There is actually Supreme Court precedence on strippers and the First Amendment. It’s an interesting case, but it’s difficult to pull anything much of it since the opinions went 3-1-1-4.
After looking at the different packages on the website I have this ugly suspicion that the reason was “She’ll shoot everything we paid for, dammit”.
A lot of parents of kids born prior 1979 thought that was a great requirement and made their kids go through the safety classes before letting them go deer hunting. At least this is how it went down at my jr. high. It’s the sensible thing to do. Then again, Minnesotans are generally renowned for being sensible (let’s just not talk about what White Bear Lake sends to Washington, m’kay?).
While I agree with your penis-replacement/“freedom” theory, I am leery of making statements which are speculative and potentially offensive (even if true).
I think you own an automatic assault weapon because of a deep-seated sense of insecurity, and lack of self-esteem.
But I know that a gun kept in your home is far more likely to be used in an accident, criminal assault, homicide or suicide, than in self defense. (Ref)
If I insult someone it makes it a lot easier for them to dismiss me and dismiss the information I want to convey to them.
When speaking to someone who is against reforms to gun control, I want the best chance possible to plant that seed of doubt.
[quote=“colinInSpace, post:75, topic:39895”]
I think you own an automatic assault weapon because of a deep-seated sense of insecurity, and lack of self-esteem.[/quote]
Generally, because of their cost to own and feed, they are owned by rich people who get a kick out of it and it’s fun. Like you would with a sports car or fast street bike. For more than one reason, it’s inadvisable to own one for defense.
I’ll have to read your reference later, but I can say with some certainty that no you do not “know” this. Statistics when guns are used for defense aren’t well kept. There isn’t a database of times guns are used for defense kept by the FBI like there are for murders. There are also many cases where guns are used for defense, simply brandished, and the threat leaves, often times not even resulting in a police report. Or even if shots are fired and the suspect flees and a report is filed, there is no central agency tracking this - much like the lack of tracking how often cops use lethal force.
So yeah, the hard numbers aren’t there, but I’ve read a lot of anecdotal data that make me fairly confident that it happens a lot.
Accidents do happen, but they are a small fraction of guns deaths.
Based on what I can find about “Bullets and Burgers” (now that their hosting account appears to have been suspended), it looks like this wasn’t even a legitimate firearms instruction course. More like a simple “HAY YOU GUYS COME HERE AND SHOOT SOME BIG GUNS! WOOOOO!” kind of deal. I have a hard time imagining that even gun rights activists would defend this place and their clearly irresponsible antics.
I used the word ‘know’ instead of ‘there is a growing amount of compelling evidence to support that’ because it was more succinct on the page.
The study I site is old, but the evidence is far from anecdotal. If you look at for instance testimony to congress on gun control, you will find that anecdotes are used in much greater volume by those against gun control. What little research is available pretty damningly demonstrates that the dangers of gun ownership are outweighed by the potential harm. The various efforts to empirically measure the impact of gun ownership (imperfect though they may be) in large part all support the notion gun control can reduce violence (accidental or otherwise).
Gun lobbying groups in the USA have spent the past 2 decades systematically dismantling any resources aimed at studying gun violence. So unfortunately it’s hard to get much up to date information. (Ref)
Perhaps I don’t ‘know’ for certain, but there is reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that keeping a gun in the home is not a great idea.
I expected the comments be full of comments from people with pretty much zero knowledge of the subject who feel 100% justified in declaring the the rights of tens of millions should be curtailed because of an accident whose circumstances don’t even approach the level of statistical noise and I was not disappointed. Contrary to what seems to be a popular belief there is no aspect of the Uzi manual of arms that involves the use of penises regardless of their size, and the vast majority of Title II firearms owners are not mouthbreathing troglodytes looking for a thrill. I guess it’s easy to demonize people you don’t know I guess by conflating them all with whatever extreme examples you’ve been alerted to, which are likely mostly fictional composites of the worst traits imaginable anyway.
First as a certified range officer (RO) and trainer who actually works with automatic weapons I take the subject VERY seriously (I also read NTSB and OSHA accident reports for fun and am a safety wonk.) Watching the video of this incident, the range officer took a very poor position to assist the girl in shooting regardless of what firearm was being used. Standing off to the left and parallel to the shooter means that in order to support her shoulder he had the do so with his right arm across her back and his hand on her shoulder which only presents very poor leverage. It also means that in order to get a hand in to help control the gun his left hand must cross not only his body but hers to get to the firearm, in a situation where tenths of a second count that’s unacceptable. Even worse, it appears she must have been having trouble with the weight of the gun because he “teacupped” the bottom of the magazine with his left hand which is why the gun pivoted and hit him rather than coming straight up and possibly killing the shooter like the 2008 incident in Massachusetts. In both incidents the shooter had to take a stance quartered on the gun rather than the preferred squared off isosceles stance likely due to the stock being too long for their stature. This places the shoulder at an angle and does not form a “pocket” for the stock to anchor in, and also does not allow the shooter to cant their upper body slightly forward to help with the recoil impulse. In both cases you can see the stock slide off the shoulder likely because the shooter did not (or was not capable) of countering the recoil causing the stock to “bounce” off the shoulder which happens much more easily if one is standing at an angle rather than squared off (a quartered stance is fine for manually operated and semiauto firearms, it is not a good idea with unmounted full auto guns.)
The positioning I use is to stand behind and slightly to the right of the shooter with my left hand on their shoulder. This position gives me very good leverage to maintain the shooter’s stance with my left hand or even using my entire body by moving slightly forward. My right hand (I wear heat resistant Kevlar gloves) is positioned at what is referred to as “high ready” which would probably be about 18 inches from the gun at the edge of the shooter’s peripheral vision. This positioning allows me to constantly monitor their trigger finger to make sure it is NOT on the trigger at any time except when they are ready to fire.
As for the use of an Uzi, I’d recommend against it. The grip on the Uzi is fairly large and chunky even if you have somewhat large hands like mine and in order to activate the grip safety you must squeeze the grip pretty firmly, which also tends to make one’s trigger finger curl also. Sadly, while the grip safety SEEMED like a good idea when it was first introduced, the innate instinct if something unexpected happens to the gun while shooting is to clench rather than release so it really doesn’t have much practical application as a safety feature. When dealing with smaller statured persons the non-adjustable stock on the Uzi is generally too long and prevents them from adopting the correct isosceles stance. If they still wanted to shoot the Uzi, they would do so with my body tight against theirs and my hand completely controlling the forward end either hand over hand or with their hand gripping the magazine instead so that they could stand correctly. In any case they would then fire about ten shots on semi, then they would have several magazines with only five rounds loaded to practice trigger control. Only when they could show me that they can reliably fire two to three round bursts on full auto would they get a full magazine to fire.
For a girl her size with no experience I would rather see them shoot a 22LR conversion. It’s just as much fun with almost no felt recoil impulse. At our biannual machine gun shoot here in PA coming up (don’t ask, it’s not really a “private” shoot but we do not advertise and we do not put the date out other than controlled word of mouth) soon we usually have a full auto AR in 22LR mounted on a tripod to let kids shoot. They don’t have to support the weight of the gun, they can’t point it in an unsafe direction, and we have a VERY experienced instructor attending to them at all times. If they have some experience we also sometimes have them shoot Sten, MP5, or MP-40 subguns which have MUCH lower rates of fire (~500 round per minute compared to ~900 for the Uzi) and are far more controllable than smaller third generation open bolt guns like the Uzi and MAC-10.
Not expecting any converts but just felt that the view of somebody who actually knows what they’re talking about would be refreshing in this thread.
And by “be full of…” you mean “to contain a minority of…” By far the comment representative of this thread is “What a fucking stupid way for an idiot to kill himself, and how cruel to the child he made a part of his death.”
Also, tasteless jokes and generic talking points. But, you know: the internet.
I was really surprised when I googled snippets from this lengthy comment referencing absolutely nothing specific from this thread and it didn’t return any results.
I did the exact same thing and was likewise disappointed. Sadly, not every joker sets up their own perfect punchline.
Uzi come, uzi go…
Except that the right to be armed is a foundational aspect of our nation. ( I know, pesky details )
'Twas hyperbole. She still killed someone, however, and my initial query still stands.
LOL! Heminway’s thoroughly discredited efforts are the very essence of anecdotal. There isn’t an honest researcher that doesn’t openly admit that the quality of the information available doesn’t show what he is saying at all. Police reports are notoriously inaccurate and Heminway used newspaper accounts written from those reports which, given the near complete ignorance that almost every journalist has on the subject, leads to a near exponential decrease in the accuracy of the information. Also, by any credible definition DGUs (defensive gun uses) are vastly under-reported as they many times do not lead to firearms usage and are generally not reported in the news which leads to a huge skew if you use newspaper accounts for your sole source of information…a fact I’m sure Heminway is aware of and counted on given his poor and discredited research on firearms in the past. Heminway is the very epitome of a “researcher” who starts with the conclusion he wishes to reach and who then discovers how to define the available information to confirm his beliefs.
Almost choked on my beer. The plain, unvarnished ignorance that comes out of the anti-gun crowd during Congressional testimonies is amazing. US District Attorney Walsh from Colorado admitting that although there were over 80,000 failed background checks where persons provided false information, of which only 44 were prosecuted, was one of those “anecdotes” brought up when he was testifying that we need to expand background checks, he was rightfully informed of the numbers (he was unaware of them) and why he needed an expanded law when he wasn’t actively prosecuting the failed background checks already occurring. The anecdotes are on the side of the anti-gun crowd, the actual numbers favor the pro-gun stance. That’s why it always devolves into a “think about the children” or “if it saves one life” emotional cry from the anti side. Apparently, “if it saves one life” doesn’t count for those whose lives are saved by the presence of a gun.
You should proofread better, that sentence was completely contradictory…but I know what you were trying to say. I suppose that since the New York Times and Salon ignored the Kleck survey (link) and all of John Lott’s extensive research on the subject (link), you felt no need to actually read any of their work which thoroughly disagrees with Heminway’s periodic, poorly sourced hatchet jobs financed by organizations which fund anti-gun research.
So the bald faced fact that greatly increased gun control in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia did not lead to decreased violent crime and murder (violent crime in the UK in fact increased greatly and occurs at four times the rate as in the US), yet increased concealed carry permissions and record firearms sales in the US occurred during the same time we continued a downward trend to 40-year lows for violent crime and murder according to FBI/DOJ statistics? (link)
Really? Salon.com is your reference for this? Apparently the CDC didn’t get the memo and did a study last year which disagrees with just about every point you have tried to make, you might want to read it.
If you rely on seriously flawed studies, you might believe that. While there may be a correlation, there is a huge amount of evidence that there is no causation between firearm possession and some form of harm. The Heminway study doesn’t differentiate between legal and illegal possession and treats gang related shootouts the same as a homeowner protecting their family. When you remove drug crime related shootings from the mix, suddenly gun possession isn’t all that risky anymore but researchers like Heminway keep them in because they have a narrative to push. Apparently, engaging in violent criminal activities is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than owning guns for sport and self-defense but you wouldn’t get that info from Heminway. Statistically, concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit criminal homicide than a law enforcement officer. Give the CDC report a read and file Heminway’s bought and paid for propaganda someplace appropriate.
What a surprise! Your profile photo has a picture of someone (presumably you) proudly brandishing a gun. One wonders if you might be cherry picking the evidence that fits with the narrative you prefer.
I get the impression that no matter what citations I come up with you will find a way to rationalize your way back to a pro gun stance. I went for news articles (Salon, etc) again because I’m going for brevity. I just don’t have the energy to have a citation war with you. But I will link at least to a succinct critique of that Kleck survey you fund so authoritative. (Ref)
It’s true that CDC just start studying gun violence again, the quality of which sadly is rather poor. I spose they are rusty since they haven’t been allowed to since 1996 when congress (coaxed by the NRA) enacted a law banning such research. Obama had to use an executive order just to investigating the topic once more. Even so there is little money available for such studies. (Ref)
I wonder why the NRA would object to scientific research on the topic in the first place? For purely innocent reasons I’m sure.
In any case, you’ve clearly made up your mind. You pick out pro-gun stats like a pro, and I just don’t have the time or energy to have a citation war with you.
I’ll find a study that’s underfunded and imperfect, but still seems to indicate an alarming trend. You’ll find a well funded Cato Institute study custom tailored to refute it. What’s the point? You won’t change my mind, and I won’t change yours.
Maybe someone else in this thread wants to have this argument.
P.S. What kinda gun you got there? Looks like quite the clip. How many bullets does it take to defend your home from a criminal? A shotgun or hunting rifle wouldn’t be good enough? You really need what appears to be a semi-automatic weapon? You expecting a standoff with the ATF or something?
It’s an AK variant of some kind with a 30 round magazine. And odds are he didn’t buy it for defense or government overthrow, but for recreation.
Fun fact - even though “self defense” is the talking point many people use in a pro-gun argument because it is both a valid one, and it is hard to tell someone “no, you can’t protect yourself”, MOST guns are used for sport and recreation.
That’s right, somehow people figured out that these devices, which are only good for killing people, are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot targets with. So whether it is informal plinking of steel targets, bullseye or bench rest precision shooting, or the more action orientated and ever popular 3 Gun competitions, millions of Americans (and other nationalities) use guns just like the one in the picture to punch holes in paper and knock down steel targets.
Furthermore, while the rifle in the picture may look all scary, and I guess has the potential to be more dangerous than some other guns, they make up a small minority of gun crime. So you really don’t have to fear them, as most of them belong to responsible people who just like to shoot targets and look good doing it.
You understand that guns were invented for killing right? Automatic weapons such as the AK were made for killing people, lots of people, very quickly. When did it become an acceptable form of recreation to play with military grade firearms?
There are so many forms of recreation that don’t involve using something made for killing.
If you absolutely insist on using a weapon as a toy, isn’t a rifle or shotgun sufficient? It’s certainly sufficient for self defense, it’s certainly sufficient for hunting. Playing with military equipment intended for warfare is just gratuitous.
Call me crazy but “it’s a hell of a lot of fun” is not a good enough reason to allow the public casual access to military hardware.
That kid who shot up that theater in Aurora was able to acquire a lot of military grade hardware because ‘sportsman’ huff and puff and insist the founding fathers intended for them to have banana clips and the automatic triggers. One wonders if 12 people would have died that day if he only had access to rifles/shotguns made for hunting game.
I’m sure land mines can be lots of fun too, but there are many practical reasons only militaries are supposed to have them.
I really can not stand this line of illogical reasoning. Let’s not look at something as it is being used, but let us just surmise what they might be used for and then demonize them. Like shoes - they COULD have a bomb in them. Take them off.
Lots of other things were made to kill: knives, swords, bows and arrows, large rockets, Nitroglycerin, etc. And yet all of these items found peaceful applications. Pit Bulls were bred to be fighting dogs - that’s all they are good for, right?
As for “military hardware” let me draw the distinction that the AK pictured in the other user’s icon is most likely not fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and illegal in some states. Yes, if you are wealthy or a Class III dealer (or both) then you can own and operate a full auto weapon. There are ranges who will rent them out for that. But never fear, anyone who has a legal full auto weapon has been thoroughly checked out by the ATF. IIRC, the only case of a legal full auto weapon being used in a crime in the last 50 years was actually from a cop and a police issued weapon.
You’re making arbitrary distinctions and knee jerk reactions. Just because you have a few high profile abusers doesn’t justify demonizing the millions of lawful users. All that “military grade hardware” is used in a minority of crime, while cheap handguns kill the most people in gun crimes. And again, that guy didn’t have a full auto either.
The NSA would like to restrict your rights because, hey, there are bad people out there. The TSA gets to feel us up because an improbable terror plot actually worked. I’m sorry but I can’t rationalize the condemnation of something when there are only a small number of abusers and MILLIONS of people hurting no one.
Fun fact - founding father were down with private ownership of cannons. Yeah, the most powerful weapons of the times were often bought by the rich who lent them out for wars. In fact you can still buy and operate old school cannons with out a license or anything, though with out the exploding shells.
Citation? Are you sure you’re not thinking of side-loading SMGs like the STEN?
I thought the shooting sideways trend originated with Menace II Society, where a character holds a pistol sideways to reach over a counter to shoot a cowering shop owner, after which (right-handed) wannabe gangstas adopted the pose without regard for the hot brass flying up into their faces.