The pro-fear establishment shows its cowardly nature.
 

Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1388986710
Dick Metcalf in Barry, Ill. He said in a column that “all constitutional rights are regulated,” alarming the gun community.

BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1388986710
Dick Metcalf was fired after a nuanced column in Guns & Ammo.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.

“I’ve been vanished, disappeared,” Mr. Metcalf, 67, said in an interview last month on his gun range here, about 100 miles north of St. Louis, surrounded by snow-blanketed fields and towering grain elevators. “Now you see him. Now you don’t.”

He is unsure of his next move, but fears he has become a pariah in the gun industry, to which, he said, he has devoted nearly his entire adult life.

His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.

“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

There have been other cases like Mr. Metcalf’s. In 2012, Jerry Tsai, the editor of Recoil magazine, wrote that the Heckler & Koch MP7A1 gun, designed for law enforcement, was “unavailable to civilians and for good reason.” He was pressured to step down, and despite apologizing, has not written since. In 2007, Jim Zumbo, by then the author of 23 hunting books, wrote a blog post for Outdoor Life’s website suggesting that military-style rifles were “terrorist” weapons, best avoided by hunters. His writing, television and endorsement deals were quickly put on hiatus.

Garry James, a senior editor at Guns & Ammo, said in a phone interview several weeks ago that its readers were the magazine’s main concern and its editorial independence was not at risk. But, he added, “advertisers obviously always have power, and you always feel some pressure.” He declined to discuss Mr. Metcalf’s matter specifically, and the company did not respond to further phone calls and emails seeking comment on other aspects of the operation.

Mr. Metcalf said he was told that advertisers feared customers would boycott their products if they continued to advertise on TV shows and magazines featuring his work.

Two major advertisers with InterMedia are the gun companies Ruger and the Remington Arms Company. Ruger’s general counsel, Kevin B. Reid Sr., said in an email that it did have a conference call with InterMedia to discuss the column, but that it was informed “that the decision had already been made to part ways with Mr. Metcalf.” He denied Ruger pressured InterMedia to fire Mr. Metcalf.

A spokesman for Remington did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Editors of gun magazines are unapologetic in acknowledging that their content caters to the gun enthusiasts who believe their rights are under constant threat, and to the firearms companies that account for much of their revenue. At some magazines, said Jan Libourel, a former editor of both Guns & Ammo Handguns and Gun World magazines, “the editors only want editorial content for some key advertisers.”

Reporters and editors say that reviews are often written in close consultation with manufacturers. If a gun is judged to be of poor quality, magazines will quietly send it back for improvements rather than writing a negative review. The system is broadly accepted at these publications, gun writers say.

Mr. Venola, the former Guns & Ammo editor, described the relationship between the magazine’s editors and the gun makers as a necessarily cozy one. “You have to be in cahoots with the manufacturer, in order to make the publication appeal to the readership,” he said. “Say you write about boats. At some point you’re going to end up on the sun deck of a boat, downing sundowners after testing one, with the guy who makes it. It’s just how it happens.”

(Mr. Venola had murder charges against him dismissed in Arizona last year. He said he was defending himself after fatally shooting a neighbor during an argument.)

Mr. Metcalf said he invited a reporter to his home because he despairs that the debate over gun policy in America is so bitterly polarized and dominated by extreme voices. He says he is still contemplating how a self-described “Second Amendment fundamentalist” who keeps a .38 snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver within easy reach has been ostracized from his community.

“Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”

A trim, avuncular man, Mr. Metcalf lives on a farm that has been in his family since 1837. The heads of 23 giant bucks line the walls of his shooting club. Plump wild turkeys gather by the dozen nearby.

Mr. Metcalf began his journalism career with a column in Shooting Times, a more technical gun publication, explaining the patchwork of gun laws across America to readers, while teaching at Cornell. Since then, he said, he has written for dozens of gun magazines within the group now owned by InterMedia, culminating with the back-page column in Guns & Ammo.

In the column that led to his dismissal, he said that too many gun owners believed that the constitution prohibits any regulation of firearms. He noted that all rights are regulated, like freedom of speech. “You cannot falsely and deliberately shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” he wrote.

“The question is, when does regulation become infringement?” he continued. Mr. Metcalf ended the column arguing that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license was not an infringement.

Though his editors had approved the column before it went to press, they reversed course after publication. Jim Bequette, editor of Guns & Ammo, issued an apology to the magazine’s roughly 400,000 readers. He told them Mr. Metcalf had been dismissed, and that he, Mr. Bequette, would move forward plans to hand the editorship on to his successor.

Acknowledging that some readers were “hopping mad,” he wrote: “Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering.”

Mr. Metcalf says his only regret about the column is that it was too short. “Some topics you should never try and discuss too briefly because they can’t be dealt with like that,” he said.

He knows that the odds of returning seamlessly to his old career are slim. When people ask him what’s next, he shows them a photograph taken shortly after InterMedia dismissed him. In it, he holds a gun, and a sign that reads “Will Hunt For Food.”

Private magazine publishes opinion that pisses off customer base. Magazine fires writer in response to customer reaction. Magazine survives to continue publishing for profit.

Anything else?

Gun people are some of the most irrationally paranoid people on the planet. They always feel threatened from every direction, and somehow always feel like people are trying to pry their guns out of their cold dead hands. I would place them on a level as bad or possibly even worse than some fundamentalist religious people, in that they are completely unwilling to listen to the other side of the story, discuss compromise or admit to any of their own faults. They stick their fingers in their ears and hum while everyone else tries to have an intelligent discussion on how to improve things.

Yeah? Look at the gun laws in NY and tell me they aren't trying to eliminate all guns.


It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Because most gun legislation comes in the form of restrictions of what can be done with the firearms, very rarely does legislation come that expands what you can legally do with a firearm.

Yah... but paranoid for a good reason. It has been continual 'compromise' by only the 2A folks...

For 2A folks, the cake truly is a lie.

Did someone say cake?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389014288

I was thinking of that exact same picture, and I am an Aussie.

Dann

Let me try adding in the full size with the edit function...
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389017206
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-...un-Control.png

I'm not surprised by the magazines response. Computer magazines were even worse in the 90's.

He is a big name, he could launch a blog or his own site and continue to rake in the dollars for his articles.

That comic strip is perfect.

Yeah, it's certainly within the pervue of a magazine to fire someone for saying something that they disagree with. And while the first amendment obviously applies only to government censorship and not censorship by private agencies, it's still kind of an interesting peek below the skirt, as it were, to just how radically paranoid some folks within the pro-fear industry have become. It illustrates the futility of even attempting to have a rational conversation about the topic.

(These, of course, being many of the same people who will gladly jump up and down and scream about how their constitutional rights are being violated at all other times. It's a very selfish, "me-oriented" way of thinking.)

In a way, this reminds me a great deal of certain other groups, such as the Scientology movement, which thrive on finding new ways to be persecuted. It's the mindset of "If you are not mindlessly in complete agreement with us at all times, then you must be our enemy."

I just don't see why either aspect of this is surprising.

(1) People tend to be protective and defensive of their own interests. Look at how riled up cyclists get about bike-lanes and cyclists' rights and traffic laws. Imagine what they'd be like if there existed a sizable part of the population (including political lobbying groups) that believed that citizens shouldn't even be ALLOWED to own bicycles much less operate them on public property.

(2) Every magazine sucks up to advertisers. Look at car magazines. Even C&D, probably the boldest of the mainstream car magazines, rarely publishes anything more negative than lukewarm car review. Automobile and R&T are basically magazine-length car ads. Motor Trend gives out awards to cars they've never driven. It's not a secret.

Okay, I can admit there has been a lot of compromise by the "gun people", but what exactly are they forbidden to do, that they really need to do? At least in my area, you can purchase a rifle or shotgun easily, with very limited hassle. You can also purchase a pistol with again, very little hassle, and you can carry one on person by filling out a 1 page piece of paper and paying $7.50 a year. I don't really understand what gun people are jumping up and down about. Unless I'm just unaware of certain laws, they aren't really forbidden to do anything reasonable with their guns. All the restrictions I know of are perfectly reasonable.

I used to be pro-gun, but recently I have begun to change my mind. Seeing how crazy a lot of people seem, and how incapable so many people are at dealing with daily stress and criticism, maybe it should be harder to get a firearm. And while you are allowed by law to own as many guns as you want, why does one need a whole gun safe full of rifles and pistols? I know the "because I can" and the "why shouldn't I be able to" arguments, but that doesn't explain why so many common people need so many weapons.

And I promise I'm not just trying to be a troll. Please list to me the rights that gun owners have had to give up. I genuinely don't know. Perhaps I am woefully ignorant on this topic. I'm also referring to federal laws, not state or local laws.

How about AR-15's? Most common rifle in the US is now on the "bad" list in NYS. Sure, you can register certain guns, but how long before they make them completely illegal, and now you're on the record? How about registering ammo purchases? Would you like it if alcohol was regulated like that? After all, alcohol kills more than illegal guns do.

Stupid shit like 7 rounds in the magazine was deemed unconstitutional, but other stupid shit like no magazines over 10 rounds was not. It's all very arbitrary & nonsensical.

I would have absolutely no problem with them banning anything, provided it applied across the board. I can't have it? Then neither can the police. And certainly not the bodyguards of the rich and famous.

"Does everything have to be so black and white in this kindergarten country of ours?"

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389032419

Fair enough. How long before they make it completely illegal? Nobody knows. Until then we don't really have a choice but to go along with their brilliant ideas. Registering ammo purchases, I don't guess I know about that one.

I do agree about the magazine restrictions being completely retarded. Both me and my friend have the same pistol, but because mine was made slightly before his, mine fell into an old ban era where my magazine is 10 rounds, his is 14. I don't see where magazine capacity means anything.

I completely agree with you here. I actually wish they would ban a lot of things across the board, given that everyone else followed and it wasn't just civilians.

And that's part of what I find interesting.

As Roger noted, there are certain states and cities which have enacted what some might consider overly conservative limitations on the ownership and possession of certain types of firearms and firearm accessories. California, New York, Washington DC, and so on. Further, while many regions do technically permit certain classes of possession (eg: concealed carry in CA), they have, in practice, tended to make such affordances nearly inaccessible.



And then, I drive around small towns in the southeast, like the unincorporated township of Port Charlotte, FL where I spent the past two weeks visiting my family. And I note what seems to be a disproportionate growth in the number of gun stores located in strip malls and such on US41, which is the main drag through town. The gun shops now vastly outnumber the book stores in town, and when I ask locals about this, I'm told that there's a rush to stock up on guns and ammunition before Obama outlaws them all (paraphrased.)


It's interesting that some people genuinely fear that the executive branch of the federal government is going to take away their right to purchase military assault rifles for personal use.

Or that they ever even had this "right" in the first place. A lot of folks seem to think that this is granted to them by the constitution, though if you really dig deep into the second amendment and take the time to grok its meaning, it actually says nothing of the sort.



Jesse kinda nailed this one. No, I don't walk around the streets of New York City fearing that I'm going to be assaulted at any moment. I suspect that, of those who do, at least a simple majority would benefit more from therapy and a stiff drink than from having an AR15 in their pocket.

And then I try to imagine what the world would be like if every single person who I see on the Jerry Springer show were walking around with a 9mm Beretta in their oversized knockoff Prada purse.

Actually, that would probably be the best thing imaginable in terms of welfare reform.

Joe, bit ridiculous of statements by you. Have I forgotten how you typically talk through topics like this such that you go for absurd inaccurate statements?

AR15s in their pocket?
Take away their right to purchase military assault rifles?

You are better than that I thought, those are the sad absurd statements made by the people who think no one should ever own any type of firearm (except them and their bodyguards).

:facepalm:

It's always to that extreme isn't it? I think this is kind of the point to this whole thread. Someone brings up that maybe there are things about current gun laws that should be discussed and people lose their shit. Nobody ever said anything about no one should ever be allowed to own any type of firearm. And I think most of the gun rights people aren't saying that either. They might ask why one needs to own an assault rifle and the gun people starts soap boxing that people are trying to hold them down and take their guns away from them. It always feel like a lot of overreaction to me.

What are you scared of?

I can order the history of the Pigme People from Amazon, but I have to show up in person to get a gun.

They tried and will try again.

The use of terminology like "military style assault rifle" is used in order to cause an immediate thought of fear. If it is an assault rifle, that must mean its only use is assaulting. There is very little difference between these so called "assault rifles" and a standard hunting rifle. Pistol style grip, detachable magazine are really the 2 that people think somehow make a gun evil.

2nd ammendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

First we can argue what is a well regulated militia. Is it the National Guard? Is it Jim Bob and his friends? That one is hard to parse, considering at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, Jim Bob and his friends were the Continental army and much of it were Militias of communities bringing their personal muskets and weaponry to fight for the freedom of the colonies.

2nd part: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole point of this is so in the case of the Government becoming tyrannical (i.e. taxation without representation), the people have recourse. At this time, arms were considered canons and muskets. The modern equivalent is the tank and m16. But, the government has taken it upon its self to already infringe. Like the comic above, where does the limiting and adjusting of the 2nd amendment end? We have drawn the line in the sand and will not budge any more.

Why is the burden of proof on gun owners to defend their right to own whatever guns they want?

I really don't think the problem is what types of weapons people can own. I am much more concerned with adequate training. I think anyone should be able to purchase a wide variety of guns that they could legal keep at a residence and transport from point to point for range shooting/hunting with certain restrictions. All of these arbitrary bans are stupid because people who want to cause harm will regardless and if they need access to heavy artillery to do it they will know where to get it. In many states this is what we currently have in place.

My problem is that concealed carry licenses require no real training on a regular basis. I am a huge proponent of concealed carry but I think many people that do have no real business carrying a gun because they have no idea how to use it tactically. I wouldn't be against mandatory service in the reserves for those of age that includes weapons training.

People aren't going to move against the government. Therefor, that point isn't relevant. People are too happy to have their faces stuffed with fast food and reality TV.

Burden of proof, of what?

What? It's in same sentence.

But it doesn't make sense. Proof to own guns, what does that mean? What is being proven? Or did you mean the proof that people have the right to own guns? I guess the wording threw me off.

Nobody is arguing the fact that the 2nd amendment says exactly that. You are allowed to own guns.

I used to be pro-car modifications, but recently I have begun to change my mind. Seeing how crazy a lot of people are behind the wheel, and how incapable so many people are at following the traffic laws in place, maybe it should be a harder process to modify your car to make it faster? And while you are allowed by law to modify your car as you want, why does one need a car with that much power? I know the "because I can", and the "why shouldn't I be able to" arguments, but that doesn't explain why so many common people need such fast cars.

Well aren't you clever! You got me... :cry:

One is transportation, one is a killing device. Sure a car can be used to kill as well, but I could also kill someone with a tightly rolled piece of paper.

No, what I'm saying is in response to you and Joe: you are arguing that all rights are regulated, and therefore gun rights should be regulated also.

I'm saying, fine, but that doesn't mean things are regulated arbitrarily. If you think "military assault rifles" should be banned, then you have to offer justification for that. It's not the pro-2A side's responsibility to justify why they ought to have those rifles, it's your responsibility to justify the ban. If you think they are more dangerous, then we need a conclusive, reason-based argument for why they are more dangerous than other guns. If you think the costs to society outweigh the benefits, then we need to have a calculation of those costs and benefits.

That's what I'm saying. The right to own guns exists; the burden of proof rests on those who want to limit or regulate that right, not on those who want to maintain it.

Nobody is banning transportation, just your modified, weekend-toy death machine.

Oh look, a person who can't take an iota of criticism.

That is completely apples to oranges though. One is designed for transportation, one was designed with the sole purpose of killing. Sure you can take a gun and do some harmless target practice, but its purpose to exist is still to kill.

And no one is talking about banning, but regulating, and last I checked, ownership and operation of automobiles is regulated. Rightly so, because cars can be dangerous and can kill.

Countdown to "a gun is a tool!" talking point and about how you can murder somebody with a shovel or ballpoint pen.

Which is why I brought up the fact that I could kill someone with a rolled up piece of paper. And really, it is a tool. A tool of death. Anything else you do with it is simply honing skills to make you a more efficient user of said killing tool.

And the one you labeled as "transportation" kills more people in the US every year, by a land-slide.

My point is that people love to hate guns, but wait until this same criticism turns to another hobby that you love. It's the same. thing.

Car = tool for transportation
sports car = fun

shotgun = tool for hunting
ar/ak/blah blah = fun

Why do we need these things? We don't need them.. but I damn sure bet you would be defending your freedom to own a sports car if they were banned.

Twenty kindergarteners were mowed down not too long ago and not one piece of legislation was brought up to limit or revoke gun ownership.

What are you guys so scared of?

But I wouldn't be against listening to reasons why they should be banned, and with a strong enough argument, I could be convinced to agree. It seems so many pro-gun people are unwilling to listen to reasonable restrictions. Again, I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, just more regulation.

If anything, it has become more laxed.

Do you consider the NY SAFE Act a piece of legislation?

Why no focus on enforcing current legislation before adding more?

I note that while typing this, a large number of other excellent responses have been posted. I will take the time to digest those once I get home, just wanted to let you all know that I'm not ignoring you.


I don't think that it's "absurdly inaccurate" to employ a bit of light hyperbole in exploring the "other side" of an issue which, in this specific forum, tends to be treated in a somewhat one-dimensional manner.


That (specifically the "pocket" reference) would be an example of the aforementioned hyperbole. In this case, the reader is intended to interpret the statement as exposing the hilarity of some of the explanations put forward to justify the "need" for access to weapons originally designed for the exclusive use of the US Military and its allies in a large-scale combat role (note 1).



Yes, that seems to be what some people (note 2) fear.



I don't really see how anything that I have written is sad or absurd. I will admit that it obviously runs contrary to the undertone of certain persistent threads on this forum such as "The new warrior cop is out of control" (note 3), however I'm fairly confident that anything which I have stated as a fact is, in fact, factual (note 4).






Notes:

1 = The weapon now known as the Armalite AR-15 was the outcome of a development competition issued in 1957/58 by the US Army Continental Army Command (CONARC), to produce a low-recoil, small-caliber fully automatic rifle. This was done after several studies conducted by the US Army Operations Research Office (ORO) during WWII and the Korean war demonstrated that directing large amounts of randomly aimed fire towards the enemy was more effective at producing large-scale casualties than selectively aimed fire from larger caliber, semi-automatic rifles, a concept known colloquially as "spray-and-pray". In other words, the AR-15 was specifically designed to be the exact opposite of a "sporting" rifle.


2 = "some people" should be interpreted to mean "those who are simultaneously the most vocal about "gun rights" and also the least well-informed about both the constitutional and legislative underpinnings of same."


3 = If anything, such threads are much better examples of "hysteria and absurdity," inasmuch as the use of cherry-picked news stories from marginal sources in order to generate a sustain an atmosphere of paranoia and hysteria, and to suppress attempts at rational analysis and discourse.


4 = For instance, last week I played a game with my niece while we were driving through town, sort of like the "punch buggy" game, in which we each called out every time we saw either a gun store or a book store. For that portion of US-41 (the main road through Port Charlotte, Florida, along which >90% of the strip malls and consumer retail businesses are located) which extends from the Peace River bridge at the south-eastern most end of town to Veterans Highway at the north-western most end of town, gun stores outnumber book stores by approximately three to one, and I am counting the little religious bookstore owned by the local Catholic church in that figure. We also decided to count WalMart in both categories, as they sell both guns and books.

Because the current legislation is inadequate. Also the NY SAFE Act isn't a significant piece of legislation that is prohibiting or revoking gun ownership, but hey, it was only 20 5-year-olds and a handful of teachers.

Point still stands: what are you guys so afraid of?

No amount of legislation would have prevented that tragedy. If anything the legislation that made that school a "gun free zone" put those children in greater danger than anything else. You ever notice that every single mass shooting takes place in a gun free zone?

Nice victim blaming.

Here are some people... Some prominent political figures...
No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Keep in mind that the ones openly stating they want all firearms banned for civilians are ignorant in trying to accomplishing their own goals. And don't be fooled. There are plenty of politicians who would like to see all firearms banned. However, they are actually half intelligent people who know that to achieve something of that magnitude, you have to pick at it, slowly, over time. And they know to openly state, "oh yes, all guns should be banned" would be political suicide to most. There are politicians who at EVERY corner will vote against guns, EVERY chance they get. The 2nd amendment is not something the people will ever get back if it is lost, and in my opinion the "overreaction" by so many is warranted in protecting it.

That's one thing I do agree with. I don't agree with gun free zones. Except bars. And if you are caught intoxicated while carrying a firearm, you should have the hammer come down on you hard. Private property, excluded, of course business owners and land owners have the right to deny bearing arms.

Really I must have missed the part where I mentioned that it was the fault of the 5 year olds that they were not armed. If I blamed anyone it was the politicians who decided to pass a law that disallows lawful citizens from carrying adequate equipment to properly defend themselves against those that ignore such laws as "gun free zones", theft of weapons, and murdering other people. The only gun free zones should be those enforced by metal detectors and armed guards, much like court rooms and prisons.

You cannot prevent every tragedy with legislation. The fact is mass shootings and gun deaths in this country are statistically rare and have been steadily declining for decades. Stop with the fear mongering.

Nobody has taken your guns or is coming for your guns.

What are you afraid of?

If you go back through his posts in this thread, that's all he has to offer. :giggle:

Well I was talking about among the people here in this discussion. Politicians are idiots anyway, so of course some of them are calling for such harsh regulations and restrictions. I don't think the majority of common people would call for complete banning of guns, aside from some of the really crazy and ignorant ones. And in those cases is better to just ignore them and let them be crazy by themselves and not give them the satisfaction of a response.

I fear nothing. I have never been in a situation for which a gun is necessary and likely will never find myself in one. However, I am adamently against legislation for the sake of legislation. I am also against people telling others what they can't do when therr is a large amount of statistical data that proves said behaviour is not really a problem. The same reason I support the legalization of marijuana.

I'm just curious what people are afraid of. :)

The gun rights crowd has won the argument and the second amendment isn't going anywhere.

And in case anyone has forgotten, this thread started out more as a, why can't we have a discussion about this like reasonably intelligent people, thread. This topic always seems to be so polarized, and almost right away people take a defensive posture and become very hard headed and refuse to listen to what the other side has to say.

We already know what the 2nd amendment says, and that there are some politicians pushing for strict restrictions. Not to put words in Joe's mouth, but maybe this thread was meant more for a discussion on sociological aspects of this argument, not so much the specifics about laws and rights. Why people are so resistant to discussion on this topic and why simply stating an opinion contrary to your peers is equal to political and social suicide.

Or maybe that's just me wanting to talk about that over a pissing contest about who interprets the 2nd amendment and legislation more accurately.:p

It can't be discussed intelligently because the anti-gun side is driven by knee jerk emotional reactions to tragedies instead of using calm logic. They are often completely ignorant on the subject matter and resort to fall back arguments like guns are scary and why do you NEED a gun as if these are valid arguments.

Then you have the pro-gun side that has become incredibly paranoid and unwilling to negotiate after years and years of having various states and districts place ever increasing restrictions on the LEGAL ownership of firearms without ever giving anything back or even addressing the root causes of the real reasons for the unecessary violence. Would you continue to negotiate about restrictions on your freedom of speech if everytime we were done negotiating I took away a bit more of your freedom without ever giving in to a single one of your demands. Keep in mind we started with almost no restrictions on weapons so just allowing me to keep some of what I already had is not conceding anything.

The words assault rifle are use of fear mongering. Without it, your question is simply, "who need to own a gun?". To which the answer is, anybody who wants to be able to protect themselves.

I imagine, bad guys with guns, whether from the public of govt.

This is an appeal to emotion. Neither cars nor personal pools are designed specifically for killing but they sure are more efficient at it in your society and mine. Your point is moot when look at statistically, so just stop while you are behind, or fuck off to the 'ban assault pools' thread.

See above.

Once again, pointing out which is designed to kill is stupid. Kinder surprise isn't designed to kill but they are still banned in the USA aren't they? People won't ban cars because they are not scared of them and they pose no threat to govt.

Yes it is. And if only the criminals are allowed to have guns where does that leave you?

Firstly, what's inadequate about it? Secondly, mentioning that 0.000000006 % of the population got killed in one go and no one changed the rules is once again, fear mongering. Its just another appeal to emotion. When a bus crashes and kills 40 do we banning assault buses?

No, he blamed those who made the rules. Also victim blaming is a completely rational thing. If I am a 5 foot tall 90lb guy with a dodgy ankle and I limp through the hood and get rolled wearing a whole heap of gold chains carrying a macbook pro, well guess what, I could have avoided it, so I am partially at fault. Just like my insurance company wont cover my car when it is left unlocked with the keys in it.

Firstly, people have taken guns, and are still coming for more guns. So no.

I was going to quote more, but I am pretty sure that covers it. Also I come from a country with gun regulation and much more assault than pre gun regulation.

Look at the violent crime per capita on these charts.
Australian gun control 1996, UK super strict gun control 1997.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389049984

Dann

Who is this Dunning Kruger Affect troll?

There were/are numerous attempt to regulate/confiscate/control etc on the graves of those children.
There have been ongoing attempts to ban/regulate/register (with paths to confiscation that are being played out already in CA) etc...
I don't think i'll continue to answer your ignorant goading simple passive aggressive statements. Obviously we know where you stand.

Argh I get so tired of simpletons.

I love it when a car community really comes together to discuss politics. :bowrofl:

Abandon ship!

If you were planning to kill a bunch of people, would you give up on your plan if guns were illegal? Would the legality, or even the availability of guns deter you at all from going forward with your plan?

I just feel like if someone really wants to kill a bunch of people they're going to do it regardless of whether guns are available to them or not. I see gun regulations being absolutely useless on premeditated murder.

On the other hand some regulation, restriction, education, and safety certainly seems like it would go a long way in preventing impulse and accidental shootings. I just wish some common sense on both sides could be applied to gun laws.

I haven't seen actual numbers on the subject, but I would be willing to make a guess that premeditated gun related shootings only make up a very small percentage of overall gun related shootings/deaths. Those non meditated cases are the ones that matter in this argument. Of course a criminal with intent will get a gun either way, but a person that is unstable and untrained can have a gun, which can also lead to tragedy. Guns turn people into cowards. Like I've heard a LOT of old people say, younger people today are pussies and scared to take an ass whooping. You might get your ass beat, but you live to fight another day. Same applies to cops. Most of them are cowardly with gun in hand, too scared to put themselves in the line of actual danger, so they shoot first and ask questions later. Even in situations that would likely be non life threatening to them.