If you buy guns and ammo you're harming America by funding the NRA: volume 109

[sharedvalues]

The NRA paid $70,000 for ONE trip for Wayne LaPierre.

If you buy guns and ammo, your money is going to the NRA in profits.
If you’re a member of the NRA your money is going to the NRA.
Not only does the NRA support policies that get American kids killed, but the NRA is fleecing its members to enrich its leaders like LaPierre.

Link to tweet

Anyone who buys guns or ammo, or is an NRA member, in 2019, and who is not advocating for the destruction of the NRA, is a rube getting fleeced by LaPierre and his Republican donors.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Hmm

Rube is an insulting word for a person considered uneducated or uncultured. Your average country bumpkin is also a rube. Calling someone a rube is another way of saying, "You sound like an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about." This word implies a lack of sophistication, manners, education, and culture.

[krispos42]

2. Advocating for assault weapon bans harm America far more

Because it puts Republicans in charge.

Every goddamn headline I've been reading the last 30 months has me screaming mentally "was it worth it?"

That drunken frat boy rapist on the SCOTUS. One-sixth of the Federal judiciary. Refugees in concentration camps. Refugee families torn asunder. Gerrymandering legalized. Hate crimes soaring. Corruption on an unprecedented scale. EPA rules relaxed so industry can poison our water and air. Gross incompetence appointed to the highest levels of government. Nepotism also to the highest levels of government. Foreign influence in our elections not only allowed, but sought and encouraged. Election security virtually non-existent. The rise of American Fascism. Abortion restrictions on the rise. Woman losing control over their bodies. Harmful and poorly-planned trade wars.

All because of people that are gun-illiterate are standing astride the path of technical progress wringing their hands and getting the vapors because, *gasp*, guns don't look like they did in 1919. Really? Things progressed? Plastic replaced wood? Controls and furniture got more ergonomic? Sights improved? Shocking and completely unforseen.

And because they can't accept the fact that those "rubes" know more about guns than they do, they try to shut down debate or discussion by using phrases like "common sense gun-control".

Because it makes perfect and common sense to ban guns that have a stock that can be extended or retracted easily and without tools. The horror! A pistol grip? TWO pistol grips? Dear Lord!

But hey, a few more "Fuck the NRA" posts will make it all better, I'm sure. Totally worth it to be able to blame hardware instead of changing our society and our institutions, or addressing the roots of problems instead of the window dressing.

I don't see how it could possibly fail, do you?

[The Mouth]

3. You don't *GET* it

teh gunz, they are scary.

They have that shoulder thing that goes up!

We lose 93 million people a day to gun violence ( Terry McAuliffe)

And "..it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book."

think of the children!!!!! think of the Childreeeeennnnn!!!!

[sharedvalues]

6. Dead Americans aren't worth working to fix?

This is despair propaganda.

Killing adult Americans, killing gay Americans, killing American kids: if you support the NRA financially, you’re complicit.

[The Mouth]

14. Ignorance is worth working to fix

Pretty much impossible when it comes to gun grabbers, though.

[sharedvalues]

16. You mean the killers who grab their guns before shooting kids?

Those kind of gun grabbers?

The NRA gets American kids killed to enrich gun CEOs and GOP donors.
Any American who buys guns or ammo funds the NRA and therefore is complicit.

[sharedvalues]

25. Teh guns, they kill kids.

Like these kids

[img][/img]

Murdered with guns the NRA fought for. That YOU fought for if you buy guns or ammo.

Like this kid

[img][img]

Murdered. With a gun the NRA loves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. You are not much different from those waving fetus photos in front of abortion clinics...

...save only for the object(s) of your self-righteous rants.

[sharedvalues]

9. Ban all semiautos.

If gun fetishists want to quibble about terminology, there is a GREAT solution:
Ban all semiautos.
Like other civilized countries do.
Canada has an effective ban on semiautos outside of a range. (Don’t reply with gun stats in Canada: the fact is, restrictions on individual ownership and transport of semiauto rifles and handguns are so strong as to be a de facto ban. That’s why gun crime is so low in Canada.)

[MarvinGardens]

15. Analogy:

Isn't that like saying let's ban alcohol because of drunk driving deaths? There are more gun homicides than drunk driving deaths, but the numbers are the same order of magnitude. And how many homicides are alcohol fueled, I wonder? Quite a few, I'd wager. Stats:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

And since you aren't proposing to ban all guns, I'll be fair and say let's not ban all alcohol, let's allow weak 3.2% beer to still be sold. No more IPAs, no wine, and certainly no liquor. Even Bud, Miller, etc. would have to tone it down. You'd probably have to drink 8 or more of those 3.2% beers to get drunk enough to kill someone.

Some might argue that they drink beer, that they like beer (like Brett Kavanaugh), or some other strong drink, and that they don't want to be forced to drink some weak-ass beer just because a few maniac assholes make bad choices after drinking. And further, that we should hold responsible the people who make those bad choices, rather than all adults.

Others might argue that regardless of the merits of the idea, many Americans are responsible alcohol users who do not want to lose their ability to drink their alcoholic beverage of choice. Because of this, Democrats would lose too many voters if they ran on the idea of banning most alcohol. If that happened, then not only would we not get our alcohol ban, but we would not get any of our priorities enacted, priorities that we Democrats all generally agree upon. And we'd have the continuing nightmare of all the bad things that happen when Trump, or someone like him, is in office.

But if you made either of those arguments, I'd reply that you sound like an alcohol humper, an alcohol fetishist, or maybe just a plain old alcoholic. You want to let 10,000 Americans die per year in drunk driving crashes alone, and let countless others die from alcohol fueled homicides, and alcohol related diseases, just so you can drink your tasty intoxicating beverages instead of the weak-ass swill that I think you should be allowed to drink. And furthermore, every time you buy a drink, you are contributing to an alcohol industry that is responsible for 10,000 dead Americans per year.

And don't reply with statistics about the last time America tried Prohibition, because it might weaken my argument, and besides, I'm not proposing to ban all alcohol.

So, are you on board with my argument to ban most alcohol? If not, why not?

[sharedvalues]

17. No. Analogy is to Canada: ban all semiautos.

Works in Canada. Would work here.

I don’t do poorly-reasoned hypotheticals.

Use the time you would have used on your 1000-word replies here to make an anti-NRA sign and go to a protest or GOP town hall. You’ll accomplish a lot more, and save some American lives.

[MarvinGardens]

18. If it's poorly reasoned, kindly state why,

instead of just repeating yourself. If the analogy fails, you'll have more success convincing me or others if you show how it fails. When you just repeat yourself rather than addressing the argument, other folks reading the thread are going to think "that's all he's got?" I could have just replied with "banning all semi-autos won't work, your proposal is not well thought-out", but that would have been kind of weak, wouldn't it?

I happen to think it's a great analogy because you would tell us that we don't really need to possess guns, but that we do it because we have a perverse fetish for them. While that's arguable due to their usefulness in self-defense, people really don't need to drink. They really don't. In the days before sanitary water systems, fermented beverages were useful, but we Americans can all get clean water now. And in pharmacy, it is only used as a vehicle for certain drugs, but the alcohol itself is not prescribed. There are many better, safer depressant drugs available. The only reason people drink alcohol is for pleasure. There is no "self defense" analogy. Alcohol is less necessary than firearms.

And I started out using drunk driving deaths, because it illustrates irresponsible behavior that could be addressed by proactively banning the thing (alcohol in place of gun) so that people will not have access to it, and will thus be unable to hurt other people as a result of using the thing irresponsibly.

But I know why you won't answer my question as to whether we should ban alcohol. Because you don't support banning alcohol as a political cause, and your reasons for not supporting that cause are some of the same reasons many Americans don't want to ban guns. If I'm wrong about your position on alcohol, you are free to correct me.

Lastly, I will address your arguments.

Works in Canada. Would work here.

I don't think it would work here.

Use the time you would have used on your 1000-word replies here to make an anti-NRA sign and go to a protest or GOP town hall. You’ll accomplish a lot more, and save some American lives.

No, I think it is more harmful to our party's electoral prospects to be seen as an anti-gun party. I don't want to harm Democrats' electoral prospects, I want us to win.

[sharedvalues]

23. Guns kill American kids. The NRA supports domestic terror.

I don't think it would work here.

That's what you have got?

Alcohol is not a weapon designed to kill people. It is not an instrument of domestic terror.

Do you support making nerve gases illegal? Do you support making shoulder-fired SAMs illegal? Of course you do. Those are weapons designed to kill people, just like semiautomatic rifles.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. re: "Alcohol is not a weapon designed to kill people."

Irrelevant.
If you are killed by something not "designed" to kill, are you somehow less dead?
If that's your only justification for assessing the analogy as deficient, then you're blowing smoke.
The 'designed to kill' line is not making any points here.
To rephrase your question, "That's all you've got?"

I think everyone here has read your 'I hate the NRA' rant and knows it well. I personally think your anti-NRA campaign a distraction. Discussing some lobbying group when the Senate, Presidency and many state offices are held/controlled by the Republicans is a waste of time. mitch magatconnell needs to go.

If the NRA goes away will they take mcconnell along with them?
Are you sure they will?

There are for sure some single issue voters who would vote (D) except for gun issues and maybe just over the AWB issue.

[sarisataka]

27. We have seen anti gun proponents

Who will lobby people to vote (R) if they have gun control position. We are told Republican control of government is "worth it" as long as it goes against the NRA.
Apparently concentration camps are "worth it" to some people

[MarvinGardens]

35. What I have got.

That's what you have got?

Per your suggestion, I was trying to keep my word count down.

Alcohol is not a weapon designed to kill people. It is not an instrument of domestic terror.

Ok, that's at least an answer. But I'm going to object to both parts. By and large, firearms in the U.S. are not instruments of domestic terror. Most are held by people who will never use them for evil, but you want to punish the whole lot of them for the sins of a few. If there are 15000 firearm deaths per year, and 393 million civillian firearms (using round numbers), that's 0.004% use for evil. And that's assuming all those deaths were murder, when many are suicides, and some are self defense. It's a very low percentage. So based on today's statistics, 99.996% of firearms you want to ban would not be used for suspected evil. That's why so many Americans, Democrats and independents included, object to such a heavy handed ban. To be fair, you are saying to just ban semiautomatics, and I had a hard time finding data on that. But that includes every gun where, once loaded, can fire repeatedly with repeated trigger pulls. Based on my anecdotal survey of gun owners I know, it probably includes most guns in the US. Maybe some members of this group will have actual statistics.

As for alcohol not being designed to kill, I couldn't have designed a better killer of Americans if I'd wanted. There are 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year. 49,000 of those are from accidents, violence, suicide, and acute poisonings.
https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D=

That is far more than gun deaths. I hear you say tgat alcohol is not designed to kill, but tgat seems irrelevant. Herioin was not designed to kill either, but it was banned long ago. I'm not proposing to ban all alcohol, as you are not proposing to ban all guns. I'm proposing to make it much more difficult for people to get drunk and hurt other people. Why won't you explain why you think this policy is not warranted? Is it because you like your strong drinks too much, and selfishly don't want to give them up? Or that you think it won't work? Or some other reason.

[sharedvalues]

36. Except firearms ARE an instrument of domestic terror

Let’s focus on handguns.
Handguns kill Americans. Many Americans. Many are kids. Many are in cities.

There is no pleasure-seeking in the world that is worth keeping handguns around with all the deaths they cause. And that is the calculation that most other civilized countries have made.

Let me be clear: it’s great that people like you have fun with handguns. But it’s not worth the cost in lives. Let’s do what Canada does: ban handguns in public. Shoot them at the range all you want. But have very strict requirements for sale, transport, and storage. As Canada does.

The reason we don’t have those laws in the US is because Republican billionaires know that gun identity politics gets them votes for destroying the government and country. And also because gun companies want to sell more guns and make more money. Those two reasons are horrible reasons to support killing people. We can make that case to Americans.

Get on board. Ban handguns. Save lives. Break the hold of Republican billionaires and gun CEOs on our politics.

[MarvinGardens]

37. If you want to save more lives, what do you have against my alcohol proposal?

I don't think you will answer because it will wreck your argument.

You have already shifted from banning possession of all semiautomatics, to banning the public carry of handguns. (But possession for home defense would still be allowed?) So basically, you're cool with the Heller decision?

I am not self interested here. I do not carry a gun in public. But doing so is already regulated in most states. How many gun homicides are committed by permit holders, versus those carrying illegally?

[sharedvalues]

39. Handguns kill Americans.

A few points that I have made repeatedly.
- we should ban all handguns and all semiautos. Single shot hunting rifles are A-OK.
- bans help law enforcement stop legal as well as illegal weapons. For one: banning handguns would severely restrain the number of weapons manufactured, reducing the number of handguns repurposed for illegal uses.
- The NRA is a domestic terror organization that advocates for getting Americans killed to enrich its donors and get votes for Republicans.

[MarvinGardens]

40. You are correct, you have made them repeatedly.

And you have also repeatedly refused to offer an opinion on my alcohol proposal. Yea or nay? And if not why not?

A beneficial aspect of your plan, however, is that the police will be limited to carrying single shot long guns, since everything else will be completely banned. We can't have the police carrying domestic terror weapons, right? The police don't go around carrying nerve gas or surface-to-air missiles either, and a domestic terror weapon has no legitimate use in peacetime. As a result, your proposal will result in fewer police killings of civilians. I applaud the result even as I recognize some difficulties in implementing the policy.

[sharedvalues]

41. Handguns kill Americans. Obtuseness isn't helpful.

Alcohol discussion was originally covered by me above and needs no further reply. (As I said, alcohol, like cars, has far more legitimate purposes that are not killing people.)

Re: police— merely look at other countries. Enough said.

Meanwhile, we’re waiting for you to tell us if you buy guns and ammo, and are thus complicit in the Parkland and Sandy Hook kid deaths.

[Straw Man]

44. Other countries?

Re: police— merely look at other countries. Enough said.

Countries like Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, all of whose police officers regularly carry firearms? What is your point?

[MarvinGardens]

45. Alcohol kills more Americans.

What legitimate use does it have? Recreation is it. And it's lethal for so many. And you haven't directly answered, but I guess I will assume that you would not ban, nor more strictly regulate alcohol. The only reason you have given is that is does have a legitimate use (recreation), which I acknowledge, thus making my point, by illustrating one of the many reasons that it should not be banned.

And allow me to get this out of the way in answer to your question: I don't buy guns, because I already have what I need. I do buy ammo on occasion. I'm no more complicit in American firearm deaths, than I am in alcohol deaths because I bought a case of beer. If I die from alcohol, then I am complicit in my alcohol related death. If I get drunk and kill people behind the wheel, then I am complicit in their deaths, but still not complicit in all 88,000 Americans who die from it every year. That's how that works. Your argument is as absurd as those PSAs during the Bush admin, telling us that if we bought weed, we were supporting terrorism. So if people buy weed on the black market, are they supporting terrorism? Is everyone who smokes weed in a prohibition state a terrible person? Is everone who buys gasoline responsible for terrorism?

I suppose you are calling me obtuse for assuming the police would also be prohibited from carrying these weapons of domestic terror, as you call them. But your replies are so evasive that I am left to either make assumptions about what you are saying, thus risking putting words in your mouth, or otherwise appearing "obtuse" as you call it.

So you would allow the police to carry semi-automatics, yes? You'd allow the police, who in America do not have a stellar track record of treating civilians well, to carry "weapons of domestic terror"? What this reveals is the following:

(1) You are implicitly acknowledging that they are not weapons of domestic terror.

(2) You are implicitly acknowledging that semi-automatic firearms do have a legitimate use in peacetime.

(3) You still want them banned from civilian hands, because you think that civilians using weapons for self-defense is not a legitimate act. You think that a civilian who keeps a firearm for self-defense is committing a wrong, improper, possibly evil act.

And it is especially on that last point that I completely disagree with you. And so do many other Americans, including Democrats and Independents. Just as a majority of us don't want an alcohol ban, we don't want a ban of semi-automatics. Just as a proposed ban of alcohol would never succeed and would be a political disaster for any political party that proposed it, so would a proposed blanket ban of semi-automatics.

[sharedvalues]

48. Your gun fun gets Americans killed.

Give up your guns to save American lives.
(Difference with alcohol: guns both kill their users via suicide AND kill many others when they work as they were designed: to kill Americans. Alcohol has a much larger ratio of user deaths to other deaths. That’s why we worked so hard as a society on drunk driving. Didn’t you notice that?

Let’s follow your logic. You’re banned from drinking in most public places and you’re banned from drinking then driving in public. So let’s ban you from carrying a gun in public too. Just like Canada does.

Gun-fetish logic is always so thin.

[hack89]

49. So get your laws passed.

it is not complicated. Why are you here whining at us when we are not the issue? Go bug the all the state law makers you need to pass your laws.

[sharedvalues]

54. Then get the h*ll out of the way. Support gun control.

Back the laws that protect our kids and our country.
Stop buying guns and ammo that help get kids and adults killed.

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. That’s what we should ask of every gun owner or gun supporter.

[hack89]

55. I do.

I support most gun control - after all I live in a blue state with strict gun control and low gun violence. All of my elected officials support gun control.

But I will not give up my guns. I am not the problem here - in 35 years of gun ownership I have never harmed a living thing.

[sharedvalues]

56. Good and bad, but thanks

It’s good that you support gun control laws - which really do save lives. Especially in cities, but everywhere.

Though also remember that when you buy guns or ammo, you are subsidizing the NRA, which is a rightwing proto-fascist organization that not only lobbies for Americans to be killed by guns, but also lobbies for Republican theocracy.
One thing you CAN do if you insist on buying guns and ammo is to call the companies you purchase from and urge them to stop supporting the NRA.

[hack89]

57. Ok. Nt

[MarvinGardens]

50. You just shifted your position to fit my logic.

That indicates my logic is good, and worked as intended.

You have backed off your proposed ban of civilian possession of all semiautomatics, and are instead proposing a ban, or perhaps tight regulations, merely on public carry. But it seems you are now fine with adult civilians keeping guns in the home relatively unrestricted, just as they can do with alcohol.

I appreciate your willingness to compromise on these issues. I think tighter restrictions on public carry are something many gun owners would be willing to consider.

[yagotme]

51. You forgot to add:

1. Waiting period for purchase of alcohol. 15 days enough? Perhaps 30...

2. Background check, fill out lengthy form. Any prior domestic misdemeanors denies purchase. And that's at the bottom level.

3. ID. Make sure you have all the proper ID. Here in IL, we have a FOID card. MUST have in possession if handling and/or transporting firearm/ammo (I mean alcohol).

4. Safety classes. (At $150-$300 a pop) How to drink properly. Know when to quit. If you have too much, proper procedures to get to your home safely (friend taxi, etc.) Receive certification, but must renew every few years or so (at $100-$200 a pop).

5. Restrict amounts of alcohol one may purchase at one time. After all, who needs a "magnum" of champagne. And don't forget those high capacity cases of beer. Ban those.

6. Restrict transport of alcohol to point of sale-home. Must have prior permission of BATFE to transport to other than place of residence.

7. No purchase of alcohol out of state, unless it is shipped to local dealer to be personally picked up by you at your expense.

8. No home brews, without license and prior approval of BATFE.

9. Restrict age limit to 21, including branches of military.

That ought to get the ball rolling in the right direction...

BTW, there was this thing a few years back called "Prohibition". Might want to research it before calling on any bans to a constitutionally listed right.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. re: difficulties in implementing the policy

I think I have theoretically solved those difficulties and, should these measures actually be proposed as laws, I'll be looking to buy some call options on the makers of airplane glue and dust-off in having the laws passed and universally accepted.

Where is that HUFFING smilie?

[MarvinGardens]

46. I resemble that remark!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. I aye!

[sharedvalues]

42. Ban handguns; why attempt to distract with incommensurables?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. The many reasons why much of this is simply rhetoric and hyperbole

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2019, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Title: "Except firearms ARE an instrument of domestic terror"

One important step in even considering this statement is a clear definition of "domestic terror".
Please elaborate.

"There is no pleasure-seeking in the world that is worth keeping handguns around with all the deaths they cause."

Handguns are used regularly by public servants and private citizens for self-defense and the defense of others. "...reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property" are generally excluded as terrorist activities.

My opinion here is that your rhetoric and hyperbole buffet is broad-brushing, simplistic and emotional dog chow to be swallowed by accepting trusting folks who eschew thinking for themselves. I don't at all disparage those who hold congruent opinions with you but I distrust in the extreme your presentation, lacking a logical defense in how you reach your conclusions, and your simply demanding general concurrence.

[Straw Man]

19. Canada doesn't "ban all semi-autos."

Not even close. Not de facto. Not at all.

https://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/

Certain types are restricted, but that just means they require jumping through more legal hoops. Others are easily available.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Pious frauds regard truth as something that can be skipped when 'necessary'

And this thread demonstrates that very well...

[sharedvalues]

24. Better analogy is a ban of hand grenades.

Do you support the existing ban on hand grenades, which are weapons designed to kill people?

P.s. Every other civilized country in the world has much much MUCH stronger gun control than we have. Why is that? Because rightwing billionaires in America find gun identity politics useful in getting votes for billionaire tax cuts. In the meantime, kids get killed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. More pious fraud on your part-there is no "existing ban on hand grenades"

[krispos42]

21. And once more, completely missing the point

First off, it's not "quibbling". The rifle used in Newtown was not an "assault weapon" by state law. Your side came up with a bunch of arbitrary and secondary features in YOUR side's definition, and then spent 30 years bitching and moaning about people finding work-arounds and not following the "spirit" of the laws while trying to make the laws tighter

Second, do you mean long guns or hand guns?

Third, IT WILL STILL PUT REPUBLICANS IN POWER.

Christ, when you trick a kid into licking a 9-volt battery, they usually won't do it again. You guys are practically swallowing it.

It doesn't work to control crime, and it prevents us from running things. We can't improve society when MAGAts are running things!

We saved far and away more lives by passing environmental regulations and giving women control over their reproduction than any gun law.

[sharedvalues]

22. Blah blah Gun knowledge semantics

By "my side", you mean
"American patriots that don't want American kids to get killed"?

That's a good side to be on. It's the right side of history.

Also, when the right swiftboated John Kerry, did you say "Attacking a war veteran will put Democrats in power!!!!111!!!!"

No. Because this is a losing political issue for the right. The NRA is literally helping kill American kids. You attack the other side's strength when you have an opening. This is the opening. And it's not just politically advantageous - it's the right thing to do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. https://dictionary.apa.org/false-consensus-effect

False-consensus effect

The tendency to assume that one’s own opinions, beliefs, attributes, or behaviors are more widely shared than is actually the case. A robustly demonstrated phenomenon, the false-consensus effect is often attributed to a desire to view one’s thoughts and actions as appropriate, normal, and correct.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is an attributional type of cognitive bias whereby people tend to overestimate the extent to which their opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do). This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a "false consensus".

This false consensus is significant because it increases or decreases self-esteem, the (overconfidence effect) or a belief that everyone knows one's own knowledge. It can be derived from a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment. This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way. The false-consensus effect is not restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority, but it still manifests as an overestimate of the extent of their belief.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias, and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors. Maintenance of this cognitive bias may be related to the tendency to make decisions with relatively little information. When faced with uncertainty and a limited sample from which to make decisions, people often "project" themselves onto the situation. When this personal knowledge is used as input to make generalizations, it often results in the false sense of being part of the majority...

[krispos42]

52. Yeah, I can see how much you want to protect kids

You've latched onto a policy who's positive effects, if any, will be:
a) small and probably statistically insignificant,
b) take years to take effect
c) PUTS REPUBLICANS IN POWER.


Yeah, I'm sure all those kids suffering with lack of health care, crappy schools, gang violence, gay-bashing, drug abuse, the school-to-prison pipeline, and being gunned down by MAGA-hat cops will be OVERJOYED that, you, sharedvalues, make their lives infinitely better by making sure that AR-15s didn't have a bayonet mounting provision. Because that's the REAL issue here.

I imagine a couple of hundred thousand dead Iraqi children are just overjoyed that Al Gore lost Florida by less than 600 votes because Bill Clinton and Al Gore adopted a useless DLC/Third Way crime-control measure that cost Gore critical votes and put that weak-willed, dry-drunk, and clueless Shrub in office. Oh yeah, I'm sure all those dead, deformed, and PTSD-ed Iraqi kids living in bombed-out hovels and drinking tainted water and questionable food just LOVE the fact that you "care about the children" so much.

Ditto for all those Afghan kids, and those kids in concentration camps on American soil.

I find your absolute unwillingness to self-criticize yourself, or take pride and smugness from your lack of knowledge in this area, very counterproductive. You dismiss facts as unimportant, as not worth of your consideration. That is nuts! That is not what somebody that cares about kids would do.

You think your saving kids lives by tilting at the windmill of "assault weapons". You're not. Sorry, you're not. You're not and you never will. EVER.

You're not lowering the crime rate, and you're not stopping mass shootings. You're living in some kind of fantasy world where the problem will "go away" if only we take away hardware!

Well, here's a reality check for you: You need to educate yourself about what guns are and are not before you go to your keyboard and start fishing for ego-scratching from people that think "fuck the NRA" is some sort of effective action. But you won't do that, will you? You have your own "facts" and you'll keep spraying them from your own little self-reinforcing bubble.

Get a clue. There are several, perhaps more than several, gun-control efforts that people like you and people like me could AGREE on, but your fetishization on defining and then banning "assault weapons" means that NOTHING gets done, except that we have Dolt45 and that hate-filled asshole Mitch McConnell running everything and stacking the courts with extremist judges.

The SCOTUS is getting packed; RBG is hardly a spring chicken and we're depending on her to stave off even more packing of the Court! McConnell already stole one SCOTUS seat, and if Dolt45 pulls out a "win" in 16 months, do you think she had the health and stamina to last until 2025?

You need to look at yourself in the mirror, then educate yourself. You can start by having an honest conversation here instead of being condescending and self-righteous. Nobody is asking you to love guns; we asking you to fill your noggin with knowledge you can make an independent, informed decision instead of being some slogan-chanting follower.

[sharedvalues]

53. Guns kill kids and you can't handle the truth.

I’m sorry you love guns more than you love American lives.

Keep citing BS lies the NRA puts out. It is widely clear that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. I'm sorry you hate guns more than you love American children

krispos42 is absolutely correct:

Republican policies have killed, and are killing, far more kids than guns ever have - and useful idiots
spouting pious screeds larded with demonstrable untruths have helped to reelect them.

But said idiots get to preen in their own slacktivist self-righteousness, so it's apparently OK....

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Your schtick is far from original, and was recognized at DU as far back as 2013:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129602#post4

My personal favorite ... "If you don't agree with us, you want dead children"


No discussion, no middle ground. You favor dead kids if you won't agree with anything the gun control side puts forward.

And what do they have to show for their "highly principled stance"?

No national gun control legislation.

Bloomberg spending millions of $ against Dems he doesn't like in primaries. (No money against GOP yet)

A few states passed "overnight" laws that are being challenged.

Two Dems in Colorado that are now facing serious recall elections, after being assured by Bloomberg that everyone would love them for the new gun control laws.

Illinois finally has concealed carry.

Keep up the good work guys.

90% my ass.

[krispos42]

60. And I'm sorry you hate guns more than you love American lives

You can't or won't discuss or debate any points that I raise. Your "guns are bad and you're dumb if you don't realize that" attitude is certainly going NOT to make me see the light (and calling facts "NRA lies" is a very Trumpian tactic, BTW), and you shy away from any introspection of yourself and your opinions.

I didn't expect to change your mind, really, but I hope somebody else that come across this thread will have a more open mind and affect them in a more positive manner.

It's a shame, because I think we could agree on several, Federal-level guns laws that would actually reduce criminal usage of guns, but we never got that far in our discussion.

[sharedvalues]

61. I love America. Guns kill Americans. Anyone who supports guns helps kill Americans

Pretty simple.

I don’t stand for gun-fetishist lying.

If you buy guns or ammo, you subsidize the NRA which lobbies to get our American children killed so gun CEOs can make more money.

Sorry if you don’t like that truth, but you know, time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[sir pball]

28. If you're including handguns, that would actually make a difference.

The math says that a confiscatory ban of all semi-automatic rifles in the US, with an immediate 100% compliance rate, would save a few hundred lives - in 2017, the last year the data was available, rifles accounted for 403 homicides(1). Yes, there are 3096s "type not stated" homicides, but a rifle-round injury is much more discernible than a handgun-round injury; that category just means the investigator couldn't determine what kind of gun it was (and if you've watched the John Oliver on medical examiners, that's no surprise). Let's be real generous and allow 310 more rifle deaths, for a total of 713 dead by rifles, assault or otherwise.

Out of 15,129 firearms homicides(1). 4.7%.

7,032 of those homicides were by handgun(I'm gonna stop citing, it's all from the 2017 UCR). Now, anecdotally the 38 revolver is still the most popular crime gun in America, but that's still only something less than 1/4 of handgun murders [citation needed]. Let's be generous and say revolvers in general are 1/3 of handgun homicides, that leaves 4,688 dead by semiauto handguns in 2017. The same magical 100% effective ban would then save a lot of people.

The logical, unfeeling calculus of the situation says we need to focus on handgun controls if we want to save as many lives as possible, full stop. If you want to spend the unfortunately limited political capital for gun control to minimize school shootings, then by all means spend it on assault rifles, but if you want to maximize your return, spend it on handguns.

(1) - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

[sharedvalues]

32. Correct. Ban semiautos, including handguns.

It would be ok to ban all handguns.

Canada is a good model here. Canada essentially bans in public all semiauto weapons AND all handguns of any sort.

It’s not a coincidence that Canada has many fewer people killed by guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. *Still* you persist in bullshitting us: "Canada essentially bans in public all semiauto weapons"

This is untrue on the face of it- less than a minute of searching turned up a Canadian site with 50+ semi-automatic rifles for sale

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/rifles/non-restricted?limit=all

And being in Canada, those rifles can be mailed directly to the license-holder's residence -unlike the States,
where all interstate transfers and purchases of firearms must be made at a licensed dealer:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/trans-eng.htm

Q. Can I send firearms in the mail?

You may ship restricted firearms, non-restricted firearms and prohibited handguns from one Canadian location to another Canadian location if you use the most secure method offered by Canada Post that requires a signature upon delivery. Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited handguns, and firearms being shipped across the Canadian border, must be shipped by an individual or carrier company licensed under the Firearms Act to transport those classes of firearms.

You are required by law to ship firearms unloaded and in a safe and secure manner to deter loss, theft and accidents.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are, indeed, on the level- or are merely the clueless "true believer" you present as...

[hack89]

4. Aren't you happy the NRA is pissing away their money

Instead of using it to help Trump get reelected?

[sharedvalues]

7. I am happy the NRA is imploding.

I also hope individual members of the NRA stop supporting a domestic terror organization, and quit the NRA.

[hack89]

11. They will just move to another gun rights group.

Gun owners are a politically active demographic.

[sharedvalues]

12. Gun owners are a complicit-in-kid-deaths demographic

[hack89]

13. That's funny

Glad to see you are maintaining your sense of humor. Must be hard after 20 years of gun control failure in America.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Reminds me of something written on a family member's chemistry test

"Little insight but tries hard."

[hack89]

5. You also are helping the environment

What do you think the federal excise tax is spent on?

[sharedvalues]

8. Medical care for people that get shot.

[hack89]

10. Change the law. Not complicated. Nt

[melm00se]

62. Well, I guess I "harm(ed) America by funding the NRA..."

over the weekend.

New gun and 1000 or so rounds of ammo.

[sharedvalues]

63. The children who died at Sandy Hook-- you helped the NRA support their deaths.

Gun companies take profits from the guns and ammo you buy and give them to the NRA.

And the NRA is a domestic terror organization.

[melm00se]

64. I support the NRA Foundation

but not the NRA-ILA.

[sharedvalues]

65. Your money helps support kid deaths :(

Sadly, this is true.
Please think about what you’re doing.
Send your money to Moms Demand Action instead.

[melm00se]

66. i am going to hazard a guess

that you don't know (or don't want to know) the difference between the two...