GunTV Aims To Premier 24-Hour Shopping Channel For Firearms 633
HughPickens.com writes: Mike McPhate reports in the NY Times that two home shopping industry veterans, Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns, that aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching "a vast array of firearms," as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios. The new cable channel hopes to help satisfy Americans' insatiable appetite for firearms. The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California but gun sales have been rising for years, with nearly 21 million background checks performed in 2014, and they appear on track to a new record this year. The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store. The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping. Buying a Glock on GunTV won't be quite be like ordering a pizza. When a firearm is purchased, a distributor will send it to a retailer near the buyer, where it has to be picked up in person and a federal background check performed. "We saw an opportunity in filling a need, not creating one," says Castle. "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
Not ill timed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not ill timed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the NRA and gun manufacturers don't HAVE to do any marketing after a tragedy like this...the Democrats, led by Mr. Obama himself, often have their first or second words out of their mouths.."We need 'sensible' gun control"....they want to ban semi-automatic weapons that "look scary", etc.
The second something happens, many US citizens are afraid with good reason from many of our elected officials, that they want to start banning and removing weapons.
I added the removing of weapons, in that...if they banned the AR-15 tomorrow and the AK-47....unless they confiscate the existing ones, you'll not see a drop in their numbers for decades upon decades upon decades. There are just too many out there!!
So, yes, for gun owners, the left start jumping up and down about more restrictive gun laws while the corpses are still warm minutes after a tragedy like this occurs.
Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.
I'm still wanting to know what "sensible" gun laws will be. So far, this last one, happened in CA which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, yet all weapons seem to this point to have been made legally. What laws would they introduce to prevent the recent shooting? Any more changes over the CA laws and you start to seriously impede law abiding citizens' rights to buy, own and use weapons, which are the vast majority of gun owners.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.
I hear that multiple-shootings (and other acts of terror, insanity, or political action by violent means) in the US have also declined substantially. (Don't have a footnote handy or I wouldn't have hedged the statement, but it squares with my personal experience.)
What has increased is news coverage of them when they
Re: (Score:3)
Here's some data for you so you don't have to rely on "I hear that ..." and "... my personal experience". I picked this one because it seemed to take a measured approach, including a reasonable definition of "mass shooting" than is generally used (in other words, there are more gun-related shootings than presented here because they don't fit the definition). Glancing through this, I don't see a distinct trend upward or downward in either frequency or fatalities. Certainly nothing I'd call "substantial".
US [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the best analysis of the best data I've seen...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]
If only someone with more official access could study this in detail ( http://www.pri.org/stories/201... [pri.org] ) maybe we wouldn't have to guess
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that doesn't work for me.
If my gun is unloaded and locked away in a safe, or worst off-site from my house at whatever a "gun club" is....it does me no good for self defense.
I don't think many criminals breaking in my place are going to be polite enough to wait for me, to run down the hall, to the safe and fiddle the combination to open it, and then load the weapons, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No..I sleep with a 9mm with 15 in the magazine and one in the pipe. All I have to do is grab it beside my bed, flip the safety and start shooting. I tend to have several guns this way around my house so that I'm never far from one. I just like it that way.
Wow. I always thought Americans weren't that different from Canadians, just similar people with slightly different cultures. But I really cannot imagine what kind of place America must be to make the populace so terrified of getting killed in their sleep that they have to go to bed with a loaded firearm within arm's reach.
Re: (Score:3)
It must suck to live in country where you feel you need to have a gun close by to feel safe.
Re:Not ill timed... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not worried about a low level of fear...I very seldom think about it.
But people DO break into houses, I'm guessing they do where you live too. They often carry weapons...at least a knife or club or whatever.
I prefer to have the option to blow them away and have the cops come by later to collect the floor meat afterwards.
I want to have as much force available as humanly possibly to defend my home, loved ones and property.
Walking around minding your own business....or just being friendly, around me or my home, no problem.
Break in my home for any reason....you're fucked.
Re:Not ill timed... (Score:5, Insightful)
A sensible start would be, all guns locked away in gun clubs and in homes, jail time for carrying one outside the home or gun club.
How in the world is that going to make the slightest bit of a difference? Assume that these people obey all the laws on the books, and never carry a gun outside the home, so they never get in trouble. Then, when they want to commit mass murder, the law prohibiting them from taking the gun out of the home is going to stop them and make them think "well, I was going to shoot a bunch of people but it would be against the law to take the guns our of the house, so I'm stuck."
Re: (Score:3)
Questions like, "Why do you need it" are irreverent if the ban has no effect on crime when the ban is said to help with crime. The 50BMG ban in California came about because one state senator made a press conference announcing that the 50BMG round had "heat seeking bullets", as if a chunk of lead had some active guidance system.
The history of the cartridge was that some military equipment (ships, tanks) used it during WWII as a mounted gun designed to damage other pieces of large equipment. Mostly, it was a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your guns in! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Every time there is a mass-shooting or similar, gun sales go up because the marketing department of the gun manufacturing lobby (NRA) goes into full swing about how the gubement is gona take yer guns. So this is perfectly timed to capitalize on the latest shooting.
I don't think they have to fire up their marketing dept, more people go to gun stores shortly after a mass shooting anyway. There are ***only two*** political positions. One group wants more regulation, the other wants less. Each group is so opposed to the other's views there will never be agreement (really, take a look at the replies. All are "you are anti-American, part of the problem," etc. and this is why nothing will ever get done). The more shootings the more gun sales, and the more drive for various
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I believe how they did it in Australia, was they first required all weapons to be registered, so the govt knew where they were located and who had them.
Then, the confiscated them.
Mr. Obama, not long back, mentioned on TV [youtube.com] (approx 1:36) specifically mentioned the models of Australia and the UK when it came to guns....I'm surp
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mandatory "buy-back". It's entirely different from confiscation. All together. "It's entirely different from confiscation."
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes they did..they banned them and forced them to give them up. [wikipedia.org].
Oz does apparently have a restriction from uncompensated confiscation of private property, so they got around that with a "buyback"..but you really didn't have any choice in the matter. A rose by any other name....
But yes, I consider Mandatory Buy Back of Guns [vox.com] the same thing as confiscation of guns.
And mandatory registration of guns is the first step for that....and Obama and crowd know this.
And really...name calling and insults? Why can't we just deal with facts and have a nice adult conversation?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since when is the government actually succeeded in taking American's guns away? The only laws proposed are at preventing future gun sales, but they never actively try to take guns (except through useless gun buyback programs).
I use to support US gun laws, until I spent a year in Australia and three in NZ. From outside, America is bat-shit fucking insane. You have to register a car. You need a license to be a hair stylist. You need a license to practise medicine. I don't understand what's so crazy about need
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for one reason, the government has absolutely NO reason to know how many or what weapons I have. I"m law abiding, not committing crimes with them, and therefore they have no need to know.
But mostly, in many cases around the world, the FIRST step in confiscation of weapons, was registration of them. First they learn who has what, then they know where to come to take them away.
The government really has VERY LITTLE need to know much about my personal life, what I own or what I do. They should stay as much out of my life as possible. That's they way is it supposed to be set up here in the US.
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the government have any reason to know how many cars you have?
Forgive my cherry-picking, I only have time to address one of your items: The answer is no*
*unless I am driving on public roads.
If my gun is in my home, it is not the government's business. You could argue that if I carry in public, it is - and the car analogy kinda falls apart then because it suggests carrying in public means ok to require registration (I vehemently agree with several above, registration is a very slippery slope). The only counter I have (in the time I have) is in addition to (pretty much all) analogies being imperfect, we have also compromised that we can't have "any kind of gun" even in the privacy of our own homes (whereas I could have [to the best of my knowledge] pretty much any car - roadworthy or not - on my private property and be fine), I am limited** by draconian laws written in knee-jerk reaction to gangsters during prohibition.
**Yeah, I know some of those are just a tax-stamp away, but I still can't have (for example) a P90.
PS: For what it is worth, I'll scream for the govt staying out of both my life and yours.
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of things require registration & licensing.
How many of them are rights specifically called out in the constitution?
Name those cases.
1911 - Turkey, 1935 - China, 1938 - Germany, 1964 - Guatemala, 1970 - Uganda. I'm sure these come up a lot, without any background info. This [mercyseat.net] seems to have actual supporting documentation.
are also the ones who want to impose their version of
Nice job spinning the conversation on to an unrelated topic. OP didn't make any mention of religion, abortion, or homosexuality, and those have no direct relationship to gun control. Excellent example of the backhanded ad-hominem attack.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It happened in California recently. The state legislature changed the list of crimes, conviction for which, would strip the right to possess a firearm. They did not notify any of the affected people who had legally registered firearms, giving them time to sell or otherwise dispose of their guns. Instead they showed up on their doorsteps with SWAT teams.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the first shots were fired because Americans were collecting weapons and gunpowder in order to fight the British.
Keep in mind, though, the the second amendment starts with "In order to have a well-trained militia." So licensing gun owners is perfectly reasonable, requiring rigorous training is perfectly reasonable, and making guns unavailable to those who are not licensed is perfectly reasonable--in order to have a well-trained militia.
If the reason for personal gun ownership was to prevent government
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind, though, the the second amendment starts with "In order to have a well-trained militia." So licensing gun owners is perfectly reasonable, requiring rigorous training is perfectly reasonable, and making guns unavailable to those who are not licensed is perfectly reasonable--in order to have a well-trained militia.
If the reason for personal gun ownership was to prevent government tyranny, I would think that probably would have been spelled out. Don't you?
No. The second amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A part people get hung up on is the "well regulated" phrase and they think it means legal regulation. It does not. The phrase "well regulated" meant something different back then (similar to the way "gay" meant one thing in the 1920's and quite another today). At the time of drafting, well regulated meant essentially "well equipped". If you were to phrase it today, the second amendment should read, "A well equipped Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to possess weaponry, shall not be limited in any way."
Re: (Score:3)
Where I live, there are still very real threats from wildlife. Some of that carry, only do it to deal with unruly wildlife. Thugs and terrorists aren't even part of the equation.
We haven't quite trashed the environment in America yet.
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't meet reasonable requirements to purchase a weapon, you should not be able to buy guns. Free societies do need to impose limitations: you can't drive without a license, criminals are thrown in prison, murder is forbidden, and you can't walk around nude (in most places).
But the difference between unacceptable restrictions and acceptable restrictions are the details. The government shall issue a license, unless some legally defined criteria are not met. And those criteria need to be carefully chosen to ensure the government cannot be arbitrary. Perhaps felony convictions, perhaps mental illness diagnosed by a doctor, perhaps possessing certification that you have received firearms safety training meeting some curriculum requirement. The license cannot cost more than it takes to create (i.e. it's not a tax, not a wealth barrier), and no criteria for the license can exist that cannot be proven in documentation or argued in court. I left off "watchlist", those are always "secret" and you can't argue yourself off of one in any reasonable fashion. So we couldn't have stopped San Bernadino because our government is too busy being nefarious.
Registering weapons does empower the government to find you and your weapons and have them removed. I'm definitely against that in all cases.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not going to go away, that's not even really the point. Even in countries where guns are banned, there is a non-zero number of gun deaths yearly. There are fewer, however, and that can be shown clearly. Murder has not gone away either, but I would argue that if there were not laws against it, and penalties for doing it, there'd be a whole lot more murders. Even assuming a sane world, it is at times easier to kill someone than to work around them.
The problem is that the incidence of gun violence in the
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought the registration of cars was bogus. The fact that we have accepted questionable nonsense is not a good excuse to double down on the nonsense.
Re: Not ill timed... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:time's almost run out, O'bummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk is cheap. He ain't done shit. If he actually cared, he would have done it during his first two years, it wasn't on his top 10.
Clinton might try to push through a gun control law, but you can't "ban guns", you know it, I know it, and she knows it. Examine the law they propose and then form an opinion as to whether it is tolerable or not, then act accordingly. It would not be horrifying, for example, if purchasing weapons required having a license that the government was obligated to grant, unless you met certain explicit criteria. Such as a background check for violent crimes, mental disorder, and maybe having had a basic gun safety class in the past 5 years. You could still have all the guns you wanted, we could reduce some trivial gun crimes, continue to bitch and moan about the remainder and call it a day.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that this sort of law making is typically done by congress. Sure he could use presidential powers, but that is a tool that is meant to be used only in extreme situations and with care. He may pull the rabbit out of the hat before the end of his term, but with a congress bent over finding reasons to block him or indict him, he needs to choose his timing. Heck, congress could should some responsibility as well, but at the moment this is not the case, from what I have seen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Though perhaps not the very best source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
Re:time's almost run out, O'bummer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's one interesting data point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is a European country with probably the most liberal gun laws in Europe (they even have shall-issue concealed carry). Yet it doesn't seem to have a gun violence problem - they only had one killing spree in 25 years since they enacted those laws after the fall of communism, and their overall murder rate is lower than UK, France and Canada, to name a few. So it seems that they're doing things right.
Of note are the things that they don't have:
- assault weapon ban
- ban on handguns
- ban on carrying firearms
- magazine capacity limits
- gun-free zones
And they do have:
- stand your ground (not as law, but as absence of duty to retreat)
- somewhat limited form of castle doctrine
So what else do they have? Universal licensing for gun ownership (and not just carry) with a "shall-issue" but thorough vetting process, complete with psych exam.
Perhaps we should start there, and see how well that works, before piling more restrictions, many of which (like AWB) are evidently absurd to anyone who knows how guns work.
While we're at it, universal background checks have massive popular support. 92% of all Americans support them. 90% of gun owners support them. 86% of Republicans support them. There's no excuse not to implement this.
Full disclosure: I am a gun owner with over 30 firearms in possession, including several "assault weapons".
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then they just need to learn to live with it...just as the states around CO are having to live with legal pot in CO.....
Each state SHOULD be able to regulate most laws on these things to fulfill the wishes of the citizens of those states.
Remember, you are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States seconds...at least, that's how it was s
Re: (Score:3)
The NRA is a de facto heat-shield for the gun-manufacturing lobby.
Whenever a debate arises about the availability of guns that can kill lots of people very quickly, it's the NRA (not manufacturers) that speaks up in favor of keeping these guns in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:3)
Less than half of its revenues come from program fees and dues. The bulk of its revenues comes from "contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources."
Nope. It is true that just under 50% of the NRA's revenues come from membership dues, but another quarter comes from individual contributions. This means that nearly 3/4 of its revenues come from individuals. Another 5% comes from selling merchandise. Really, there's no reason to read half-baked slanted summaries. The NRA's income tax filings are available and break all of this down.
But if you like summaries, here's a better one, complete with a nice pie chart: https://www.quora.com/Where-do... [quora.com]
Only non enthusiasts will buy from it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheaper than Dirt is where most guys that really like guns go as you can get all the parts you need. Cabela's lets you fondle them and will have prices better than most gun shops. And ordering a gun online or from a shopping channel will have to be picked up with the added fees at a local gun dealer anyways so unless they are 30-50% less on everything than normal sources it will be an epic failure of a channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only non enthusiasts will buy from it. (Score:5, Funny)
But not naked. I know because I've tried.
Re: (Score:3)
You or the gun?
On second thought, don't answer that.
Re: (Score:2)
The invisible hand strikes again. (Score:4, Insightful)
CTD has done horrible price-gouging in past "black gun" and "ammo shortage" scares, so I wouldn't give them the time of day, let alone my business.
It's called "supply and demand".
When there is a sudden spike in demand, and those bidding don't want to order for later delivery, after more are made, because they are hedging the possibility that no more WILL be made, sellers would be stupid to keep the price below market-clearance and run out of stock, when they could both make more money for themselves and route the available stock to those for whom having product NOW is important enough to pay the premium.
If "Cheaper Than Dirt" tracks the market on the downslope, too, giving good service and better-than-the-competition prices (going for the fast nickels rather than the slow dimes), I have no problem whatsoever if they track it up on the occasional peak - and maybe still have some stock available when there's a crunch. The money from the perceived "gouging" can help support their low prices at other times. (Or it can support their lifestyle or other projects: It's their choice.)
If you don't like their prices today, don't buy today. If you don't like their policies, of course, you're always welcome to shop elsewhere. That's the "free" part of a free market.
Different demographics (Score:4, Insightful)
>> debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California
The market for this channel (hunters, rural or suburban gun owners) isn't the demographic that kills for its political beliefs (Planned Parenthood), religious beliefs (San Bernardino), shoots up schools, or is involved in street gangs. Selling more guns and accessories to these folks won't increase violence one iota.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, somebody that gets it. It's a miracle.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a guy that "gets" GunTV:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/i... [kym-cdn.com]
Re:Different demographics (Score:5, Interesting)
How would you know that? TV shopping channels are all about impulse purchasing. That's why they have so many deals that have a timer on them.
The demographic they're going for may well be people who are sitting home alone watching cable TV at three in the morning, half-drunk and pissed at their ex-wives, angry at the boss. Let's face it, a lot of "GunTV viewers will be people channel surfing after an evening of watching Fox News and looking for solutions to their problems that are all focused on "them people out there".
Re: (Score:3)
TV shopping channels are all about impulse purchasing. That's why they have so many deals that have a timer on them.
Because to see those timers, you have to be watching the channel, and the intended market for those who will be watching the channel are exactly as the OP said. Who cares if a decent, law-abiding citizen buys something from that channel because he wanted to beat the timer to get a good deal? He's not going to decide to go shoot up a school just because "I got this gun with 32 seconds left on the Flash Deal on Gun TV!".
The demographic they're going for may well be
it may well be exactly as stated. You putting motives in their mouth doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling more guns and accessories to these folks won't increase violence one iota.
So the bell curve doesn't exist on your planet?
Re:Different demographics (Score:4, Insightful)
>> The demographics that kills (people) never, ever intersects with hunters, rural or suburban gun owners?
Pretty much.
Consider the deer hunting season just concluded in Wisconsin. This year, about 700,000 hunters went out with loaded guns, many of them drank heavily at night, many of them were annoyed with each other, and yet no one was shot. Meanwhile in Milwaukee (a city in Wisconsin), where there are 700,000 people (and not everyone has a gun), multiple people were shot and killed over the same period (http://www.milwaukeepolicenews.com/category/homicide/).
Go a little further south to Illinois/Chicago and you'll hear an even worse story: I think more than ten people a week are dying down in Obama's old stomping grounds from thug-initiated violence. If even one of those murders was caused by a hunter, rural or suburban gun owner, I'm sure it would be big news.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the points of complaint are not against those sensible owners, its the ease with which the nutjobs can get them
You need to listen to what the anti-gun people say a bit more closely. "Nobody needs ..." isn't directed at the real criminals who use one or two guns to kill people, it's directed at the collectors who are quite sensible in their ownership and don't kill anyone. The guy earlier who would allow guns but only if locked in safes at gun clubs or at home wasn't talking about just the criminals keeping them inaccessible to even the owners. (How do I get my gun from my house to the gun club where I can shoot it i
Re:Different demographics (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps it's an aberration? Let's dig further: http://animalrights.about.com/... [about.com] - 1000 people per year are shot in hunting incidents. Hmm...
Let's dig further. Do we have reliable statistics? Nope. NRA blocked them, so we must assume that the real number of gun victims is greater.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately there have been 5 deaths hunting in Wisconsin this year.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/I... [wi.gov]
3 of which have been during deer season:
One, a woman didn't unload her firearm before passing it up to her boyfriend in a tree stand (gun safety 101)
The other two were self-inflicted accidents of some sort, seemingly unsafe handling.
More hunters died from heart attacks and car accidents though.
Re: (Score:3)
wait, what??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because 'the street' is neither going to be watching GunTV, nor going to their local gun store and getting the background check.
Guns Are for Pussies (Score:4, Insightful)
"Guns Are for Pussies," [thepaincomics.com]
Timothy Kreider, February 8, 2013
One of several reasons why the “debate” over guns, like a lot of other debates in this country, has been so intractable for so long is that neither side trusts in the other’s honesty or good faith. Each side believes its own stated arguments to be, quite simply and truthfully, their real arguments, and sees their opponents’ arguments as transparent smokescreens for their "real," more insidious agendas.
In my more charitable moods I ascribe gun owners’ passionate attachment to these weapons to fear. Their fear is grotesquely distorted--cultivated by the media and exacerbated by their own chosen propaganda--and guns are a delusional means of placating that fear, a semiautomatic security blanket. But fear is at least a motive I can empathize with. But I also suspect that some gun owners are driven by something deeper and creepier—a kind of castration anxiety or overcompensation, for which guns serve as fetish objects.
It’s clear enough to me that gun-owners’ need for their guns is just that—not a liking or a right but a need, something irrational and scary, the sort of thing that, when you try to take it away, makes them not just sorry or mad but frantic, insane, dangerous. They remind me of those types on the other end of the political spectrum for whom the legalization of hemp is the single most important issue in the United States today. It’s not that I disagree with those guys, exactly--our nation’s drug laws are ridiculous and unjust, a waste of resources and a crime against all the people in prison for a piddling offense, and by now pretty much everyone from the President of the United States on down has done bong hits, so it obviously should’ve been legalized decades ago--it’s just that I don’t think any of those perfectly valid reasons are the real reason the issue is so important to them. It’s because they’re addicts. In fact gun advocates' behavior is scarily similar to that of addicts when you try to gently divest them of their required substance: they offer up every good argument in the world why this thing is harmless, beneficial, even, it's vitally necessary, a God-given right, and it’s none of your goddamn business anyway, until finally they abandon all pretense of debate and bare their teeth and start foaming at the mouth threatening to kill someone.
It’s sort of a pro forma convention of editorials about gun control to insert a disclaimer about how you, the author, grew up in some backward gun-happy Red state and owned your first rifle when you were twelve and enjoyed many happy hours sitting in a duck blind with your grandpap. Unfortunately my parents were Mennonites and pacifists and I grew up thinking of people who owned handguns as fearful and weak, and of people who killed animals for fun as sick. To be fair, I have met some gun owners in adult life who’ve given me cause to moderate these judgments, like my friend Randy, who worked with me going door-to-door for the environment back in the day, campaigns for local Democratic candidates, and makes his own excellent barbecue sauce, and once shot a 600-pound boar, an animal so large there was literally not one room in his house big enough to contain its mounted head. Or Erik, who is cooler than me for many, many reasons, including, obviously, having the same name as the Phantom of the fucking Opera, as well as being the front man of a punk band, a Baltimore City public school teacher, and a collector of Orwell first editions, but also because he has a sleek steel G-man briefcase that turns out to contain several handguns cushioned in custom-contoured foam rubber, including a .357 Magnum, the kind Dirty Harry uses.
Erik once took me to an indoor shooting range in Baltimore, where I got to fire a rented Thompson gun (it’s Baltimore—you can do anything there). I was
Re: (Score:2)
A polite society doesn't come from guns (Score:5, Insightful)
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
I don't care who said it. That quote is demonstrably false and the notion behind it is asinine. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
Confused gun owner here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see the draw for something like this
One look at this will explain it all for you:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hot+chicks+with+guns&biw=1600&bih=731&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiiPmm58zJAhUBRWMKHdOZAYsQ_AUIBigB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the fees charged are fixed by law. So doing the DROS paperwork without making the sale is a net money loser for the gun dealer. I like to support the local guys as much as I can, and most of them are happy to order anything special that you might want from their distributors anyway.
You can't tell who the responsible buyers are (Score:3, Insightful)
The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.
The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping.
Which is pretty much akin to Anheuser-Busch having anti-drunk driving messaging right after an ad showing how much fun you'll have with their product. More than a little hypocritical and arguably a mixed message. The NRA is nothing more than a (very effective) lobbying arm of the firearms industry. It's remarkable how many people have bought into their propaganda.
"The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant. The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people. It just takes one unhinged person to commit a mass murder. You can do all the background checks you want but they aren't perfect and the simple fact is that would-be criminals continue to have easy access to firearms and continue to commit murders at an alarming rate. It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
Re:You can't tell who the responsible buyers are (Score:5, Informative)
"I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. "
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
Also check the studies by Kleck out of FSU.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles... [ncjrs.gov]
Bad phone surveys and ridiculous statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
"Several million"? Did you actually read what you linked to? It directly contradicts what you are claiming. The estimates from a variety of sources vary wildly and many are no where near the millions. Furthermore the numbers were from a PHONE SURVEY which is detailed in the document. If you think that is a reliably way to estimate this problem you don't understand the problems with phone surveys. If you need to see a badly designed survey look no further. The numbers from these surveys are easily demonstrated to be nonsense. It says point blank that the estimates you indicate are clearly nonsense.
Re:Bad phone surveys and ridiculous statistics (Score:4, Informative)
I may of linked to the wrong study, apologies in advance. I do know (and in the past, have read) that the DOJ did do a survey that showed that defensive firearm usage is much higher then previously thought. Wikipedia has a good summary of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.
I think it's a combination of 2 things, and both are actually kind of illogical ways of thinking. The first is, as you said, protection. They want to protect themselves and so want to get a gun. Now, as a gun owner myself, I don't expect to ever have to use on of my guns for protection (I do keep one by my bed though, just in case). However, most people who rush out and buy one for this reason might go to the range once or twice and therefore wouldn't have the skills or training necessary to protect the
Re:You can't tell who the responsible buyers are (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever.
Yes, it seems bizarre because it's the writer deliberately misrepresenting the situation. People don't run out to get a firearm because of rare mass shootings, they run out to get one out of concern that low-information voters and/or disingenuous politicians are going to make it harder to get one in the future.
I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens.
What? It happens at least tens of thousands of times a year, and depending on how you want to measure it, hundreds of thousands (brandishing a gun to prevent or end an assault, for example, is a common use of a firearm in self defense, even though shots aren't actually fired). What's your definition of "almost never?" An Uber driver in Chicago - who has a conceal carry permit - used is personal weapon to end a "mass shooting" event on Friday. The only injury was to the guy with the illegal gun who was starting to shoot at a bunch of people on the sidewalk. Didn't hear about that one? Yeah, I didn't think so. Near here in Baltimore yesterday, a couple of guys stomped into a retail store waving a shotgun around and announcing a robbery with threats to kill anyone who resisted. Someone in the store shot the one guy dead, and the other ran (and was eventually arrested). This stuff goes on all the time, and it's only your deliberate choice to ignore it that (or more likely, pretend that you don't know about it) that makes you comfortable saying "never actually happens." It happens all the time. Start googling for women home alone who fend off home invasion assaults with a family firearm: I'm sure the long list of those women you think don't exist are very glad to have had the means to defend themselves.
The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people
Yup, just like people driving cars. Some are irresponsible or even malicious, and between them, kill far more people that murderers with guns. People with pipes, clubs, and bare hands kill more people every year than those with all shotguns and rifles of any kind combined (says the FBI).
It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
Now you're just lying. The NRA fully supports purchase blocks do to mental illness. What you're complaining about is that families, friends, and coworkers who know that somebody is dangerously unstable won't bother to subject those people to legal/medical scrutiny. That's a political correctness problem that is WAY up stream of the retail gun purchase layer.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with all of the above and I'd add when it comes to statistics it's very hard to put a number on the amount of times a person displays a weapon to discourage a violent confrontation and never reports the incident. I don't know anyone personally who has fired a weapon in defense, but I've heard many stories in my personal circle where a violent encounter was averted by the potential victim displaying a weapon. These incidents often go unreported.
Policies shouldn't be based on fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Fear doesn't respond to evidence.
Which is why we need policies that aren't based on fear. People are going to be afraid sometimes and our laws should help them engage in evidence based good practices. Sadly our leaders are too often willing to pander to fear to obtain power rather than work to eliminate the need for the fear.
Neanderthal much? (Score:2)
Between Ye Olde in-person purchases, catalogs, and the internet; who is buying from what is basically a stream of infomercials? Espe
Re: (Score:2)
Between Ye Olde in-person purchases, catalogs, and the internet; who is buying from what is basically a stream of infomercials? Especially modestly expensive gear like guns; surely you do a little looking around, rather than just impulse-buying whatever happens to be in front of you?
Lonely people. Sad, lonely people.
Surprisingly, I'm sure there's an audience (Score:2)
What a lot of techies who are largely city folk don't realize is that there is a huge market for this in the rest of the country. The NRA is in a full-on marketing push scaring people into buying guns because they're worried about gun control even being talked about. I think something like a gun shopping channel might push some people who are on the fence into buying weapons "for protection" -- mild-mannered exurban moms or dads might be persuaded by a "think of your children" sales pitch, especially if you
Re: (Score:2)
"Most gun owners are anti-government?" do you have facts to back up this ridiculous assertion? Most gun owners are no more anti-government than you are. They vote, serve jury duty, and respect the law and obtain their firearms by legal means.
cut the cord (Score:2)
If this shows up on my cable box, it'll be the first channel I ever bothered to block (aka Parental or whatever). First, tho' I'll call Xfrackity and threaten to terminate all services if they don't kill the channel entirely.
Won't help, but it'll make me feel better.
Two-Way Radios? (Score:2)
I can see how bullets are gun-related. Same with holsters and other accessories. But why two-way radios?
Billy Mays here for... (Score:3)
Can't Wait... (Score:2)
Can't wait for the first accidental shooting right on the air.
It's *going* to happen. More people are accidentally wounded by their own guns than *any* other form of gun violence. It's sad to say, but the vast majority of gun owners don't know squat about how to handle a gun.
It is actually well timed... (Score:2)
It is very well known that every mass shooting actually creates a spike in gun sales, run on the ammunition stores. My friends, yes I do have a few gun enthusiast/nutcase friends, were complaining that they could not get any ammo, especially 0.22 after Newtown.
Well then, be happy with it (Score:2)
(Your fucking) God fucking bless fucking America.
No Fly List Gun Bans? WTF??????? (Score:3)
How can any sensible person agree that it is prudent to deny any constitutional right based on a list that:
#1 Is not public domain.
#2 Has no real process of removal.
#3 Has no real specification for entry.
I can't believe we have a president that believes the public is so stupid as to place trust into an organization that repetitively breaks the laws it was designed to uphold.
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to go over well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot is dying (Score:4, Funny)
First it became a Dice-infested shithole. Next, the partisan hacks moved in. I've been here since before it was called Slashdot. Today I deleted my account. So long, and fuck you.
You deleted the AC account?
Oh, thank you! You're my hero!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The factual correctness of the writeup has no connection with its blatantly biased tone.
Re: (Score:2)
What bias do you claim to see?
I suspect people with different political opinions may see a bias in the opposite direction from the one you perceive.
Re:why not trying to let your ridiculous bias show (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, perfectly neutral tone. Just reporting the facts, ma'am!
Re:New York Times (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A gun is designed to send a projectile out at a high rate of speed with a great deal of mechanical energy, nothing more or less.
What YOU as a person point it at...determines its lethality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For the NYT to have given up any principles, it would have had to have them in the first place.
Re:why not trying to let your ridiculous bias show (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why not trying to let your ridiculous bias show (Score:4, Funny)
I want to know if all the bad apostrophes in the summary were applied with a belt-fed apostrophe gun. Putting that many in by hand would have taken ages.
Re: (Score:2)
TV shoots you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The target demographic is not the ones shooting up inner cities. High per capita gun ownership rate where i live, but essentially zero violent crime.