Why the NRA is more monstrous than you think

[krispos42]

95. Oh, so it was some other Hillary Clinton that spoke four days ago?

Hillary Clinton: Gun Culture 'Way out of Balance'
WASHINGTON May 6, 2014 (AP)
By KEN THOMAS Associated Press
Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation's gun culture has gotten "way out of balance" and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."

The former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said the idea that anyone can have a gun is not in the "best interest of the vast majority of people." But she said that approach does not conflict with the rights of people to own firearms.

<more>

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-raise-money-margolies-campaign-23600038

And I can't shake a stick fast enough to count all the times that "gun culture" was mentioned on DU as a sickness that needed curing.

It's pretty simple, I think. You want European-style guns laws in America. To do that, to get political support for drastic and (presumably) sudden changes in the kinds and quantities of guns in America, you have to gather enough popular support.

So, you try to get the people riled up over gun violence. America needs to change! America can't afford to tolerate "their" gun culture any more! Like pollution, it spreads across the land, affecting not only gun owners but everybody else! And THEY are too stupid and ignorant and gun-loving to listen!


The clearest evidence of this is the assault-weapons ban. The idea is absurd, trying to draw some arbitrary line between "acceptable" semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and between "assault weapon" semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

The official position of the Democratic Party is that gun makers shouldn't be allowed to put consumer-protection features on guns. Can you imagine Democrats outlawing heat shields on ANYTHING else that gets hot?

How about a more-comfortable, more ergonomic grip? Can you imagine Democrats trying to outlaw pistol grips on power drills? Barcode scanners? Paint sprayers? Weed trimmers?

How about a quick-adjustable shoulder stock? Can you imagine Democrats trying to outlaw office chairs that are height-adjustable? Tilting/telescoping steering wheels on cars?

And yet, because these features were first issued (about 70 years ago) on military arms, they want to outlaw them. Because they don't want "military-styled guns" to be sold.


It's stupid. It's trying to change the culture by ginning up an imaginary enemy.


If the Democrats had defined "assault weapon" as "any semiautomatic long gun", then it wouldn't be a culture war; it would be a principled, consistent, and clear definition. But they don't. They continue to define "assault weapon" by a dozen different definitions, and re-defining the definition at their convenience.

Hell, if they had come out and wanted to ban handguns as a class, it would be a principled, consistent, and clear proposal, and would in theory save FAR more lives per year than any definition of "assault weapon".

I must have responded "other causes" NRA talking point a thousand times by now, but since y'all keep ignoring it, here goes again. The US doesn't have a higher rate of violent crime than other advanced Democracies. It's only homicide where we stick out like a sore thumb.

Other countries have different definitions of violent crime, different definitions of felony and misdemeanors, different levels of reporting by citizens, and different methods of gathering data. Murder and manslaughter seem to be pretty consistently defined across nations, but the other stuff? I have reservations.

Still doesn't change the fact that we could not only reduce violence but vastly (and quickly) improve the overall standard living of this country by doing other things. I've listed them before, and you know what? They're all liberal ideas.

Even if you're 100% correct, or even 90% correct, what you are trying to embark on is a very long, slow journey that will result in electoral backlash. Conservative political and economic systems kill far more people than gun violence. 40,000 a year because they were under-insured or uninsured dwarfs the 13,000 firearm-based murders a year. How much of the suicide rate is because of economic ruination by conservative economics? How about the homicide rate? Or all those murder-suicides?

You plan is to essentially remove from society a large portion of the guns. What percentage? Got any idea? It would have to be a lot to dry up the black market. It would have to be a lot to prevent most domestic-partner shootings.