Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Perhaps the major desire of the very mast majority of people who want gun control, is based in acknowledgement of this fact - a very vast majority of people would choose to face a knife if they had to make a choice between facing a gun or a knife, because they think they have a better chance of survival against a knife than a gun.

That depends on the specific gun control. Some types of gun control are pursued solely because leftists enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

To really look at the motives of the supporters we would have to focus on specific proposals.

vikorr wrote:

And for the same reasons (why your chances of survival are less against a gun than a knife) are why it's easier to commit mass murder with a gun than a knife.

True. But there are always bombs, or heavy trucks plowing through crowds. Someone who wants to commit mass murder has other options if they have no access to guns.

That said, I think some controls on high-capacity magazines would pass muster with the courts as a way to limit massacres. The main reason why we don't see it is because the gun control movement is dominated by people who care only about violating others' rights for fun. Efforts to actually save lives get swept aside in a mad rush to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

In many ways the gun control movement in America is self-defeating.

vikorr wrote:

It's impossible not to acknowledge this without being wilfully bullheaded.

Well, I acknowledged that knives are typically not useful for mass murder, so I guess I'm not being bullheaded.

But note that when I disagree with you about facts, I am doing so in the belief that I am correct. And I very likely am correct when it comes to factual questions.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

In many ways the gun control movement in America is self-defeating.

I know , by the way you insert tidbits that are untrue(like who is running a monolithic "gun control lobby"), you would like the above to be true.
Th"gun control lobby" (if one even exits), is up against a very well funded manufacturers lobby whose only interet is for the unlimited availability of their products to folks of all kinds . That lobby also loves passive marketing where the gun nutz do the marketing on internet and in video bites .
I see youve mollified your own passive marketing spiehl to not oppose things like large capacity clips and "bump stocks"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I know, by the way you insert tidbits that are untrue (like who is running a monolithic "gun control lobby"), you would like the above to be true.

Everything that I said is completely true. By making extremist attempts to violate people's civil liberties for no reason the centerpiece of their gun control efforts, the gun control movement guarantees their perpetual defeat.

I don't recall using the term monolithic anywhere.

farmerman wrote:

a very well funded manufacturers lobby

Now there's a tidbit that isn't true. But by persisting in believing it, you help to guarantee your defeat, so keep it up.

farmerman wrote:

I see youve mollified your own passive marketing spiehl to not oppose things like large capacity clips and "bump stocks"

All I do is state facts. I have not changed anything.

Whether or not I would oppose a law covering high capacity magazines depends entirely on the details of that specific law.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

But note that when I disagree with you about facts, I am doing so in the belief that I am correct.

Of course.

That said, quite frankly, usually there are two entirely different conversations going on in this thread.

Quote:

In many ways the gun control movement in America is self-defeating.

I would say the political situation is self defeating, and plagued with problems. Porous borders, different rules in different States, lobby groups, guns readily available to criminals, 2nd ammendments, court rulings, a plethora of mass shootings. It makes for a mess.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

By your consistant mouthing of "mantras" you are being rather disengenuous. Simply yes or No would be more honest.

YOU say theres no well funfed gun lobby??? really?? wanta come and meet me at Baltimore station and Ill drive you there and you can worship at the altar of death and chaos.

1 Reply

High end 308 caliber Vepr rifle does the job on coyotes and hogs:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/794397166

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

By your consistant mouthing of "mantras" you are being rather disengenuous. Simply yes or No would be more honest.

I state accurate facts. Stating accurate facts is highly honest.

farmerman wrote:

YOU say theres no well funfed gun lobby??? really??

I was mostly challenging the part about the NRA representing gun manufacturers. That is completely untrue.

I have no idea how well funded the NRA is. Funding is of little relevance. The NRA's power has nothing at all to do with money.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I have no idea how well funded the NRA is. Funding is of little relevance. The NRA's power has nothing at all to do with money.

With no money comes no:
- advertising (closely linked to the effectiveness of below)
- hiring of lobbyists (needed for their connections and knowledge of the best ways influence the machinations of government)
- hiring of political strategists / consultants / PR personnel
- well organised petitions
- unified direction
- effective messaging (see all of the above)

Money is very necessary to power. Not the only ingredient by far, but quite necessary.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

The NRA has legions of voters in rural districts who will expel our congressmen from office if the NRA asks us to.

Parties need these rural districts in order to retain hold of Congress.

That is the source of the NRA's power.

Minimal money is required to communicate to us that a politician needs to be voted out of office.

1 Reply

Problem with cape buffalo in your South forty? This excellent double square bridge Mauser ought to take care of it (gunbroker.com isn't just for AKs...)

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/791244307

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

If I was to get an elephant gun (it's on my bucket list) I'd want a double rifle.

Not sure of the caliber that I'd prefer. On one hand, bigger rounds make for better stopping power on a charging animal. On the other hand, we're talking guns with significant recoil here, and a less punishing round would probably lead to significantly better aim under stress.

There was an unintentionally funny safari video that I posted a while back (might have even been in this thread) where this tourist hunter kept wounding and missing a cape buffalo and whipping it up into a killing frenzy. The professional hunter did an excellent job. Kept a bead on the buffalo the whole time and then dropped it with one shot. Then the tourist hunter acted like he had achieved a mighty victory.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I was right. It was in this thread:
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-196#post-6674263

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Trying to shoot an elephant in the heart/lung area is the way you'd do with a deer is a sort of a bad plan which could easily not get the elephant killed fast enough to keep him from killing you.
'
The guy who holds the all time record for elephants was using a Swiss military rifle with ordinary 30cal ammo of some sort. He was a sort of an expert in elephant anatomy and was making head shots.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That is part of the source of the NRA's power. A major, necessary part. Just like money. If all the voters in the U.S. were to join the NRA, it's sway would still be significantly diminished if:
- it didn't advertise
- didn't hire lobbyists (needed for their connections and knowledge of the best ways influence the machinations of government)
- didn't hire political strategists / consultants / PR personnel
- didn't organise petitions well
- didn't have a unified direction
- didn't effectively message

Basically, without the above, the NRA wouldn't be providing political direction to members, meaning their votes wouldn't be influenced by it as an organisation, meaning it's position as a political player would be severely diminished (unless of course, some unifying event occurred)

To be politically influential, an organisation like the NRA relies on both a supporter base, and the ability to influence it's supporters to vote a particular way (if either is missing, politicians pay much less attention)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

It seems that there is this idea that if you can show that the NRA is less than legitimate, you have also shown that gun ownership is less than legitimate. But that's not how it works.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Marian Hammer has been writing and editing gun legisation for years. Shes the NRA's ace.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

It seems that there is this idea that if you can show that the NRA is less than legitimate, you have also shown that gun ownership is less than legitimate. But that's not how it works.

Who's pushing those ideas? Neither makes sense individually. And tying the two together makes no sense either.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Sure. I'll just pretend you didn't post this:

That is part of the source of the NRA's power. A major, necessary part. Just like money. If all the voters in the U.S. were to join the NRA, it's sway would still be significantly diminished if:

- it didn't advertise
- didn't hire lobbyists (needed for their connections and knowledge of the best ways influence the machinations of government)
- didn't hire political strategists / consultants / PR personnel
- didn't organise petitions well
- didn't have a unified direction
- didn't effectively message

Basically, without the above, the NRA wouldn't be providing political direction to members, meaning their votes wouldn't be influenced by it as an organisation, meaning it's position as a political player would be severely diminished (unless of course, some unifying event occurred)

To be politically influential, an organisation like the NRA relies on both a supporter base, and the ability to influence it's supporters to vote a particular way (if either is missing, politicians pay much less attention)
__________________________________________________

So what's with all this analysis of the NRA?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

It's not an analysis of the NRA - I know next to nothing about them, except they lobby and have influence. I outlined why money has a lot to do with any similar organisations influence (my comments were in direct response to Oralloy saying money had nothing to do with it). Ie. It's an analysis of any organisation that wants political influence. If it was anywhere near close to an accurate reflection of the NRA, that should say something.

To reiterate, you can apply that analysis to any similar organisation that has political influence. The closer it follows that formula, the more influence it will have per member. It needs money to do that.

In any event, my comments were related to the influence of money. Anything you read further into it, regards to that line of thought somehow delegitimising an organisation (and again, that line of thought makes no sense), has nothing to do with what I said. Really, I can't see where you can infer such.

Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at such a conclusion.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Oh, I see. You were offering your version of how the world, in general, works. Most of us are already aware of that.

My point is that, when arguments against guns fail, some folks opt to put the blame on the NRA; some folks opt to put the blame on politicians; and some folks opt to put the blame on money. You seem to be blaming all of the preceding. So how exactly do imagine things could work out if it weren't for the NRA, the politicians, and money? What do you think would happen if these obstructions were removed from the equation?

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know