“In my opinion, there is nothing social about machine guns, ever. They are weapons. The reason they exist is to kill people. They’re not used for hunting and only used for sport in over-the-top situations, like the shooting range we all learned about outside Las Vegas. You remember: A 9-year-old killed a shooting instructor when her parents thought it would be fun for her to use an automatic weapon.” – Charlene Schneider, psychologist and Democratic candidate for the 62nd District of the Ohio House [via cincinnati.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: “There’s Nothing Social About Machine Guns” Edition
Has anyone ever been killed at the Knob Creek shoot? Also, it looks pretty social to me. Nothing dangerously “over-the-top” about it either. Also, the second amendment is not about “being social.”
Of topic, she looks like a born and bred busybody or the world’s worst neighbor.
Just another feinstein wanna-be.
You nailed it. Nothing new here just anti rants.
This is where we just roll our eyes and move on.
There was a death in 1995 from a triple minigun rig falling over backward from recoil and crushing someone.
But yes, the KCR event every Spring and Fall as a VERY social event. It’s just not the kind of crowd this politician would feel comfortable with. And… that’s the whole point.
Triple minigun rig? I didn’t know such awesomeness was possible! Sucks that someone died, but what a way to go out!
Too cool for school….
Actually, there was a young teen girl killed at Knob Creek a number of years ago when a triple minigun on a tripod mount wasn’t sandbagged correctly. She touched the trigger and the gun reared up and struck her in the forehead. It was her dad’s gun(s), and she’d fired it before. Kind of a freak accident.
But, that can go in the exception that proves the rule category, as 10’s of thousands of people a-year shoot there in the spring and fall without incident.
[and I’m editing because I just saw the other comments already addressing this. Apologies.]
Let’s look at it in another way……..
Bullets fired per unintended death is WAY safer at KCR than your local city PD.
Both: HOA Board President……….
She’s exactly right. And that’s why responsible citizens should have these weapons to preserve the republic from foreign and domestic enemies.
Since when was being “social” part of any argument for gun rights?
Her statement is meaningless, even to liberals.
I went to read the piece to see what she was getting at with the “social” thing and it was apparently nothing.
There is no context for the term and she repeats it several times. Even refers to “machine-gun socialites.”
Best I can figure is it’s a bizarre attempt to connect guns to the “class-warfare” nonsense in the minds of uninformed voters.
There is context, not that it makes it any better-
“The incumbent, Rep. Ron Maag, has invited his supporters to a fundraiser he’s calling a Machine Gun Social.”
Thanks for the insight. So it’s nothing more than a sound bite designed to insult her opponent. It’s what candidates do when they don’t have any sound proposals to run on.
I would love to go to a “machine gun social” someday, but my hunch is such events are intended for folks with deeper pockets than mine. A trap shoot as a campaign fundraiser is more my speed.
Propaganda these days is about short sound bites that can be played on the evening news. Once sat through a live speech by Clinton. Except for a few catch phrases, he is a horrible public speaker. If it weren’t for their short catch phrases,Democrats have nothing.
Any in another news flash – female shrinkologist is a democrap. Details at 11.
And at 11:00, we learn that the Dem is anti-gun. Woo.
11:05-psychologist Harlene Schneider states “machine guns are not social”. Obviously this statement not only makes sense but is also completely founded. “This statement comes as no surprise to freedom loving patriots” states Chadwick P. in a TTAG comment. Chadwick goes on to elaborate “Schneider has every reason to attack machine guns. Insecurity by definition is a general feeling of inadequacy that will often manifest into attacks on inanimate objects. The person in question is obviously targeting personal insecurity onto an object of popular criticism. Patients suffering from insecurity will often follow a role model and try to fill the “mold” of a role model. Often the role model will be at least fairly popular with people of the similar or higher demographic as the patient. This mold filling will generally be an attempt to fit in. To be socially accepted is paramount to the patient and will most likely be rooted to an adolescent event(exempli gratia- not being popular or accepted in grade school).”
If there is any inter class conflict related to machine guns it is the fact that one must be wealthy or willing to tie up a significant portion of ones personal wealth to own said guns. I doubt she has any interest in addressing that particular inequity, unless it is to make all “equal” under her heel.
I don’t know. Try lighting one up at a range.
Everybody wants to be your friend and socialize.
So there. (Sticks tongue out) neener, neener, neener!
Tom, watch out for an MDA mom to say “Don’t stick that tongue out unless you intend to use it!”
Only a willfully ignorant “psychologist” could fail to see the pathological aversion to facts and logic that seems to run so rampant within the grabber community.
It also stands to be noted, the positive psychological impact attained from living in a society where freedom to defend oneself from evil is possible.
Well if the reason machine guns exist is to kill people how can they continue to exist and be operated without killing people? Right above that she says “It causes cognitive dissonance”, which 1. is incorrect because the proper usage is “it is an example of cognitive dissonance” and 2.this article is an example of her own cognitive dissonance in multiple areas.
There’s also this gem about Sandy Hook, “If the shooter had not had an automatic weapon, if he had to reload, fewer lives would have been lost.” So we’ll mix in complete ignorance with the aforementioned cognitive dissonance.
If she’s this ignorant and entranced by her own logical loops how effective of a psychologist and politician can she be? Oh wait, she’s trying to use psychology to push herself into politics by masking that ignorance and logical loops with emotional statements.
“If she’s this ignorant and entranced by her own logical loops how effective of a psychologist and politician can she be?”
Psychologist are very ineffective to begin with… It’s a junk science based on feelings and theory with no laws to governs and structure it.
The most effective thing a psychologist can do it write a prescription and ask you how something made you “feel…”
It’s a lot of overpriced shuffle butting around with little measurable result… She’ll fit into politics just fine.
i don’t think psychologists can even write scripts?? I always forget if its psychologists or psychiatrists who can hand out pills.
Good point, I can’t remember either.
I’m pretty sure psychiatrists can write prescriptions. They’re medical practitioners, while psychologists are academics. fwiw.
I think a “clinical psychologist” can write scripts, but I’m not sure. A psychiatrist is an MD, so that one is certain. BTW, I think “behavioral psychology” is actually based on experimentation (shocking lab mice and teaching pigeons to pull levers and such), but then, a lot of psychologists do not consider behaviorists to be “real” psychologists.
The behavior folks actually follow the true structure of science. You have to have proven and measurable results in order come to conclusions.
Behavior is lawful, feelings are not.
If I were in the behavioral sciences I would consider it a point of pride if “real psychologist” didn’t consider me in their field.
It’s basically a degree in voodoo.
Confused, I am. Is she stating that she’s going to recall the autos from local/ state/ fed gov’t use? and cartels & the other terrorist orgs that the admin is supplying? Almost forgot, UN ‘peacekeepers’ too?
From the context of the entire article by “automatic” and “machine” she means any firearm that has any type of mechanism to repeatedly fire more than one bullet before reloading, which would include nearly every type of firearm available. So in her perfect world the only firearms that would be available would be next to worthless in terms of practicality for anything but a slow noisemaker. While she doesn’t state it I assume she has a Mil/LEO carve out in mind so they can protect us against crazy people with the only remaining legal firearm, those being muskets downgraded to .22 sized projectiles.
Also, she is against having CCW weapons in the hands of law-abiding and licensed individuals anywhere near children because…because.
You’re giving her way too much credit, implying that she’s thought any of this out or has any understanding at all about how firearms work. She’s just knee-jerk repeating the same tired talking points these people have been spouting for years, without even the slightest bit of critical thought. She has no idea what “automatic” or “machine gun” or any of the other terms she’s bandying about means, she’s just trying to string together a few “scary” words to score some points against her opponent.
“In my opinion”
Tells us all we need to know about the value of whatever follows that opening.
Hint: Lady, I don’t care about your OPINION. It’s nice that you have one and all, but it really does not mean a whole heck of lot…especially when no one on this planet asked you to voice it.
You are seeking office as a representative of people that have other things to do (ie, earn a living) with their lives. Your opinion does not matter. Theirs do.
This! This is what politicians have forgotten. Their opinion doesn’t matter for jack squat. The only opinion that matters is that of the voters. I don’t vote for you to do what YOU think is right, I vote for you to do what I think is right.
It’s hard to care about what they think is right when they prove what they know is wrong.
i was told a looong time ago that opinions are like arseholes. Everybody’s got one, and they all stink.
Looks like she doesn’t want to get elected.
Let us hope this woman is sidelined by her own foolish rhetoric. I shouldn’t be surprised by the logic failures and nasty attitude that sprays forth from the braying jackasses of the American Left, after all they prey on the ignorant, the lazy, and the stupid of the electorate.
I disagree, machine guns are the most social guns. You carry the gun, you have a buddy with the tripod and extra barrel and another buddy with extra ammo. A crew served weapon is as social as it gets.
You sir, win an internet.
Liberals/statists are all about the submersion of self in the killing of large groups of people for the greater good.
They should be all ovet the idea of a crew served machine gun. Oh, they are; but only in the hands of their masters with their “monopoly of Force”.
So now the Second Amendment is not only about hunting, but about being social too? Tell me, is the First Amendment about carrying a tune or rhyming?
She sounds like another Bloomberg spokesmouth. From the op-ed… er, political advertisement:
She then goes on to cite “statistics” from the Brady/Bloomberg-esque Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
I can only imagine what she considers to be “sensible” gun laws.
Check the comment section. She’s already whining about who is responding to the article. Something tells me this delicate snowflake has never really had to defend her political position with the proles before. Her being a psychologist for 30+ years doesn’t surprise me much either.
“If the shooter had not had an automatic weapon, if he had to reload, fewer lives would have been lost.”
This is such a very very stupid argument that has been disproven so many times it makes me sick to see it again…
1. The very idea that they want to concentrate on reducing the body count from 26 to maybe 20-22 rather than try to prevent the entire incident from having occurred in the first place is sick. 10 round magazine limits and forcing reloads are stupid as they put no effort whatsoever behind prevention.
2. The shooter at Sandy Hook killed himself 5 minutes before the police even entered the building. This means he had 5 more minutes than he needed/wanted. Even if having to reload constantly doubled the time it took for his rampage, the # of deaths would have been the same.
3. Police say the shooter reloaded halfway through magazines anyway. This would seem to indicate he was in no hurry and not worried about reload time. And why would he be? There was no one there to oppose him.
While I completely disagree with making a law to achieve a 1% edge case increase in safety, I understand their feelings about it. But the reduction of magazine capacity or banning of semi-automatic weapons does exactly 0% to help cases like this.
“… there is nothing social about machine guns, ever.”
Maybe not in her world, but they are in my world.
“The reason they [machine guns] exist is to kill people.”
Thus our police and tactical response teams go out every day to kill people, right?
“They’re not used [machine guns] for hunting and only used for sport in over-the-top situations …”
Sewing machines are only used for ever-the-top situations … we must ban sewing machines and force everyone to hand sew everything, right?
I disagree, machine guns are extremely social tools…
I mean, how many countless dogs were taught amazing tricks by machine guns during swat team raids… stay, lay down, play dead.
You knew it will be mindless drivel when she said “In my opinion”. Yeah, well you know what opinions are like lady. Good luck getting my vote.
Well, in psychology, opinions are “settled science”…. until they’re not.
Is her opponent’s name pronounced “mag”:-)
“psychologist and Democratic candidate ”
All I needed to read to tell me that this person thinks they know what is absolutely best in my life and thinks Im a plebian..
Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my legally owned SMG…..
There’s nothing social about sports cars. Or fancy coffee drinks. Or local food.
See? Lots of people can play this game.
Interesting. Most comments picked on the social aspects were as I think of machine guns as defensive tools. They are there to provide covering fire and deny maneuver to the enemy. Of course I was also taught the purpose of weapons were to save lives…not kill people. I wonder how she feels about 12megaton warheads sitting on standby right now?
“In my opinion…” and “psychologist and Democratic candidate”
Pretty much all I needed.
What does she mean not social? Guns are very social. Now I’ve never been to Knob Creek, but I’ve been to a great many shooting ranges and competitive events over the 42 years I’ve been shooting and I’ve found that gun people are some of the friendliest folks you’ll ever meet.
We’re making progress! They admitted that machine guns have a sporting use!
In my opinion you are completely ignorant. Period. Just sayin’.
“Bill of Social Needs”
Really? Well… “In my opinion, there is nothing social about Fascists, ever. They are weapons. The reason they exist is to kill people and freedom. They’re not used for abiding by the Constitution and only used for national destruction in over-the-top legislating, like the NFA we all learned about.”
some one should challenge her Sandy Hoax narrative- a Capstone drill where no body died
Democrats have nothing else to talk about………get out and vote and vote conservative .
Another Democrat Psychologist?
Sounds like she needs therapy from of Hoplophobia.
Machine guns are meant to kill people?
Ding. Ding. Ding.
I thought all guns were meant to kill people.
I think people can make a social event of just about everything.
One positive thing is a Democrat finally noted the difference in a machine gun. Until now the semi auto was a machine gun. The second amendment is not about sport