The Gun Nuts

So frustrating listening to an NPR story over the weekend about the woeful prospects for even the most obvious gun control, i.e., doing away with 30 bullet clips.  While those in favor had the reasoned arguments you would expect, those opposed to such reasonable restrictions offered little more than “the 2nd amendment!” or “it’s not the right time.”  Right, because 2011 is just a bad year to limit the amount of ammo a crazed maniac can go through without reloading.  I’ve yet to hear a rational and/or reasonable argument against these common-sense limitations, but politically they are dead in the water.  We literally get nonsense like this pointed out by commenter MIke Barr (the always capital “I” in Mike is an intersting and unexplained affectation):

What if clips were limited to 10 bullets? What about the scenario where a non-professional who was defending his family from a criminal popped off the entire clip without getting a kill shot against the perp. This allows the criminal to kill the entire family. But, what if the 11th bullet that would have been the one that stopped the assailant? Well? Your restriction just killed a family!

Such was the argument put forth by Alan Gura today on the Diane Rehm Show. This was his response to the argument that no hunter or marksmen needs 30 rounds in a clip.

Further evidence that the gun nuts are truly nuts, is the fact that they are buying up guns like crazy.  Now they’re really afraid that the durn libruls are going to take their guns away.  Get a clue?!  How completely divorced from political reality are these people?!  Anybody so damn stupid that they truly think the federal government is anywhere near taking their gun, is much, much too stupid to own a gun.

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State

9 Responses to The Gun Nuts

  1. Not to mention how bad these folks are at math:
    a) What are the odds of actually being burgled while one is at home? Not especially high.
    b) If you have ten shots and cannot hit the target (which is likely), why would the 11th shot do the trick? And where did those other ten bullets go?

    But these facts are immune to reality.

  2. John says:

    The fact that gun sales are up so dramatically (and have been) is illustrative of not only the purchaser’s reactive nature but testimony of the ease with which this segment of the population can be manipulated. The truly scary part isn’t that they own guns, it’s that they can vote, say for another reactive & easily manipulated fool/tool like George W. Bush.

  3. Mike Barr says:

    (No affectation, Steve, just sloppy typing and failure to proof-read).

    You would think that supports of gun (and/or ammo) control would have figured out ways to knock holes in these fear-based irrational arguments. For example, consider the way we deal with another tool that is deadly only when used recklessly — the automobile. Cars are registered; sales are regulated, and even transactions between private parties requires changes to registrations, and we license the users of vehicles. But I don’t know of any movement by libruhls or the gubmint to take our cars away.

    • Steve Greene says:

      Yeah, that is something that cars are regulated much more heavily than guns.

      Also, just so you know, there were 8 previous comments under your full name, and in every single case, the I in Mike was capitalized. Under the circumstances, you can see my conclusion of “affectation.”

      • Mike Barr says:

        The auto-fill function kept using that initial typo, and I never bothered to fix it.

        Maybe I need to retain that spelling to give myself some sort of identity!

      • Chris Baker says:

        While you may have a point on restricting “high capacity” magazines, which would be magazines in excess of the standard capacities sold by the manufacturer, banning them won’t prevent a criminal from acquiring them anyways. Just because something is restricted from the law-abiding, doesn’t make it unobtainable to the criminally determined.

        Even when the assault weapon ban was enacted, magazines in excess of ten-round capacity were allowed; a person was just unable to manufacture them, possession was no issue.

        What I don’t understand though, is how a belief in the terms of “shall not be infringed” turns people into gun nuts? Why the continued use of derogatory terms? Now, if you wanted to call the assassin (because that’s what evidence would label him as) in Arizona a nut, that would be fitting. However, labeling common law abiding citizens as “gun nuts” doesn’t really do anyone good; it’s more of a professional thing, I would hope civil people could hold a conversation without resorting to 8th grade name calling.

        In the end, the truth is, banning an object doesn’t make it unobtainable to criminals, only to citizens who obey the law. You receive little to no protection from a ban on item. There was no decrease in firearm violence after the assault weapon ban. What would you really benefit from banning a magazine here (there is no part called a “clip)?

  4. Steve Greene says:

    Sorry, people totally divorced from reality and who have obsessions with items whose primary purpose is to kill other human beings get labelled “nuts” by me. I’m not applying the term to reasonable gun supporters, just those who’s approach to guns seems to leave all rationality behind (sadly, most from what I can tell). Econ 101: you make something harder to obtain and the price goes up (whether in legit or black market). Price goes up and fewer people are able to afford to buy it. Fewer mentally ill crazies able to afford large clips, the better. And as we all know, the assault weapons ban was riddled with loopholes, so it’s not exactly a good test case. Oh, and look at my gun ignorance, calling a magazine a “clip.” I clearly now have no legitimacy on the issue.

  5. Mike Barr says:

    Chris: I agree with much of what you said. People speed and steal cars in spite of laws against both. I am personally comfortable around guns, although I do not currently own one (my father was a Marine and many of my closest relatives live in the Dakotas – they have lots and lots of guns). What pisses me off about that they will oppose anything if they can use it to generate more money for the organization. Really, that’s the only reason I can see why they oppose every single piece of legislation that would impact the availability of limited types of ammunition and weapons. it is impossible to have a reasoned dialogue with such and absolutist group whose allegiance to itself outweighs any concern for the common good.

  6. Normal capacity magazines are from 11-19 rounds – what’s next, a ban on carrying 2 guns at once? Sheesh!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: