TexasCHLforum.com

45 minute video of moderated debate between John Lott (economist, author "More Guns Less Crime") and Paul Helmke (head of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence). Includes call in questions from viewers.

Lott starts off a bit slow, but once he starts throwing out numbers, statistics, and studies - Helmke can't keep up and just continues reciting his reheared lines "reasonable gun laws" "no one needs a 30-round clip unless you're trying to kill a lot of people" etc.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FederalGun" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No real surprises, but a good discussion...

2 off topic comments..
1. Mr Lott needs a hair stylist, badly
2. Supposedly well informed people misusing the word "clips" just burns me up..

RoyGBiv wrote:1. Mr Lott needs a hair stylist, badly

I dunno, it sorta adds to the whole wonky number-crunchying dispassionate professor thing he has going (which is to his benefit in many debates - hard for libtards to argue with an egghead who counters their bunk with facts and numbers).

RoyGBiv wrote:2. Supposedly well informed people misusing the word "clips" just burns me up..

On this I completely agree. And what irks me even more is when you bring it up, many antis say "stop worrying about semantics"

IT'S NOT SEMANTICS! You wish to prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing what is now a perfectly legal product, yet you don't even know what it's called?!?!?!?



My usual retort is "go ahead, ban CLIPS that hold more than 10 rounds (which as far as I know, don't exist), doesn't bother me one bit because I'll keep all my standard-capacity and high capacity MAGAZINES"

I don’t like it either, but I see this term used on this forum as much as anywhere else.

austinrealtor wrote:My usual retort is "go ahead, ban CLIPS that hold more than 10 rounds (which as far as I know, don't exist), doesn't bother me one bit because I'll keep all my standard-capacity and high capacity MAGAZINES"

Magazine vs clip. It used to bother me when I was fresh from the Marine Corps. But it doesn't really anymore. Yes, they are technically different animals. But the words are used interchangeable in the American vernacular. I'm afraid your are just going to have to except it. (misuse intended)

terryg wrote:Magazine vs clip. It used to bother me when I was fresh from the Marine Corps. But it doesn't really anymore. Yes, they are technically different animals. But the words are used interchangeable in the American vernacular. I'm afraid your are just going to have to except it. (misuse intended)

I do take exception to it.

terryg wrote:Magazine vs clip. It used to bother me when I was fresh from the Marine Corps. But it doesn't really anymore. Yes, they are technically different animals. But the words are used interchangeable in the American vernacular. I'm afraid your are just going to have to except it. (misuse intended)

and you meant to use 'your' instead of 'you're', right? ;)

RHenriksen wrote:

terryg wrote:Magazine vs clip. It used to bother me when I was fresh from the Marine Corps. But it doesn't really anymore. Yes, they are technically different animals. But the words are used interchangeable in the American vernacular. I'm afraid your are just going to have to except it. (misuse intended)

and you meant to use 'your' instead of 'you're', right? ;)

Jarheads!

"Clips" is an insignificant burr under my saddle compared to high-ranking people and others who should know better mispronouncing "Nucular".

I don't care what they want to call it as long as they recognize they shouldn't ban it!

RHenriksen wrote:

terryg wrote:Magazine vs clip. It used to bother me when I was fresh from the Marine Corps. But it doesn't really anymore. Yes, they are technically different animals. But the words are used interchangeable in the American vernacular. I'm afraid your are just going to have to except it. (misuse intended)

and you meant to use 'your' instead of 'you're', right? ;)

Why of course. and also 'interchangeable' instead of 'interchangeably'.

If spell check doesn't catch it - it must be right!!

I had to laugh, at the very end, Mr. Helmke explained high capacity "clips" were bad because more people were killed in Tuscon than were killed at the OK Corral... How is that related? If anything, it justifies having more guns because each side was defending themselves, more or less, so the incidence of death was lower. If only one side or person had guns there, obviously more people would have died. Besides the fact, I think there were only nine people present.