The NRA Suppressing research into Gun Violence

[SoulBiter]

Guns in the home save yet more lives:

www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/24/nc-homeow ... latestnews

A North Carolina homeowner fatally shot a man suspected of breaking into his home and assaulting him Saturday morning.

The Hickory Daily Record reports that Hickory police responded to a call placed by the homeowner, who said he had shot an intruder during a break-in.

Upon arriving at the residence, police located the homeowner, who was injured during a struggle, according to the report. The alleged intruder was pronounced dead at the scene.

[Avatar]

Pretty sure guns in the home end a lot of lives too though.

Hell, we've got a high profile case going now where a paralympian athlete claims to have mistaken his girlfriend for an intruder and shot and killed her. The state is alleging that he actually murdered her, but even if he did, I suspect the lives saved and the lives taken accidentally balance each other out.

And of course, it's common here for people to be attacked and killed for their firearms.

--A

[sgt.null]

avatar - it seems that there may be many non-reported instances where someone ended a crime with weapon and for whatever reason didn't report it.

while this seems to make sense to me, no idea how you prove it one way or another.

i will say that here in tiny angleton my friend's uncle was shot and murdered during a home invasion robbery. seems the thugs were looking for drugs. they had the wrong house.

[wayfriend]

Now then, I've answered your question, any chance you'll answer mine regarding what you think should be our federal gun policy?

I have no good plan for what our gun policy should be. This is why I have not offered one. All I have done is affirm my opinion that there is nothing wrong with banning assault weapons as far as I can see. And point out that the arguments against it range from invalid to willful distortion.

But I understand why you ask. You want more fodder to attack my position as an excuse to malign my character. So:

I believe that we have a right to have guns. I believe that defending yourself with a gun is a legitimate use of that right. I believe that hunting is a legitimate use. I believe that excercising skills with guns is also legitimate, even to the point were it becomes a recreation in it's own right.

But I also believe that some guns don't have any legitimate uses.

I believe that owning a gun deters some crimes. I believe that the majority of such crimes deterred are crimes of opportunity, where the victim doesn't matter to the person committing the crime. I believe that if someone actually wants you harmed or dead, specifically, this would happen before you could ever know it, and defense would be irrelevant. I believe that crimes of opportunity are not usually prevented by guns, they are usually only shifted to someone less protected. I believe that being okay with the idea that, by having a gun, someone else will be a victim instead of you, is not acceptible in a civil society.

I believe that more crimes are enabled by guns than are prevented by guns. I believe that this is not an argument for banning guns in and of itself, nor that it is a matter of which number is greater than the other.

I believe that guns which have no legitimate use to a civilian could be considered for banning. I believe that if they are also shown to enable serious crimes, they should be banned. I believe that, since they have no legitimate use, one massacre of children is enough justification for banning.

I believe that assault weapons are a class of weapons. I believe that they can be characterized as weapons which are designed to be fired into large groups of people, to harm or kill or at least scare as many people as possible, without regard for which people in that crowd are hit. Therefore, they combine semi-automatic, quasi-automatic (e.g. bump-stock), or full automatic capability, large magazines, rapidly replaced magazines, and facilities for firing the weapon in ways that don't care about aim, which includes grips and handles, and for firing for long periods of time without strain or fatigue, which includes grips and handles. I even consider cosmetic features that encourage people to believe that the weapon is designed for firing into crowds in that manner, to be sufficient to warrant such a classification.

I believe that any legitimate weapon which has some attributes of an assault weapon can be modified to remove those attributes without affecting it's intended purpose. If removing those attributes do affect it's intended purpose, it's probably really an assault weapon. I believe that weapons could easily be designed so that there is an easy classification if it were necessary to do so. I believe subverting safe society by blurring classifications of legitimate and not-legitimate weapons is not acceptible in civil society.

I believe that assault weapons have no legitimate use in our society. I believe that they have demonstrated that they have led themselves to massacres. Therefore I believe there is sufficient justification for their being banned. I believe that this is constitutionally permissible, on the basis of public safety being more important than individual rights. I believe that such a ban has no downside, and inconveniences no one, except gun sellers. I see no slipperly slope in this argument, because of the requirement for no legitimate use.

I believe weapons bans are effective because they cut down on the number of illigitimate guns is use. I beleive it is not perfect, but that it is significantly better than not banning. I believe that most weapons used in crimes are legitimately purchased, if illegally transferred, and that eliminating a legitimate purchase will reduce the number of crimes. I believe that data about this is so purposefully tainted, and so lacking in proper investigatory procedures, that it cannot be solely trusted. I believe that eliminating a weapon which has no practical use in self-defense cannot contribute to a subsequent rise in crime.

I believe that the NRA and like minded individuals have been misinforming the public about this issue. By falsely claiming it is unconstitutional, falsely claiming it is the prelude to bannig all guns, by falsely claiming a fedapocolypse is coming, and by providing many other misleading arguments, and misleading interpretations of data. In addition, they have clearly been preventing people from gathering data, and in particular have shut down anyone gathering such data tellingly immediately after they have produced data they condider unwanted in public discourse. I believe that they have undue sway in our government because of a large constuancy of people who believe their misinformation.

So there you go ... fire away.

[SoulBiter]

That was a very cogent response. I dont agree with much of it. Two people can have radically differing beliefs and perhaps never find middle ground. It can mean that one or the other (or both) are being misled but it also doesnt mean that they are either.

I really think that your (not you specifically but all of us) environment plays a HUGE role in your belief system. In my case, I was raised in a very rural area. It never occurred to any of us that firearms were anything other than a every day tool. We were taught to use them and to be comfortable around them. I knew more about guns than the people who were teaching us guns when I joined the military. Not that I didnt learn alot about them in the service, but for the basics, I was already accomplished as far as use, accuracy and knowledge. If I had been raised in a more urban environment with little or no access to guns or need for them, I might believe differently.

I can tell you that the NRA has done nothing for my beliefs. I was a member for a few years when I was in my early 20's. I didnt always agree with the NRA and after a while I didnt see the need to be a member anymore. I havent been a member for over 20 years.

[Cail]

Thank you Wayfriend, that really was a good response. I appreciate and respect the clarity. I believe you're demonstrably wrong on several points, , but there's nothing wrong with that.

Seriously.....Good post man.

[Avatar]

Good posts guys.

I read the other day that the NRA actually only represents a small fraction of US gun owners, and has ties to gun manufacturers...

Personally, I agree with a lot of the things WF said there. And I've certainly said before that I'm fine with regulation. (We have much stricter regulations here than you guys, it doesn't prevent gun ownership.)

--A

[Zarathustra]

I have no good plan for what our gun policy should be.

I agree. Your plan is awful. But you do have a plan. You've offered it in great detail in this post. You want to ban assault weapons, based on faulty logic and poor definitions which cannot distinguish an "assault weapon" from other guns.

All I have done is affirm my opinion that there is nothing wrong with banning assault weapons as far as I can see.

"Shall not be infringed." You want to infringe upon this right by banning guns which aren't in any significant way different from other guns (specifically, in their ability to kill large numbers of people), like handguns. That's wrong.

I believe that we have a right to have guns. I believe that defending yourself with a gun is a legitimate use of that right. I believe that hunting is a legitimate use. I believe that excercising skills with guns is also legitimate, even to the point were it becomes a recreation in it's own right.

Great point, I agree.

But I also believe that some guns don't have any legitimate uses.

If defending yourself with a gun is a legitimate use, then the weapons which you want to ban *do* have legitimate uses, because they can be used for self-defense just like any other gun. While you might think that assault weapons also have other additional functions--like mass murders--that doesn't mean that they can't be used in this fashion, and therefore it's incorrect to say that they don't have *any* legitimate use. But since virtually any gun can be used for mass murder, with equal effects to the guns you want to ban, all guns have this "additional" feature.

I believe that if they are also shown to enable serious crimes, they should be banned. I believe that, since they have no legitimate use, one massacre of children is enough justification for banning.

Handguns have been shown to enable serious crimes. So have shotguns. Should they be banned, based on this criterion? If not, please explain why some guns which enable serious crimes don't matter as much as others. If their use in serious crimes isn't the distinguishing factor, then why does it matter?

Can you explain how it's impossible to defend yourself with an AR-15? Because if you can't, then it's impossible for you to say they have no legitimate use. I could easily stop a crime with an AR-15. Is that legitimate, or not?

I believe that assault weapons are a class of weapons. I believe that they can be characterized as weapons which are designed to be fired into large groups of people, to harm or kill or at least scare as many people as possible, without regard for which people in that crowd are hit. Therefore, they combine semi-automatic, quasi-automatic (e.g. bump-stock), or full automatic capability, large magazines, rapidly replaced magazines, and facilities for firing the weapon in ways that don't care about aim, which includes grips and handles, and for firing for long periods of time without strain or fatigue, which includes grips and handles. I even consider cosmetic features that encourage people to believe that the weapon is designed for firing into crowds in that manner, to be sufficient to warrant such a classification.

Fully automatic guns are already strictly regulated. The rest of your definition puts most handguns into the to-be-banned category. Do you think semi-automatic handguns should be banned? If not, please explain how they don't fit this definition.

There is no such thing as a gun designed to be fired in ways which don't care about aim. All guns are for aiming. However, a shotgun perhaps is the closest thing to this definition, because it requires the least amount of accuracy, given the spread of its projectiles. Do you think shotguns should be banned? If not, please explain how it's exempt and doesn't fit this definition.

All guns have grips and handles, some way to hold them comfortably. No gun is easy to fire for long periods of time without some strain/fatigue, certainly not an AR-15. Compared to a handgun, it's much harder to hold a rifle in a firing position than a small handgun. So the gun which most closely fits this definition is all handguns.

This is why your definition doesn't single out a particular class of guns. It can be applied to all guns. While I don't think you mean this to be a prelude to banning all guns, can't you see why people would be worried about a law which has language that can be applied to virtually any gun?

I believe that any legitimate weapon which has some attributes of an assault weapon can be modified to remove those attributes without affecting it's intended purpose. If removing those attributes do affect it's intended purpose, it's probably really an assault weapon. I believe that weapons could easily be designed so that there is an easy classification if it were necessary to do so. I believe subverting safe society by blurring classifications of legitimate and not-legitimate weapons is not acceptible in civil society.

Your own definition blurs the classifications. Please explain how you would modify a gun to make it difficult to hold comfortably. I'd honestly like to hear that. And then explain how this make a gun safer. Do you really think guns should be difficult to hold/aim/shoot? Is that what makes a gun legitimate, Constitutionally protected, and "safe?"

I believe weapons bans are effective because they cut down on the number of illigitimate guns is use.

And yet, after the assault weapons ban expired, gun violence has dropped. Believe what you want, those are the facts. Can you point out any gun ban anywhere that led to a decrease in homicide?

[Zarathustra]

Sorry, one more point:

Just stop and think for a moment how many people you could kill with one shotgun if you walked into a dark theater or a kindergarden classroom and started firing into the crowd--without aiming. Closely packed humans in a confined area facing a shotgun that can open you like a melon. Does anyone seriously doubt that the death toll would be horrific? Does anyone think it wouldn't be comparable to Sandy Hook or Aurora?

Does this matter at all to your definitions, Wayfriend? Why is one gun--which can accomplish mass murder--so different from another that can do the same?

[Rawedge Rim]

Sorry, one more point:

Just stop and think for a moment how many people you could kill with one shotgun if you walked into a dark theater or a kindergarden classroom and started firing into the crowd--without aiming. Closely packed humans in a confined area facing a shotgun that can open you like a melon. Does anyone seriously doubt that the death toll would be horrific? Does anyone think it wouldn't be comparable to Sandy Hook or Aurora?

Does this matter at all to your definitions, Wayfriend? Why is one gun--which can accomplish mass murder--so different from another that can do the same?

What shotgun are you using? The average stock shotgun doesn't spread all that much. With .00 buck, the spread at 75 feet is only approx. 18 inches (1/2 a meter for those outside the US)

[Cail]

Sorry, one more point:

Just stop and think for a moment how many people you could kill with one shotgun if you walked into a dark theater or a kindergarden classroom and started firing into the crowd--without aiming. Closely packed humans in a confined area facing a shotgun that can open you like a melon. Does anyone seriously doubt that the death toll would be horrific? Does anyone think it wouldn't be comparable to Sandy Hook or Aurora?

Does this matter at all to your definitions, Wayfriend? Why is one gun--which can accomplish mass murder--so different from another that can do the same?

What shotgun are you using? The average stock shotgun doesn't spread all that much. With .00 buck, the spread at 75 feet is only approx. 18 inches (1/2 a meter for those outside the US)

Yeah, I posted ballistic photos somewhere in one of these threads. The idea that shotguns spray pellets all over the place is a myth.

[wayfriend]

I have no good plan for what our gun policy should be.

I agree. Your plan is awful. But you do have a plan. You've offered it in great detail in this post. You want to ban assault weapons, based on faulty logic and poor definitions which cannot distinguish an "assault weapon" from other guns.

Not sure what the purpose is of contradicting a statement of my own intentions is. It isn't to contribute to a meaningful discussion, obviously.

If defending yourself with a gun is a legitimate use, then the weapons which you want to ban *do* have legitimate uses, because they can be used for self-defense just like any other gun. While you might think that assault weapons also have other additional functions--like mass murders--that doesn't mean that they can't be used in this fashion, and therefore it's incorrect to say that they don't have *any* legitimate use.

I can claim a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile-launcher can be used to crack walnuts. I wouldn't allow people to own them on that basis though. One only need consider what they were designed for, and cracking nuts isn't it. Furthermore, there are a wide range of other devices which are readily available for cracking nuts, and arguably more suitable. No nut-crackers are being unduly put out by banning these things, I feel. People will be able to continue breaking nutshells without them. But maybe you know more about breaking nuts than I do?

[Cail]

If defending yourself with a gun is a legitimate use, then the weapons which you want to ban *do* have legitimate uses, because they can be used for self-defense just like any other gun. While you might think that assault weapons also have other additional functions--like mass murders--that doesn't mean that they can't be used in this fashion, and therefore it's incorrect to say that they don't have *any* legitimate use.

I can claim a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile-launcher can be used to crack walnuts. I wouldn't allow people to own them on that basis though. One only need consider what they were designed for, and cracking nuts isn't it. Furthermore, there are a wide range of other devices which are readily available for cracking nuts, and arguably more suitable. No nut-crackers are being unduly put out by banning these things, I feel. People will be able to continue breaking nutshells without them. But maybe you know more about breaking nuts than I do?

To be fair Wayfriend, that isn't really a good analogy to make, as no one is claiming that a rocket launcher is a culinary device. Whether a rifle is used for mass murder or home defense, the operation of the device is the same. The only difference in outcome is our morality.

I can (and have) made a good argument for an AR15 to be used as a home defense weapon. A 5'2", 100 pound woman simply cannot handle the recoil of a 12 gauge shotgun with an 18" barrel. Similarly, she's at a huge disadvantage with a handgun should someone get close enough to grab the pistol. Give her an AR with a collapsable stock (so it can be properly fit to her small frame), a pistol grip and a vertical foregrip (so that she can easily retain it if someone tries to grapple for it), and a flash hider so she's less likely to be blinded while firing at night.

Collapsable stocks mean that the same rifle can be used by an entire family, as it allows custom-fitting of the rifle.

Pistol grips are ergonomically far more comfortable than a standard riflestock "grip". They also allow for greater accuracy and control. And there's the aforementioned benefit of weapon retention in case of a fight for control of the rifle.

Bayonet lugs serve no real purpose, as you can't mount a military bayonet on most civilian rifles due to barrel length (an M4 has a 14" barrel, 16" is the shortest non-NFA commercial barrel). I suspect they're there strictly to save money on the manufacturing side.

Flash hiders help keep the shooter from being blinded. Some are designed to prevent dirt from billowing up while firing prone.

A barrel shroud is nothing more than a heat shield. It keeps you from burning yourself or melting your clothes.

[sgt.null]

my Mosin comes with a bayonet. i looked up but could not find the last time someone was killed with a bayonet in the usa.

[Cail]

my Mosin comes with a bayonet. i looked up but could not find the last time someone was killed with a bayonet in the usa.

Your Mosin isn't effected by any AWB, it's bolt-action.

Ironically, your Mosin is a genuine weapon of war......A true assault weapon.

[Zarathustra]

RR, I wasn't trying to imply anything by the spread of a shotgun other than you don't have to aim it as carefully as a rifle, especially in a crowded room. Granted, you probably don't have to aim any gun carefully when shooting into a crowd, but a shotgun the least. Aside from bullets going all the way through people who are lined up behind each other, a shotgun is the only gun you could have a chance of hitting two (closely packed) people with one shot.

[Zarathustra]

Not sure what the purpose is of contradicting a statement of my own intentions is. It isn't to contribute to a meaningful discussion, obviously.

Your statement seemed contradictory. That's the purpose of contradicting your statement. You claim to not offer a gun policy, but then detail how you'd prefer to ban certain weapons. That's like me saying I have no position on abortion, and then detail why I think it should be illegal. I didn't say anything whatsoever about your intentions. Just your post.

I can claim a shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile-launcher can be used to crack walnuts. I wouldn't allow people to own them on that basis though. One only need consider what they were designed for, and cracking nuts isn't it. Furthermore, there are a wide range of other devices which are readily available for cracking nuts, and arguably more suitable. No nut-crackers are being unduly put out by banning these things, I feel. People will be able to continue breaking nutshells without them. But maybe you know more about breaking nuts than I do?

It's ironic that you'd use this kind of argument, because it's exactly the fallacy you're committing. Hammers might be very good at bashing in someone's head, but that doesn't mean they're designed for murder. We cannot make assumption about the purpose of a weapon merely on the basis of its potential uses, because purpose is added by the wielder of the tool. It is merely your opinion that AR-15s (for instance) aren't designed for self-defense, but rather shooting large numbers of people. Nothing you've posted proves this opinion. Nor can you disprove my claim that similar guns which aren't assault weapons can just as effectively kill lots of people--so doesn't that "prove" they are designed for that purpose? Nor have you ever, by the way, shown how being able to kill lots of people quickly isn't a legitimate self-defense purpose. If lots of people were trying to break into your home, you'd probably want a semi-auto weapon. Home invasions often involve multiple assailants. If lots of people were trying to break into your store to rob and loot (after, say, a riot or natural disaster ... we do have them, you know), you'd also need a fast shooting gun with lots of bullets. Is defending a shop during a riot or looting a legitimate use? (So many questions ... so few answers from Wayfriend.)

You also said that recreational or sport shooting (target practice, I assume) is a legitimate use of a gun. Clearly, an AR-15 is great for this, so it has a legitimate use. Not anything like using a rocket launcher to crack nuts.

Will you please answer whether or not you'd ban all semi-auto hand guns or shotguns? And as a follow-up please explain why or why not they fit into this assault weapon category. Just as a precaution, an example of a non-answer would be: "because they're not designed to kill lots of people quickly." I want to know why they don't fit the criteria that you've listed which (according to you) delineates a weapon that is designed to kill lots of people quickly.

If you can't say why some guns don't fit your definition, then you haven't defined anything distinctive at all. Your entire argument rests upon being able to uniquely identify one particular classification of gun. Without that sufficient definition, you have no basis to ban one gun over another. And yet getting sufficient clarity from you on this subject is like pulling teeth. Why is it so hard to get you to answer this vital question upon which your entire argument rests??

[wayfriend]

I really think that your (not you specifically but all of us) environment plays a HUGE role in your belief system. In my case, I was raised in a very rural area. It never occurred to any of us that firearms were anything other than a every day tool. We were taught to use them and to be comfortable around them. I knew more about guns than the people who were teaching us guns when I joined the military. Not that I didnt learn alot about them in the service, but for the basics, I was already accomplished as far as use, accuracy and knowledge. If I had been raised in a more urban environment with little or no access to guns or need for them, I might believe differently.

Forgot to respond to this earlier. I respect what you are saying here. But you are wrong in your assumption that I was brought up in something other than a rural environment, or not raised with guns. Also, you are treading real close to dismissing someone's opinion based on ad hominem. However, as long as ALL you are saying is that you understand that differences of opinion can arise from environment, I agree with you. You just seem like you MIGHT be implying that someone from a rural environment has a better opinion, due to having supposedly more experience with guns. I disagree with that as an opinion, as well as disagreeing with the validity of using the background of a poster, as well as disagreeing that you've accurately assessed my background.

I can (and have) made a good argument for an AR15 to be used as a home defense weapon.

If this turns out to be a valid argument, then you can plainly see that I have pre-stated that I would no longer be for a weapon ban.

But your argument doesn't seem to fit the bill. As much as an AR-15 might be used for defense, it's plainly not what it was designed for. Anyone truly wishing to defend their home, and seeking an appropriate gun, would not choose an AR-15. Just my opinion. But I am in the "buy a shotgun" group. Furthermore, I think lines of argument such as you are making are just trojan horses designed for legalizing weapons that would not subsequently be used for defense once legalized. Just as an argument that MPADS are legitimate nut-cracking devices would be.

[SoulBiter]

Forgot to respond to this earlier. I respect what you are saying here. But you are wrong in your assumption that I was brought up in something other than a rural environment, or not raised with guns. Also, you are treading real close to dismissing someone's opinion based on ad hominem. However, as long as ALL you are saying is that you understand that differences of opinion can arise from environment, I agree with you. You just seem like you MIGHT be implying that someone from a rural environment has a better opinion, due to having supposedly more experience with guns. I disagree with that as an opinion, as well as disagreeing with the validity of using the background of a poster, as well as disagreeing that you've accurately assessed my background.

That is why specifically started with this (especially bolded)

I really think that your (not you specifically but all of us) environment plays a HUGE role

You read a lot of things into my post that just wasn't there. No where in there did I say or imply that my opinion carries more or less weight not did I try to imply that somehow I know what your background is on this issue. Matter of fact I specifically only mentioned my own background as support for my opinion on this matter.

Sometimes and apple is just an apple.

[Cail]

I really think that your (not you specifically but all of us) environment plays a HUGE role in your belief system. In my case, I was raised in a very rural area. It never occurred to any of us that firearms were anything other than a every day tool. We were taught to use them and to be comfortable around them. I knew more about guns than the people who were teaching us guns when I joined the military. Not that I didnt learn alot about them in the service, but for the basics, I was already accomplished as far as use, accuracy and knowledge. If I had been raised in a more urban environment with little or no access to guns or need for them, I might believe differently.

Forgot to respond to this earlier. I respect what you are saying here. But you are wrong in your assumption that I was brought up in something other than a rural environment, or not raised with guns. Also, you are treading real close to dismissing someone's opinion based on ad hominem. However, as long as ALL you are saying is that you understand that differences of opinion can arise from environment, I agree with you. You just seem like you MIGHT be implying that someone from a rural environment has a better opinion, due to having supposedly more experience with guns. I disagree with that as an opinion, as well as disagreeing with the validity of using the background of a poster, as well as disagreeing that you've accurately assessed my background.

I obviously can't speak for SB, but I think he's making a valid, non-judgmental point about environment. If someone was raised around firearms (and taught how to use and respect them), chances are that they're going to have a more favorable view of them as an adult. In broad, general terms, you find that more often in rural areas.

I can (and have) made a good argument for an AR15 to be used as a home defense weapon.

If this turns out to be a valid argument, then you can plainly see that I have pre-stated that I would no longer be for a weapon ban.

But your argument doesn't seem to fit the bill. As much as an AR-15 might be used for defense, it's plainly not what it was designed for. Anyone truly wishing to defend their home, and seeking an appropriate gun, would not choose an AR-15. Just my opinion. But I am in the "buy a shotgun" group. Furthermore, I think lines of argument such as you are making are just trojan horses designed for legalizing weapons that would not subsequently be used for defense once legalized. Just as an argument that MPADS are legitimate nut-cracking devices would be.

I disagree with your premise that an AR is "plainly not designed for defense". Any weapon, short of a dropped bomb, can be used defensively as well as offensively. For me, I would prefer a short-barreled shotgun with a pistol grip and a collapsible stock for home defense....But I say that as a physically fit, 6'2" tall, 200 pound man. My aforementioned 5'2" tall woman, or a 70 year old, somewhat frail man would simply not be able to safely and accurately discharge that same shotgun. As with any tool, there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.

Now with that said, certainly an AR might not be solely used as a home defense weapon. It's a ton of fun to shoot recreationally, and it makes a fine varmint or small game hunting rifle. And the features which trigger the ban (which I listed above) do nothing more nefarious than make the rifle easier (and therefore safer) to handle. The "hunting rifle" that most people picture in their heads is far more difficult to shoot accurately (which again correlates to "safely") than a rifle with a proper pistol grip and an adjustable stock. Add a vertical foregrip, and anyone - with practice - can quickly become proficient at shooting.