Another fucking spree shooting. Great.

and if the GOP is not shook by these "kids" then they should be

A thought about the Delta story: Ah, so THAT'S what will get Republicans to oppose a huge tax break for a massive corporation.

Economics-only theorists should take note: the tribal culture-war bullshit is (at least in this instance) stronger than capitalism.

Huh, I had no idea the NRA made it so difficult to cancel your membership. Requires sending them a signed letter, apparently, and you have to specifically demand to be removed from all lists.

Ronald Reagan on the idea of selling military weapons to the public pic.twitter.com/2AH0QZqT0s

— Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) February 27, 2018

Someone should put together a snappy little guide/animation thing on what to you need to do to quit while this wave of outrage is relatively fresh. xp

The difficulty of quitting is echoed by the ease with which you get "lifetime" membership. The discount on "lifetime" is steep enough to make annual membership foolish, iirc. Not being a lifetime member is like buying your French fries individually.

tbf, what matters most about the NRA isn't how many 'lifetime' inactive members they may use to inflate themselves, but their ability to rally gun nuts to defeat incumbents who don't genuflect to the NRA agenda down to every last detail.

aimless otm. this new yorker profile of the nra’s chief lobbyist in florida lays it out in horrifying detail

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies/amp

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies

sorry about the amp link

as Kirk Douglas said in Out of the Past, "Nobody quits me."

That new yorker article is fucked.

The top 10 recipients of NRA money in the Senate have all got 100% ratings from the National Right to Life Committee. It's almost as if being anti-abortion has nothing to do with being "pro-life." https://t.co/gPeWJqmwAJ

— SchmOprah (@SchmOprah) February 27, 2018

What % of those senators are supporters of the death penalty.

this is of a piece with every social media chud I've encountered who immediately brings up abortion directly after deriding any attempt to regulate gun proliferation.

https://www.theonion.com/nation-shocked-by-pre-natal-shooting-1819565542

Life begins at conception, but its value rapidly plummets once that cord is cut.

Hahah oh this is entertaining.

After years of slandering the victims of Sandy Hook and other tragedies, Alex Jones begging a Parkland survivor to help him get back on good terms with YouTube. pic.twitter.com/p7QAe2859E

— Chris Wilson (@realchriswilson) February 27, 2018

"shit journalist" LOLLLLLL

interesting documentary re: pro-life support and gun control https://www.armoroflightfilm.com/

Aimless is right.

Thought experiment: If Trump came out full-throatedly in support of an assault weapons ban, how quickly would his base abandon him?

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

i really hate giving any ground to the "if you don't know the difference between gun x and gun y then you can't tell me what I should do with my guns" crowd tbh. I don't give a fuck about the different kinds of guns, and assault sounds scary as hell. I'm fine to demonize them by whatever means will stick.

xp - so, the term assaults your sensibility?

it is not so much meaningless as it is an emotional distinction that could not be transferred into legal language. a person who plans to assault a large group of people will not only select a semi-automatic weapon, but also one with a large capacity magazine, an appropriately large caliber, muzzle velocity, etc. A semi-automatic pistol with a limited magazine is just as semi-automatic as any other weapon, but would hardly be the first choice of a mass shooter.

And yet, a semi-automatic pistol with a limited magazine is what most would be heroes, be they police or armed teachers, would carry.

It's almost as if calling guns like the AR an assault weapon highlights the difference between it and other semi-automatics. It exists only to kill in large numbers, quickly.

xp true, but I'm cool with just banning "smaller" semi-autos as well, so I think we're better off sticking with "ban all semi-automatic weapons"

also, you're kind of wrong - the VA Tech shooting had very high casualties and was done w/handguns.

(see the clip of Rubio accidentally getting a ton of applause for suggesting that very thing)

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

no

it's an important legal distinction, but plz continue to be willfully ignorant so you can make rhetorical points

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

thank you

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

I don't personally give a shit about this; that said, "assault weapons ban" is the popular term for a piece of U.S. legislation in place 1994-2004.

I've seen "assault-style weapon" a bunch lately. Which is adequate, if not perfect, because choosing the AR for your school-massacre needs is partly a style choice.

If looking badass is part of the appeal, maybe we should require them to be pink and sparkly and covered with faux-fur accents.

tend to fall on the "semi-auto" side, too, for the reasons tipsy outlined --- it actually encompasses more guns, and provides an easier delimiter. iirc wasn't leaning on cosmetic differences (eg pistol grips) how a lot of these loopholes were created in the first place? "ban all semi-automatic guns" is a stronger, bolder political statement than "age limits on assault rifles" imo

^^^ yes

my issue here is that "assault weapon" (or even "assault-style") is a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese, and clear legal language will be needed going forward

and like omar says, really what we want here is a total semi-automatic ban (which is even more comprehensive)

I'd think all of you would be on board with this, honestly

"assault weapon" is a wonderfully succinct, evocative phrase that appeals to emotion and will connect with non-gun-owners (aka about 57 percent of the population). if you want to make that synonymous with "semi-automatic weapons" I don't see a problem. acts and laws get imprecise/"umbrella" names all the time, no?

the whole reason these cracks in the NRA facade are finally showing up is because of emotion. exploit it ruthlessly any way you can imo

a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese

the problem here is that legalese doesn't translate well into political action, which is the first hurdle to cross. putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

this defeatist fucking bullshit pisses me off:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

The headline is throwing in the towel just as the new anti-gun movement begins. Cillizza is an idiot.

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:40 PM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thank you

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM

All these points are correct, which reminds me that every shooting is different. The NRA is good at explaining the limits of action based on the most recent episode of violence. That's why I'm cool with repealing the Second Amendment.

Cillizza is an idiot.

evergreen sentiment

Heard a new descriptor on NPR the other day -- "multi-casualty firearms."

so.....firearms

[me, a goddamned genius expert]: actually, "assault weapon" is a fake term invented by liberal media
[you, a poster who can Google]: pic.twitter.com/0sIjBCFcTB

— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

[me, doubling down on being a fucking epic galaxy brain]: I meant "assault rifle," it's an invention of the gun grabbers
[you]: pic.twitter.com/IoWzDZ15Gl

— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

this is more or less what I'm trying to get at. go with the terms that resonate with people, adapt as required later

Obamacare isn't technically called that but people are plenty energized for and against

I regret this derail, should have taken it to the Gun Control thread, going there now

I'm likely to refer colloquially to a thing in a casual conversation that I'd refer to with more rigor and specificity in a more formal context. As such, I'm cool with continuing to call all these shits 'murder machines' itt.