Comments on: What’s wrong with the NRA http://www.bloggernews.net/16107 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:43:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Venz http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-50151 Venz Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:14:44 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-50151 "what legitimate purpose can semi-automatic weapons be put to? I’d argue that you should be able to defend yourself without having to fire multiple rounds, and most hunters would reject semis as not sporting. So increasingly we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of having military-type weapons in the hands of civilians." So what you're saying is to carry a gun you need to be able to make the one hit shot that also disables the shooters arm? If you've ever fired a handgun you would know why, they aren't accurate and aren't stabilized. Hunters use guns that are highly accurate (or there's no point in hunting) and stabilized on at least their shoulder allowing them to get a very accurate and lethal shot. Multiple shots are taught to military who are trained and you think a citizen needs accuracy far surpassing that as to have the ability to place a slug through the brain since no where else on the body will instantly disable and almost certainly kill, military is told three shot method where you put two slugs in the chest near the shoulders before shooting at the head. Also, non-military grade weapons are worthless is you think that we need to carry less ammunition since they tend to have a high jam rate and have inaccuracy since they aren't made to a certain quality, such as the Jennings Arms .32 ACP considered a "Saturday night special" is very poor quality and in my use has had 2 jams out of less than 100 shots which is very high. Your arguments are contradicting and require the people with the guns to be very lucky and very good shots that surpasses military. “what legitimate purpose can semi-automatic weapons be put to? I’d argue that you should be able to defend yourself without having to fire multiple rounds, and most hunters would reject semis as not sporting. So increasingly we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of having military-type weapons in the hands of civilians.”
So what you’re saying is to carry a gun you need to be able to make the one hit shot that also disables the shooters arm? If you’ve ever fired a handgun you would know why, they aren’t accurate and aren’t stabilized. Hunters use guns that are highly accurate (or there’s no point in hunting) and stabilized on at least their shoulder allowing them to get a very accurate and lethal shot. Multiple shots are taught to military who are trained and you think a citizen needs accuracy far surpassing that as to have the ability to place a slug through the brain since no where else on the body will instantly disable and almost certainly kill, military is told three shot method where you put two slugs in the chest near the shoulders before shooting at the head. Also, non-military grade weapons are worthless is you think that we need to carry less ammunition since they tend to have a high jam rate and have inaccuracy since they aren’t made to a certain quality, such as the Jennings Arms .32 ACP considered a “Saturday night special” is very poor quality and in my use has had 2 jams out of less than 100 shots which is very high. Your arguments are contradicting and require the people with the guns to be very lucky and very good shots that surpasses military.

]]> By: Jefferson Flanders http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15557 Jefferson Flanders Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:21:50 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15557 The reason that the federal assault weapons ban, not renewed by Congress, and that some state laws limit the clip size is to minimize the number of rounds fired before reloading. California, for example, limits magazines to 10-rounds. The question we should be asking is this: what legitimate purpose can semi-automatic weapons be put to? I'd argue that you should be able to defend yourself without having to fire multiple rounds, and most hunters would reject semis as not sporting. So increasingly we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of having military-type weapons in the hands of civilians. The reason that the federal assault weapons ban, not renewed by Congress, and that some state laws limit the clip size is to minimize the number of rounds fired before reloading. California, for example, limits magazines to 10-rounds.

The question we should be asking is this: what legitimate purpose can semi-automatic weapons be put to? I’d argue that you should be able to defend yourself without having to fire multiple rounds, and most hunters would reject semis as not sporting. So increasingly we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of having military-type weapons in the hands of civilians.

]]> By: wth http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15536 wth Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:18:05 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15536 "An experienced shooter can reload a handgun very quickly, which means you aren’t out of the fight very long. He only would have had to reload slightly more frequently." he was not an experienced shooter. he had just bought guns a couple of months ago. “An experienced shooter can reload a handgun very quickly, which means you aren’t out of the fight very long. He only would have had to reload slightly more frequently.”

he was not an experienced shooter. he had just bought guns a couple of months ago.

]]> By: chevrofreak http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15369 chevrofreak Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:35:48 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15369 "Cho purchased, and used, a 15-round ammunition magazine, which was prohibited under the federal assault-weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004. Such magazines allow rapid firing without reloading." The capacity of his magazines had very little effect on what he did. He carried multiple spare magazines and reloaded his guns several times. An experienced shooter can reload a handgun very quickly, which means you aren't out of the fight very long. He only would have had to reload slightly more frequently. “Cho purchased, and used, a 15-round ammunition magazine, which was prohibited under the federal assault-weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004. Such magazines allow rapid firing without reloading.”

The capacity of his magazines had very little effect on what he did. He carried multiple spare magazines and reloaded his guns several times. An experienced shooter can reload a handgun very quickly, which means you aren’t out of the fight very long. He only would have had to reload slightly more frequently.

]]> By: rjp3 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15185 rjp3 Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:38:22 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15185 Knowing that you (like any of us) could experience a decline into mental illness and be diagnosed as a "Danger To Yourself and Others", would you be ok with a law that would prevent the legal sale of guns to you? After listening to a bunch of co-workers rattle-on about the VT shooter this morning (blah blah blah), I raised that question. As expected - there was outrage at that idea. Co-Worker: "What! I have been to therapy - do I not get to have a gun?" Me: "Well "Joan", if you have been diagnosed as a threat to others, I would be ok with saying: no guns for you." She was not happy! ;) I quickly changed the conversation to Sanjaya / American Idol. ;) Common sense seems not to apply to the guns debate. Knowing that you (like any of us) could experience a decline into mental illness and be diagnosed as a “Danger To Yourself and Others”, would you be ok with a law that would prevent the legal sale of guns to you?

After listening to a bunch of co-workers rattle-on about the VT shooter this morning (blah blah blah), I raised that question.

As expected - there was outrage at that idea.

Co-Worker:
“What! I have been to therapy - do I not get to have a gun?”

Me:
“Well “Joan”, if you have been diagnosed as a threat to others,
I would be ok with saying: no guns for you.”

She was not happy! ;)

I quickly changed the conversation to Sanjaya / American Idol. ;)
Common sense seems not to apply to the guns debate.

]]> By: Typewriter King http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15137 Typewriter King Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:42 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-15137 "The organization’s refusal to compromise..." HAHAHAHAH! Ha ha! *Snort* “The organization’s refusal to compromise…”

HAHAHAHAH! Ha ha! *Snort*

]]> By: Jay http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-14966 Jay Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:54:41 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16107#comment-14966 I don't find it amazing at all that in the aftermath of the Virgina Tech massacre that Gun Control is on the front burner again. Why isn't the ban on any handgun at Virginia Tech (Virginia Tech is a Gun Free zone) by registerd concealed carry permit holders is not being talked about. I believe that Virginia Tech is a state run institution. If concealed carry permit holders (whose liceanse was issued by the state) were free to carry there weapons on the campus I think that might be a little bit of a deterant to anyone wanting to commit a crime. The criminal would not know what situation they would be walking into. It is possible that a concealed carry permit holder with a weapon could have been able to at least defend themself and slow down the killer. Concealed permit holders do go throught training to obtain there liceanse. They also realize that they must conceal there weapon well so they do not cause anyone to panick. They are not going to be walking around advertising that they have a weapon. No concealed permit holder ever wants to have to use there weapon, but if they have to they will have it to defend themself. I don’t find it amazing at all that in the aftermath of the Virgina Tech massacre that Gun Control is on the front burner again. Why isn’t the ban on any handgun at Virginia Tech (Virginia Tech is a Gun Free zone) by registerd concealed carry permit holders is not being talked about. I believe that Virginia Tech is a state run institution. If concealed carry permit holders (whose liceanse was issued by the state) were free to carry there weapons on the campus I think that might be a little bit of a deterant to anyone wanting to commit a crime. The criminal would not know what situation they would be walking into. It is possible that a concealed carry permit holder with a weapon could have been able to at least defend themself and slow down the killer.
Concealed permit holders do go throught training to obtain there liceanse. They also realize that they must conceal there weapon well so they do not cause anyone to panick. They are not going to be walking around advertising that they have a weapon. No concealed permit holder ever wants to have to use there weapon, but if they have to they will have it to defend themself.

]]>