"Thanks for proving my point"

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.newser.com/story/257583/rep-pulls-gun-while-meeting-with-gun-control-advocates.html

Congressman pulls out handgun during meeting with anti-gun constituents, places gun on table to demonstrate that it can't shoot itself. Idjit constituents felt uncomfortable or unsafe. Which simply proves that he was right, but they refused to learn from the experience.

"I'm tired of these liberals jumping on the guns themselves as if they are the cause of the problem," Norman says. "Guns are not the problem." While Norman claimed he was making constituents at the meeting safer, some said they felt uncomfortable or unsafe when he took out his gun.

This is why I think it's important to fight anti-gun laws, and laws that only allow concealed carry. If more people knew just how many people they encounter every day who are carrying, they might begin to realize that guns of themselves are not the problem. (Although there are some people who get unhinged even seeing a uniformed police officer with a gun. That's a relatively new phenomenon, and to me it just proves that hiding legal guns is not a viable long-term solution. It just feeds the phobia.

[zxcvbob]

They would have been safer if he'd left it in the holster.  (perhaps he did, it doesn't say)

[230RN]

He said he pulled his sidearm out and set it on the table.

Norman says he took out his pistol and placed it on a table while talking with volunteers from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America to prove that "guns don't shoot people; people shoot guns" and that guns are only dangerous when its criminals who are using them.

I don't know, but giving up control of one's personal defense weapon grates on me.  Besides, I'm not sure that was +PR for gun rights.

Terry, 230RN

[TommyGunn]

DUMB DUMB DUMB!!!!!! 
I understand the point he made,  but guns are not playthings and should not be used in this manner.  The antis can use this stupidity to make other antigun points.
I know that there are those who believe stupid things about guns (like they fire by themselves), but we ought to be smart enough not to use stupid stunts to prove their stupidity and ours.

[HeroHog]

Lift shirt, NEVER TOUCH GUN OR HOLSTER, turn so they can see it. Say yer piece and sit down.

[Perd Hapley]

Lift shirt, NEVER TOUCH GUN OR HOLSTER, turn so they can see it. Say yer piece and sit down.

That would get the same reaction. Anti-gunners will still claim intimidation.

It's not intimidation, of course, but it's still not a good idea. He could have done the same thing with an unloaded weapon, since an unloaded gun on a table is just as likely to fire itself as a loaded one. It still would have made the gun nuts* whine about intimidation, of course.


*Anti-gunners are the real gun nuts, if you think about it.

[zahc]

Not good or safe gun-handling practice. Do not approve.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Considering the possible liabilities and the fact that he went in ready to show boat using a gun as a prop, it was entirely possible that the gun *was* unloaded.

*shrug* Still probably not the best method to prove the point.

[MechAg94]

It doesn't work because they aren't trying to prevent crime or make everyone safer, they just want to ban guns.  So he is pulling bad PR stunt to counter a point that is a sideshow in the first place. 

I just saw a point made on Twitter:  "The exact same arguments used to attack gun ownership in America are used to attack knife ownership in Britain.  No amount of concessions will ever stop them."

[MechAg94]

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/04/discussion-consensus-gun-regulation-possible/

I listened to this earlier this morning.  Discussion on whether compromise is possible.  John Lott makes some pretty good points that it isn't.  Liberals don't want safety or less crime, they just want to ban guns. 

[Hawkmoon]

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/04/discussion-consensus-gun-regulation-possible/

I listened to this earlier this morning.  Discussion on whether compromise is possible.  John Lott makes some pretty good points that it isn't.  Liberals don't want safety or less crime, they just want to ban guns. 

Can't play the video without subscribing.

[Perd Hapley]

Can't play the video without subscribing.

I didn't get that message, but here's the same video on YouDon'tNeedThatAssaultRifleTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=t8Eav9QGy4c

[HankB]

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/04/discussion-consensus-gun-regulation-possible/

I listened to this earlier this morning.  Discussion on whether compromise is possible.  John Lott makes some pretty good points that it isn't.  Liberals don't want safety or less crime, they just want to ban guns.  

Time to Godwin this thread . . .

Compromise with anti-gun liberals? That would be like asking Jews to "compromise" with Hitler, whose beginning, middle, and final position was their extermination!