace else. It would be rather helpful to be actually carrying the firearm if you hope to use it for self defense to stop crimes. Somehow, I doubt that the principal telling Lanza that she had a firearm at home would have deterred Lanza from killing her.

The point is that heavily armed people are not always on their guard and often all there arms bring them are death by those same arms, and then those arms are used to kill others...

It is true that carrying a firearm serves no particular purpose unless you are prepared to use it.

This is the reverse of being prepared to defend yourself, but being denied the firearm which which to accomplish the defense.

It is also true that a family member can arm him or herself with your firearm if you allow them access to the weapon. Lanza's mother was reckless when she allowed her mentally ill son (whom she may have wanted to commit) access to her loaded weapons in the house, and she paid the price.

I keep a loaded .45 pistol in my bedroom for defense of my home. I unload that pistol, place it in a drawer and move the ammunition to another room when children come to visit to avoid their using the firearm. I would never consider keeping a loaded firearm in the house at any time with a mentally disturbed person in residence.

If Mr. Obama wants to help prevent this type of tragedy from happening in the future, he might want to use his bully pulpit to give this advice to families with mentally ill members in the home.
 

I keep a loaded .45 pistol in my bedroom for defense of my home. I unload that pistol, place it in a drawer and move the ammunition to another room when children come to visit to avoid their using the firearm.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:15 PM


This would be a foolproof method for preventing an attack on a school if there are no children in schools.
 

bb:

A police officer or teacher carrying a firearm in a holster is not making it available to the students in a school.
 

If Mr. Obama wants to help prevent this type of tragedy from happening in the future, he might want to use his bully pulpit to give this advice to families with mentally ill members in the home.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:15 PM


I'm still wondering why your wife hasn't committed you.
 

A police officer or teacher carrying a firearm in a holster is not making it available to the students in a school.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:33 PM


Neither are you. And you're dead if someone shows up at your house with the intent to kill you and all the children there.
 

"jpk: Yes, yes, a chair going up against an assault weapon. Let us believe that."

[gotta believe, son]


Very well; have it your own way. I cordially invite you to take up your chair against the assault weapon. Humanity's loss will be tolerable.
 

I keep a loaded .45 pistol in my bedroom for defense of my home.

It is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting than in defense of your home.

But please feel free to believe otherwise. Don't let the facts get in the way.
 

I'd like to see what's behind door #2.
 

jpk:

A firearm is a dangerous tool and should be treated as such.

If you know how to use the firearm and you properly store it, the chances of an accidental injury or death are vanishingly small.

Those who die from the negligent use or storage of firearms is roughly equivalent to those who die from the negligent storage of household chemicals and far less than those who die from negligent driving.

If I have a terminal illness and choose to use my firearm to end my life, that is my business and not that of the government, and certainly is not a ground to disarm the law abiding.

In short, my heartfelt message to the totalitarians out there who want to disarm me is to f___ off and mind your own business.
 

In short, my heartfelt message to the totalitarians out there who want to disarm me is to f___ off and mind your own business.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 3:29 PM


Dumbfuck, you're not going to be disarmed. You just won't be able to own an assault rifle.


 

Bart

You can't carry around a firearm all the time, arming yourself inevitably includes owning a firearm that you will not be handling sometimes, and the attendant risks that comes from that.

In this instance the only person involved that followed the advice of gun rights proponents such as yourself was Nancy Lanza; she bought several guns, trained with them, etc. The result of her following this advice? She was shot with her own gun, and her killer went on to murder dozens with those guns.

Gun proponents say 'what if the principal had an assault weapon in her office?' Well, if events followed what they actually did in Newton someone may have used the principal's gun to kill her and then went on to use it to kill many more. It is truly bizarre in my opinion that in response to a woman following gun proponents tenets resulting in disaster gun proponents would urge us to have lots more of that...
 

Mr. W:

We know two things for sure:

1) Lanza killed the unarmed principal.

2) An armed principal would have had a far, far better chance of killing or disabling Lanza before he killed some or all of his eventual victims - including the principal herself.

These shooters are not generally short on weapons or ammunition, thus your fear that Lanza would kill the principal in a shoot-out and use her weapon to kill others is rather remote and does not justify disarming the principal.


 

bb: You just won't be able to own an assault rifle.

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle."

This is a marketing scare term applied to semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic features which make them appear to be military, but which have no functional difference from any other semi-auto rifle.

The Brady Bill "assault weapon" ban was a complete joke. I could turn an AR-15 from a banned "assault weapon" under that law to a legal rifle by simply removing the muzzle flash suppressor and making a couple other minor modifications. Indeed, firearm makers did just that to continue to sell the same rifles.

As for range, penetration and stopping power, a semi-auto .306 hunting rifle beats an AR-15 "assault weapon" every day of the week and twice on hunting days.

Save your scare tactics for the mass of low information voters who elect the low information politicians selling this nonsense.
 

As for range, penetration and stopping power, a semi-auto .306 hunting rifle beats an AR-15 "assault weapon" every day of the week and twice on hunting days.

Range, penetration, and stopping power don't see to be a factor when you're killing children. You just need something that is light and compact with a high rate of fire and large magazine capacity. In any case, if semi-auto hunting weapons are not banned in the upcoming law they will be banned when people start using them in place of assault rifles.

By the way, it's not a marketing term, it's a translation of Sturmgewehr, which were considered the original assault rifles.
 

f you know how to use the firearm and you properly store it, the chances of an accidental injury or death are vanishingly small

A popular myth among the gun nuts. It turns out it's as factually accurate as "these poll numbers are great for McCain!"

Fact: storage method does not make a measurable difference.

Fact: the chances of an accidental injury or death with it are larger than the chances of defending the home with it.

Again, please don't let the facts get in your way. Why change now?
 

Bart, once again you've entirely missed, or I've misstated, what I'm saying. I am not talking about the principal getting defeated in a gun fight. I'm saying, here we have a situation where the one person in the story that followed your advice about having many firearms, training with them, etc., was Nancy Lanza, and what did it get her? Shot with her own gun which then was used to slaughter dozens. How in the world that can be extrapolated to "more people should go do what Ms. Lanza did" is beyond me. What is to say that what happened to Ms. Lanza wouldn't happen to a principal who kept a firearm in her office, rather than the principal 'saving the day' with a firearm? After all, the former is what happened here, not the latter...

It's interesting; you say that one thing we can "know for sure" is that the principal would have been better off if she had a gun there. But one thing we really can know for sure is that having guns didn't make Nancy Lanza, the principal, and two dozen other folks better off...


 

bb:

The Sturmgewehr 44 is translated "storm rifle" (like "storm trooper") and was the first rifle which allowed the user to select between semi to full auto. Hitler invented the term.

No other military ever used the term storm or assault rifle to refer to their similar weapons. The The newly formed Bunsdeswehr dropped the term.

Federal law prohibits ownership and use of automatic fire weapons like the M16 and AK-47 without a special license and does not call them "assault weapons."

The term assault rifle or weapon emerged in US political discussion when the Democrats wanted to ban semi-automatic firearms with a military appearance without the selection ability which caused Hitler to dub his StG 44 a "storm rifle." It was an inaccurate marketing scare term.
 

Blankshot, the only difference between military and civilian assault rifles is that the military version are capable of firing fully automatic. Otherwise they are the same. It's not a marketing term.

In any case, it does not matter what you choose to call them, they are gone.
 

bb:

:::heh:::

Yup, the function to select automatic fire is an unimportant afterthought...

Christmas party underway?
 

Blankshot, it wasn't a big enough difference to save those 20 small children.
 

bb:

Lanza could have used a six shooter to murder those defenseless children.
 

Convenient to forget the sex adults killed. They had no chance against an assault weapon. Against a less lethal weapon, things might have been different. I'm sure that just slipped your mind.
 

Lanza could have used a six shooter to murder those defenseless children.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:51 PM


Only if the school as staffed by no more than 6 adults and the kids all sat around waiting for him to reload.
 

jpk said...Convenient to forget the sex adults killed. They had no chance against an assault weapon. Against a less lethal weapon, things might have been different. I'm sure that just slipped your mind.

Less lethal weapons such as?

Lanza could just as easily killed the six adults with my hypothetical six shooter. Indeed, it might have been easier since pistols are easier to use in close quarters than rifles. This is why I have a .45 in my bedroom and not a Bushmaster.
 

BD: Lanza could have used a six shooter to murder those defenseless children.

bb: Only if the school as staffed by no more than 6 adults and the kids all sat around waiting for him to reload.


Lanza almost certainly reloaded multiple times without any apparent resistance from the adults. I do not expect elementary school kids to resist.

The Va Tech and CO theater shooters also reloaded multiple times and no one did a thing to them.

As an aside, six shooters can be reloaded with six cartridge packs rather quickly.

Lanza would have only faced a significant reloading problem if he could only obtain a single shot musket or shotgun as you have suggested in prior posts.
 

Less lethal weapons such as?

Is reading another of your challenges, along with facts and reality?
 

Lanza almost certainly reloaded multiple times without any apparent resistance from the adults. I do not expect elementary school kids to resist.

Dumbfuck, he most likely had a 30 round magazine on that gun, although there are larger magazines available. There were 26 people killed at the school. I know you suck at math, but I think even you can figure out how that would go.

A 6-shooter would require him to reload more often and allow more opportunities for the adults to rush him and for the children to run away.

By the way, this seems like it would be pretty obvious to anyone who puts more than about 5 seconds of thought into this topic.



 

It's interesting, when defending the uses of assault weapons pro-gun folks point out how uniquely effective they are in defending yourself from a crowd (they often cite storeowners using them to face down crowds in riots), but when people object to them on their supposed efficacy we are told "eh, a six shooter would be just as good."
 

BD: Lanza almost certainly reloaded multiple times without any apparent resistance from the adults. I do not expect elementary school kids to resist.

bb: he most likely had a 30 round magazine on that gun, although there are larger magazines available. There were 26 people killed at the school.


What makes it likely that Lanza was using 30 round mags? They range from five to forty.

What makes you think this mentally disturbed young man who was probably in a manic state was able to kill a person with each shot? More likely, he expended multiple rounds for each hit he managed and probably shot each person more than once.

Forget all the Hollywood crap you watch. Real life is far messier.

A 6-shooter would require him to reload more often and allow more opportunities for the adults to rush him and for the children to run away.

I am unaware of any unarmed civilians who have rushed the shooter in one of these mass shootings.

They should, but they don't.

They wait to die.
 

Mr. Whiskas said...It's interesting, when defending the uses of assault weapons pro-gun folks point out how uniquely effective they are in defending yourself from a crowd (they often cite storeowners using them to face down crowds in riots), but when people object to them on their supposed efficacy we are told "eh, a six shooter would be just as good."

The military adopted the M-16 to put out a high volume of moderately accurate fire at ranges between 25 to 300 meters. It was meant to stop human wave attacks like we experienced during Korea. Any of the M-16 family of firearms (auto or semi-auto) would indeed be very effective against crowds on city streets.

This family of weapons was not meant for close-in work in buildings or long ranges beyond 300m. Pistols, sub-machineguns and short/sawed off shotguns are better for close-in work. Thus my remark about the six-gun.

If the mass shootings we were experiencing involved shooters taking out pedestrians on city streets, then the utilitarian "assault weapon" arguments would make more sense.
 

I am unaware of any unarmed civilians who have rushed the shooter in one of these mass shootings.

They should, but they don't.

They wait to die.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 6:21 PM


Probably because there aren't a lot of opportunities to rush someone armed with an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. There are more opportunities to rush the shooter the more often he has to reload. That seems pretty obvious, you stupid fuck.

 

"Probably because there aren't a lot of opportunities to rush someone armed with an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine."

How fortunate that assault rifles are rarely used in crimes in this country. The only case I'm aware of involving a legally owned one, being an off duty police officer.

Ah, but you probably think any rifle with a black stock is an assault rifle, don't you? People who can't argue without the use of swear words tend to make mistakes like that...
 

Bart

"I am unaware of any unarmed civilians who have rushed the shooter in one of these mass shootings.

They should, but they don't.

They wait to die."

I guess they didn't watch your instructional video...

"This family of weapons was not meant for close-in work in buildings"

Why is that?

Brett

"The only case I'm aware of involving a legally owned one, being an off duty police officer"

James Holmes?

Of course, the gun used in Newton was legally owned by the killer's mother.
 

The only case I'm aware of involving a legally owned one, being an off duty police officer.

# posted by Brett : 8:17 PM


Turn on the news. There was a little incident involving one in Newtown, CT recently.
 

Going back a year or so at this Blog, some commenters (I plead nolo) made references to our yodeler shooting blanks. While that needling may have been associated with the bedroom, we can now be sure that the gun he goes to bed with does not shoot blanks, rather taking life than giving life. Our yodeler took care, with his revelation (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!), to demonstrate the special care he takes when children are in his home. While in the Blogosphere our yodeler is a NOAGN*, I assume he may be somewhat of a celebrity in his idyllic mountain community such that computer-wise children (and their parents) may observe his commentary at this Blog, his own and other blogs. So now they (children, parents) may know of our yodeler's gun practices, which may - or may not - provide them with comfort in and out of his home.

Prior to our yodeler's gun safety revelation at his home, he was a tad more vigorous on the defense of the type of guns used in the CT tragedy. The sudden switch was somewhat surprising to me. Perhaps it had to do with discussions of those considered to be mentally incompetent having access, possession of guns. Since there are very few secrets on the Internet, perhaps our yodeler was concerned with being confused as mentally incompetent, and wished to make it clear how conscientious he was with gun safety. Now the world of the Internet knows that our yodeler must be one of the "good gun guys" that the NRA president touted needed to get the "bad gun guys." (As I recall from my pre-teen cowboys and indians movies days in the late 1930s, early '40s, the "good guys" wore while hats and the "bad guys" black hats. I don't know if that works with concealed carry. But some do see the world in black and white terms, with perhaps a few shades in between to confuse the "good guys" from the "bad guys.)

So, are children, parents in our yodeler's idyllic mountain community feeling safer? Do we know whether our yodeler lawfully conceal carries? Are his clients aware? Or is his gun securely locked at home while he is off defending alleged drunk drivers? Does he separate the bullets from the gun when he is away from home so that children invited in their home by his spouse are protected from accidents? After all, our yodeler is at least a minor celebrity in his sector of the Mile High State (of mind).

*NIT ON A GNAT'S NUT
 

BD: This family of weapons was not meant for close-in work in buildings"

Mr. W: Why is that?


Rifles barrels tend to get caught on walls, doors, tables, etc in tight spaces.

Long magazines get caught on all kinds of things.

The small rounds tumble and don't go through walls and doors very well.

We trained for hours navigating stairs and doorways with our M-16s for urban combat.
 

Is our yodeler's experience:

"We trained for hours navigating stairs and doorways with our M-16s for urban combat."

the type of safety training the NRA provides? Imagine a "good gun guy" in a 20-30 story condo in NYC using this technique rather than leave it to the professionals. The situation in America's urban communities is different from military training for urban combat in wars. Or was our yodeler being trained for urban combat in American cities? If so, was this the U.S. Army training or some para-military group with home-schooling militia?
 


Bart

That's honestly interesting, but I have to say I don't see most elementary school as having many tight spacces, but I certainly haven't seen a huge sample of them.

I don't always agree with you (well, almost never ;)) but enjoy our exchanges, so since tis the season I wish happy holidays to you and to all the commenters.
 

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
 

Post a Comment

Home