An NRA board member "goes there" re: SC massacre

[RiverNoord]

58. OK, again...

I didn't ask an explicit question. When issues such as 'should there be greater gun ownership regulations in the United States?' are discussed, the 'question' is simply implied by the nature of the issue. You knew the question - it's not complicated. There are nuances, certainly, but the 'main question' is simply yes or no, with, certainly, important details remaining, but if there is no consensus on the main question, there is no point even trying to address the remaining important details.

If your opinion is that there should not be, in general terms, tighter gun control regulations in this country, then your post, which dealt only with my inclusion of 'certain high powered rifles' in the category of weapons that should be more tightly regulated, was irrelevant and and attempt to distract. The other possibility is that you meant something like 'well, I do see the problem of handgun violence as something that should be addressed, potentially through greater regulation, but I don't agree that any high-powered rifles are really important in the discussion, as very few injuries and deaths, proportionately, are caused by fire from such weapons.' If that approximates your perspective, then I expect that you would not have singled out the 'high powered rifles' component of my statement to comment on, without saying anything else.

I wasn't misled, neither was I seeking to mislead. I do believe that some high-powered semi- and full-automatic rifles, with high-capacity magazines and available armor piercing ammo, have no place in general legal circulation of firearms. That's my belief, and there are reasons for it. However, it is true that the most destructive firearms in our country, in terms of injuries and deaths, are handguns.

So I will, this time, ask a simple question: do you believe that handgun violence is a serious enough problem in the United States that smarter and broader regulation of either handgun manufacturing or distribution, or both, should be pursued?

If you say no, then, again, my prior point stands. If you say yes, I will agree that I was mistaken. If you say nothing, then my prior point stands doubly.