Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 6 votes

'Culture war' more than gun rights

gun control nra

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#61    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:32 AM

View PostMichelle, on 06 May 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

You've never dealt with anyone that is truly mentally ill have you?

View PostMichelle, on 06 May 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have a grasp on supply and demand either. If you think people in the US magically started collecting guns in the 80's and this is the reason for the sudden increase in killings you are sadly mistaken.

When some post it is noticed if they usually post in regards to a fellow poster instead of a topic. Let us review a select profile quote now:

Quote

Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

There is no need to make assumptions about our fellow posters. Let us continue with the topic now.

First we begin with gun deaths before the 1980s and project forward.

Quote

In 1979, there were nearly two automobile fatalities for each gun death. According to a study by Bloomberg, by 2015 firearm fatalities will surpass motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death.

The Person You’re Most Likely To Kill With Your Gun Is You

Let us examime when gun deaths peaked and where they stand at last count.

Quote

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

<snip>

Gun deaths by homicide, suicide or accident peaked at 37,666 in 1993 before declining to a low of 28,393 in 2000, the data show. Since then the total has risen to 31,328 in 2010, an increase of 2,935, or eight more victims a day.

At the same time, violent crime and murder rates have fallen in the U.S., said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore. Homicides may be up this year, though the murder rate from 2006 to 2011 fell 19 percent, to 4.7 for every 100,000 people, Webster said in an e-mail.

While recent gun sales haven’t led to an increase in crime, research indicates that over time, higher levels of gun ownership are associated with increased rates of homicide and suicide, Webster said.

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015

Then let us see what else has changed from the 1970's until now. Note, we can gauge the exact period in time when the popularity of revolvers waned and semi-automatics became more popular. For those who love history play particular attention, you might enjoy the following.

And no, people did not "magically begin collecting guns in the 1980s", however it was misunderstood that was not even the claim made, which was, "that the gun manufacturers began pumping semi-autos and sporting arms in the 1980s into our market at the same time the spike in gun violence began is no surprise."

Quote

On Beretta's marketing strategy for a semi-automatic pistol that entered civilian market

(listen to the related interview here: click |> Listen to the Story)

Prior to the early- to mid-1980s, most handguns in the United States, including those used by law enforcement officers, were the old-fashioned revolver, which had a capacity of about six rounds — relatively cumbersome. In the 1980s, Beretta, an Italian company, decided to compete to replace the U.S. military standard sidearm. Dating back to 1911, there was a gun known as the Colt Model 1911, .45 caliber, semi-automatic pistol, and it was thought to be antiquated, not suitable for the modern battlefield.

So there was a competition and Beretta actually won the competition for its .9 millimeter, high-capacity semi-automatic pistol. Beretta executives later in interviews on public record which we've documented ... said, 'Look, our strategy was this: ... What we want to do is get the cache of military sales so that we can then turn to the much bigger, much more profitable American civilian market and make a lot more money doing that.' And that's precisely what they did. Beretta's advertising [strategy] to this day ... is, 'This is a gun that we sell to the military. It's made for them but you can use it.'

Assault-Style Weapons In The Civilian Market

When it comes to the choice of firearms for law enforcement let us look at the popularity of the 1911 and semi-autos. Keep in mind that when officers begin to become outmatched by the firepower of criminals that their duty weapons will change to reflect that. A miniature arms race of sorts.

Quote

In the days before World War II, the 1911 became a symbol of veteran peace officers throughout the country. It was a favorite weapon of famed FBI agent Walter Walsh, and it was 1911 pistols in the hands of two FBI agents who wrote the end to John Dillinger in 1934.

However, all was not a rosy future for the 1911 pistol. For some reason, municipal police agencies insisted their officers carry revolvers.

When I went into police work in 1968, we could carry anything we wanted to as long as it was made by Smith & Wesson or Colt and chambered for .38 Spl. We were told to avoid all semi-automatic pistols, because they were allegedly bad about jamming and just weren’t safe.

Life with the 1911

Semi-autos did become popular with one branch of law enforcement in the late '60s: SWAT, itself newly invented in that decade.

Quote

Following the self-destructive Watts riots in the black ghetto of south-central L.A., the Los Angeles Police Department formed and trained a special unit to deal more efficiently in a combat-zone environment. The first element of this unit was in place by 1967 and was called the Special Weapons And Tactics team. Better known by its acronym, SWAT, this new commando-type unit would influence law enforcement thinking around the world. Along with the most advanced tactical rifles, shotguns and automatic weapons ever invented, the pistol of choice was the big-bore single-action 1911.

Living with the 1911

Let us switch back to the civilian market by comparing what was occuring with competitive shooting clubs and their impact on general home defense weapons.

Quote

In May of 1976, 40 top shooters from around the world gathered in Columbia, Missouri to attend the International Pistol Conference under the chairmanship of Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper. The conference officially founded the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) and charted the course of defensive handgun marksmanship for decades to come.

Cooper was acclaimed first IPSC World President, a constitution was established, and the keystone combat shooting components of accuracy, power, and speed were translated into the Latin motto: Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas.

Almost immediately, IPSC and the combat shooting competitions it sponsored took off in a big way, spreading all over the civilized world, reinvigorating the civilian 1911 market, creating a nationwide cottage industry of competition parts manufacturers, and dominating the configuration of 1911 pistols for a very vigorous 20 years. The 1911 had gone to the races, and no other pistol could hope to compete against it.

Living with the 1911

1st mention = Now that we have the establishment of when the semi-auto became popular, after the mid-70s and before the mid-80s, we can begin to compare when mass shootings began.

Of course most will know about the University of Texas Clock/Bell Tower Shootings committed by sniper Charles Whitman. 17 were killed and 32 were injured. His mass shooting is also recognized as another reason SWAT teams were developed,

Quote

Together with the Watts riots of the early 1960s, Charles Whitman's shootings were considered the impetus for establishing SWAT teams and other task forces to deal with situations beyond normal police procedures. It also led President Lyndon B. Johnson to call for stricter gun control policies.

Murderpedia - Charles Joseph Whitman

This was in 1966 and although he switched weapons the one he primarily used was a bolt-action 6mm Model 700 Remington hunting rifle with a scope.

It was an impressive feat in that it had to be reloaded quite without the benefit of a high capacity magazine, a feat that a highly trained Marine could do but not the average civilian.

2nd mention = Now that we have the establishment of when the semi-auto became popular, after the mid-70s and before the mid-80s, we can begin to compare when mass shootings began.

They began in the 1980s. There was even a term society began to use in reaction to the sudden increase in mass shootings: going postal.

Quote

The expression derives from a series of incidents from 1983 onward in which United States Postal Service (USPS) workers shot and killed managers, fellow workers, and members of the police or general public in acts of mass murder. Between 1986 and 1997, more than forty people were gunned down by spree killers in at least twenty incidents of workplace rage.

The earliest citation is December 17, 1994 in the St. Petersburg Times:

“The symposium was sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service, which has seen so many outbursts that in some circles excessive stress is known as 'going postal.' Thirty-five people have been killed in 11 post office shootings since 1983. The USPS does not approve of the term "going postal" and have made attempts to stop people from using the saying. Some postal workers, however, feel it has earned its place appropriately."

December 31, 1993 in Los Angeles Times:

“Unlike the more deadly mass shootings around the nation, which have lent a new term to the language, referring to shooting up the office as "going postal.""

Going Postal

Let us look at mass shootings by decade.

Quote

Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, assembled a data set going back 100 years for a 2007 book titled, "Mass Murder in the United States: A History." He used the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, which date from 1976, and then supplemented the FBI reports with news reports (principally The New York Times) dating from 1900.

<snip>

Mass Public Shootings per Decade

1900s : 0

1910s: 2

1920s: 2

1930s: 9

1940s: 8

1950s: 1

1960s: 6

1970s: 13

1980s: 32

1990s: 42

2000s: 28

2010s (three years): 14

The history of mass shootings in the U.S.

Quote

Indeed, from 1900-1965, there were only 21 mass public shootings that took place in the United States. From 1966-1999, however, there were 95 (Duwe 2004)

Western Criminology Review - A Circle of Distortion: The Social Construction of Mass Murder in the United States by Grant Duwe

Those with the most familiiarity in this ongoing national dialogue will recognize the charts Mother Jones came out with, the disputation from James Allan Fox, but now new research is out for the last decade.

Quote

One leading criminologist took issue with our criteria, arguing that mass shootings had not become more common.

But now, research from an expert on criminal justice at Texas State University further shows that gun rampages in the United States have escalated.

The research, to be published in a book in July, confirms that:
  • Public shooting rampages have spiked in particular over the last few years
  • Many of the attackers were heavily armed
  • None of the shootings was stopped by an ordinary citizen using a gun
The author of the study, Pete Blair, advises law enforcement officials and has conducted extensive research on gun rampages in workplaces, schools, and other public locations.

New Research Confirms Gun Rampages Are Rising—and Armed Civilians Don't Stop Them

Most horrific are the mass school shootings which are different than just going postal.

Quote

The series of school massacres that began in 1997 was thus, to a large extent, a historically new phenomenon.

<snip>

Similarly, prior to 1997, juvenile mass murderers were not recognized as a problem because they, for the most part, committed familicides and felony-related massacres, which are the least newsworthy mass murders, i.e. they receive mostly local coverage. But when juveniles began using guns to kill large numbers of innocent victims in public locations—factors that significantly increase the newsworthiness of a mass murder—it was only then that they were identified as a new problem.

Western Criminology Review - A Circle of Distortion: The Social Construction of Mass Murder in the United States by Grant Duwe

So we can loosely correlate that when semi-autos became more popular, after Bereta began marketing them and all other gun manufacturers followed suit less their sales suffer, mass shootings also increased within that same period.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 May 2013 - 11:55 AM.


#62    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:34 AM

Part 2

Regarding the looser assertion: that adding ,"depression or other mental health issues and I'd imagine that would only add to those odds," when the odds being spoken of were, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home," and the argument presented contrary to that was, "You've never dealt with anyone that is truly mentally ill have you?" Which was not a very convincing argument, not one that could be backed up with sources in either case, let us turn to mental health issues and in particular suicide by gun.

When it comes to suicide, and, note that those who commit suicide are most likely to have mental health issues, as measured with a state-to-state comparison we can find the following, in addition to the statistics regarding suicide already presented above:

Quote

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership rates, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and suicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

One study found, reports Hemenway, that “in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state’s population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.”

But “there was no association between gun prevalence and a state’s nonfirearm suicide rate,” he adds.

The health risk of having a gun in the home

The following results are from different studies compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health.

Quote

We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts.

<snip>

The vast majority of adolescent suicide guns come from parents of other family members.

<snip>

This summary of the scientific literature on suicide in the United States emphasizes the importance of levels of household firearm ownership in explaining different rates of suicide over time and across states, households and genders.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Suicide - Gun ownership and use

Quote

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

Harvard School of Public Health - Guns and suicide - A fatal link

Laws do make a difference.

Quote

A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.

The Journal of the American Medical Association - Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States.

But the individual who has a home and family or who even lives alone should not concern themselves with laws but instead worry about the above statistics and begin to minimize risk.

If you or someone in your family suffers from a mental health issue where suicidal ideation (i.e., just thinking or talking about it including making threats or saying they wish they were not alive or born) is a part of that mental health issue, then the best general advice is to sell your weapons or surrender them.

This is about protecting yourself or family.

One of the most gravest symptons is suicide rehearsal where one actually begins practicing. With a firearm it could include having suicidal thoughts while just holding a gun, even if empty, then aiming it at yourself, and putting it back down. This is a very dangerous symptom. In time the mind becomes desensitized/numb to these actions. When an emotional crisis hits, when we are at our weakest, that is when our minds can switch into automatic and what we practiced will be carried out without further thought.

Quote

The act of visting and examining a place where a person plans to complete suicide, to identify any problems that might prevent completion and to incorporate the upcoming event into his/her thinking, to facilitate acceptance of the event’s inevitability

Segen's Medical Dictionary - Suicide Rehearsal

Keep in mind suicidal ideation and suicide rehearsal are symptoms. Just as if you had cancer and you tried to run but stumbled and fell, the reason you stumbled and fell is not who you are, it is a symptom of a sickness, as are suicidal thoughts, language and practicing. If you believe it is just you and you can get over it, or that someone else is just saying things for attention, be very careful with firearms. Locks can easily be bypassed, secret places found, and responsibility that was once instilled can be neglected when one is sick and suffering.


#63    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,129 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

  • “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while”

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:50 AM

View Postshrooma, on 06 May 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

.
it's certainly a lot quicker than the slow, painful death by hanging that we have to use here in the UK.....

And you're flagging that up as a positive !!!   Jumping in front of a high speed train is probably just as quick.
Suicide, 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem'

Edited by itsnotoutthere, 06 May 2013 - 11:53 AM.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#64    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:53 PM

View PostKowalski, on 04 May 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

The NRA does not support gun manufacturers they support the MILLIONS of gun owning citizens in this country!

They represent both but a shift has happened.

Going to disagree with the "does not" you have added to your statement above.

Quote

Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns?

The NRA lobby seems to not represent the individual firearm owning members when it comes to one issue which has the potential to diminish corporate profits.

According to a 2012 poll conducted by GOP pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 74 percent of NRA members support mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, a position that the NRA has stridently opposed. “There’s a big difference between the NRA’s rank and file and the NRA’s Washington lobbyists, who live and breathe for a different purpose,” Mark Glaze, the executive director of the gun control group, said.
[same link as all the others below unless noted; only need to click once]

The NRA lobbied laws which would make corporate gun manufacturers more immune from lawsuits. This was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act [different link]. Ultimately it was signed by Bush [different link].

Quote

In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities.
[link]

This is the language used by the NRA to gun manufacturers in support of the legislation (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) that would limit lawsuits.

Quote

Your fight has become our fight,” then-NRA president Charlton Heston declared before a crowd of gun company executives at the annual SHOT Show, the industry's biggest trade show. “Your legal threat has become our constitutional threat," he said.
[link]

It would seem after the passing of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that the NRA was rewarded by the corporate interests with increased donations.

Quote

In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004.

<snip>

Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers.
[different link here]

One of the NRA brochures mentions how the NRA has the gun manufacturers' "corporate interests" in mind.

Quote

The Violence Policy Center study cited an NRA promotional brochure about the corporate partnership drive, noting that LaPierre promised that “this program is geared towards your company’s corporate interests.”
[link]

The NRA lobby helped end the ban on sporting rifles which in turn has meant more profits for the gun manufacturers.

Quote

Besides its heavy lobbying for the special legal protections for gunmakers and distributors, the NRA pushed successfully in 2004 to ensure that a 10-year ban on assault weapons, enacted in 1994 over strong NRA objections, wasn’t renewed. Since then, annual rifle production by U.S. gunmakers has risen by almost 38 percent, according to federal gun data.
[link]

The NRA will claim there is no relationship between them and the corporate interests of gun manufacturers.

Quote

Despite the millions of dollars it has collected from the gun industry, the NRA’s website says “it is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.”
[link]

The following charge seems to have validity.

Quote

“The NRA is basically helping to make sure the gun industry can increase sales,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, told The Huffington Post. McCarthy last week proposed a bill that would ban new sales of new large ammunition clips that increase the lethality of weapons like those used in mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado and Wisconsin.
[link]

There also used to be other gun lobbies [different link] in America, some opposed to the NRA which was more willing to work with lawmakers in controlling guns, now they seem to be opposed to every gun control measure, even if their members disagree, all seemingly in order to maximize profits for the gun manufacturers.

Quote

“The NRA clearly benefits from the gun industry,” William Vizzard, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told The Huffington Post. “There’s a symbiotic relationship. They have co-aligned goals much more than 30 or 40 years ago.”
[link]

The gun manufacturers themselves seemed to have changed their style of business 30 or 40 years ago to pump more firearms, with greater capacity and killing power, onto the market.

Quote

Vizzard noted that the gun industry has evolved slowly in recent decades from a “stodgy and conservative” business, which sold mostly rifles and sporting arms, to one that now traffics in paramilitary weapons and handguns. The NRA and the gun industry “have grown closer as the business has changed,” he said.
[link]

And those same gun manufacturers are sending over their corporate boys to sit on the board of the NRA itself. Note: besides gun manufacturers there are also gun accessories, such as those who manufacture high capacity clips, sitting on the board and profiting on the end with higher corporate sales.

Quote

The intertwining interests of the NRA and the gun industry are also underscored by the gun company executives on the NRA board.

Among the gun industry heavyweights on the 76-seat NRA board are Ronnie Barrett, CEO of Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, which makes a military-style rifle sold with high-capacity magazines. Pete Brownell, who heads Iowa-based Brownells Inc., another maker of high-capacity magazines, also sits on the NRA board.

These companies and other gun industry giants have ponied up big bucks to the NRA since 2005, according to a list of NRA corporate partners posted at its last convention.

For instance, Brownells is in an elite group of donors that have given between $1 million and $4.9 million since 2005. Barrett Firearms in the same period chipped in between $50,000 and $99,000.
Another notable donor is Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the AR-15 military-style rifle used by Adam Lanza in his bloody assault on Sandy Hook. The Freedom Group has donated between $25,000 and $49,000 to the NRA’s corporate effort.

The NRA’s most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmaster rifle and Glock pistol. These clips increase the lethality of weapons by allowing dozens of shots to be fired before the shooter has to reload. According to its website, Midway has donated about $7.7 million to the NRA through another fundraising program that dates back to 1992. Under this program, customers who buy Midway products are asked to “round up” the price to the next dollar, with the company donating the difference to the NRA.
[link]

Even if the NRA gets more donations form individual members their efforts to maximize corporate profits will lead to more individual gun owners who in turn are potential members and increased revenue for the NRA.

Below is a list of all gun/accessories manufactuers/distributors who are corporate donors [a different link] to the NRA.

Posted Image

The general reader can decide for themselves if the NRA represents the corporate interests of gun manufacturers at all within their equation of support from individuals and companies in relation to their support to individuals and companies.

Who they represent more might not be at all based on who donates more. The 44 companies listed above might be who wins in the end.

The wishes of their members for background checks is not being represented.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 May 2013 - 01:04 PM.


#65    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:33 PM

Quote

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization[3] founded in 1871 that promotes firearm ownership, as well as police training, firearm safety, marksmanship, hunting and self-defense training in the United States. The NRA is designated by the IRS as a 501©(3) and its lobbying branch is a 501©(4) organization.[4][5][6]
The NRA is the parent organization of affiliated groups such as the tax-deductible NRA Foundation and a lobbying group, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). The NRA is also one of the United States' largest certifying bodies for firearm safety training and proficiency training courses for police departments, recreational hunting, and child firearm safety. The organization publishes several magazines and sponsors marksmanship events featuring shooting skill and sports.
The NRA's political activity is based on the premise that firearm ownership is a civil right protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.[7] The group has a nearly century long record of influencing as well as lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members. Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington.[6][8] NRA membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013.

The NRA represents the gun owners of America. We DO NOT want more background checks or our guns taken away! It should be obvious after the gun control bills failed. Many, Many gun owners (including ME) wrote and emailed our senators and congressman, as well as signed petitions urging many gun rights groups to NOT let these bills pass. I'm member of several of these groups. OUR VOICE was heard loud and clear.
I'm sorry some of you have such a problem with guns. If you don't like guns, don't own one. That simple.
And I'm telling you right now, if the politicians try and come for people's guns, there will be another Civil War. I am NOT kidding. People are fed up. This gun control c**** needs to stop, or it's going to rip our country in two.

Please note, I'm not advocating armed resistance against the government. I believe we can reform our government through the voice of the people. But, I'm also a realist, and I see how polarized our nation is becoming through the two party system, who does there very best to keep us all against each other. (Our Founding Fathers warned us about the dangers of a two party system) There will be a civil war if the government comes for people's guns. You can take that to the bank.

Edited by Kowalski, 06 May 2013 - 01:37 PM.


#66    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,129 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

  • “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while”

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:57 PM

View Postshrooma, on 06 May 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

.
it's certainly a lot quicker than the slow, painful death by hanging that we have to use here in the UK.....

:hmm:

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#67    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,004 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:45 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

When some post it is noticed if they usually post in regards to a fellow poster instead of a topic. Let us review a select profile quote now:

There is no need to make assumptions about our fellow posters. Let us continue with the topic now.

I have no need for your dissertations. I've researched this for many years and I also have practical, real life knowledge. You have to take into account the psycological, societal issues and our inept justice system. The blame cannot be laid at the feet of guns. In doing so it totally discounts the other aspects of our disfuctional country uncluding our mental health industry.


#68    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

View PostMichelle, on 06 May 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:



I have no need for your dissertations. I've researched this for many years and I also have practical, real life knowledge. You have to take into account the psycological, societal issues and our inept justice system. The blame cannot be laid at the feet of guns. In doing so it totally discounts the other aspects of our disfuctional country uncluding our mental health industry.

Very true.


#69    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:01 PM

1. False consensus bias

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

The NRA represents the gun owners of America. We DO NOT want more background checks or our guns taken away! It should be obvious after the gun control bills failed. Many, Many gun owners (including ME) wrote and emailed our senators and congressman, as well as signed petitions urging many gun rights groups to NOT let these bills pass. I'm member of several of these groups. OUR VOICE was heard loud and clear.
I'm sorry some of you have such a problem with guns. If you don't like guns, don't own one. That simple.

We have another perfect specimen of the false consensus bias in action here to examine.

If you have any statistics or poll results from an unbiased source to prove your claim then offer them but until then you cannot definitively claim "We DO NOT WANT" and screaming it won't make it any less of a cognitive bias.

In time we will get a more accurate picture of how exactly NRA members view the issue of universal backround checks. Just because their literature or convention speeches state a certain view does not mean it has unanimous agreement among their members.

2. Until then we have to go by the following polls we do have.

Frank Lutz, a Republican strategist, a Fox News commentator, and also a pollster conducted a poll for MAIG. Had the results not been favorable then perhaps MAIG would have not published it. They did and this survey and the following two mean more than any single member's or firearm owner's cognitive bias-based opinion claiming "We" all feel a certain way.

(One will learn much about cognitive biases as I have by visiting this forum and others will recognize when they are being made). Sourced material is also more valuable than mere opinion.

Quote

74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

http://www.mayorsaga.../pr006-12.shtml

In a Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study, their poll results, which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reflect the following.

Quote

A majority of members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported many of these policies as well. For instance, 84% of gun-owners and 74% of NRA members (vs. 90% of non–gun-owners) supported requiring a universal background-check system for all gun sales;

76% of gun-owners and 62% of NRA members (vs. 83% of non–gun-owners) supported prohibiting gun ownership for 10 years after a person has been convicted of violating a domestic-violence restraining order;

and 71% of gun-owners and 70% of NRA members (vs. 78% of non–gun-owners) supported requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years in prison for a person convicted of selling a gun to someone who cannot legally have a gun.

After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness

A New York Times/CBS News survey offers the following results which might be surprising for a few NRA members to realize the very ones they live with might share a view with the majority of us.

Quote

Support for universal background checks went across party lines: 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents were in favor, as well as 93 percent of gun households and 85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association.

9 in 10 back universal gun background checks

The only thing that will dispute or corroborate these surveys are more surveys. For now they are the working overall best estimate (you cannot ask for more in science) we have and while that can change only additional surveying will capture and document those changes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. NRA member opinions are not all the same; variation does exist.


Here are three gun owners who are within the 74% of NRA members who favor universal background checks. Well just two, one of them left the NRA...

Quote

Hayes on his show "All In With Chris Hayes," asked NRA member Eryn Sepp, who works for the liberal Center For American Progress think tank, how she feels the NRA has changed in response to the national debate over gun control.

Sepp called for dialogue between gun owners and gun control advocates, and argued that they have more common ground than the current debate might suggest.

"The so-called gun culture isn't necessarily a culture that's reflective of me or the other gun owners I know," Sepp said. "It's turned into this culture of fear that they're going to take away our guns, and that's simply not true."

Sepp said that valuing the Second Amendment isn't incompatible with supporting reasonable gun control measures.

"I see websites like StopTheNRA.com coming out, and I think to myself, 'Hey, wait a minute, I'm the NRA. I want common sense background checks. I want my well-regulated militia as written in the Second Amendment. Don't try to stop me!'"

Hayes asked her what she would say to NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre about the direction the organization has taken.

"We are supposed to be a non-profit, non-partisan organization," Sepp answered. "What happened?"

NRA Member Eryn Sepp: Right-Wing Politics Don't Represent All Gun Owners (VIDEO)

Quote

But not all NRA members are against background checks either. Elvin Daniel's sister, Zina Daniel, was murdered by her husband in a Wisconsin spa last year.

Two other women were also killed in the attack.

"I am here, I am an NRA member, I'm an avid hunter ... I own guns, I enjoy shooting guns with my family, but, I think we need to do a background check," said Daniel.

Not all NRA members oppose background checks

Elvin Daniel, NRA member, was even at the NRA convention discussing this with other members, asking them to support universal background checks.

Quote

Daniel has been walking around the convention, trying to convince other NRA members to support expanded background checks, and to make it clear that the bill would ban a national gun registry.

"People don't know the truth about what's in these bills, somebody needs to explain it to them," said Daniel.

"If we can prevent what my family went through, we owe it to ourselves to do so," he added.

Not all NRA members oppose background checks

Quote

Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA

View PostKowalski, on 06 May 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

And I'm telling you right now, if the politicians try and come for people's guns, there will be another Civil War. I am NOT kidding. People are fed up. This gun control c**** needs to stop, or it's going to rip our country in two.

Please note, I'm not advocating armed resistance against the government. I believe we can reform our government through the voice of the people. But, I'm also a realist, and I see how polarized our nation is becoming through the two party system, who does there very best to keep us all against each other. (Our Founding Fathers warned us about the dangers of a two party system) There will be a civil war if the government comes for people's guns. You can take that to the bank.

Highly irrational and part of the "culture of fear" that NRA member Eryn Sepp mentioned. Those who advocate a revolution, even insinuate it, and if they own guns, pose somewhat of a threat and I advocate a coherent policy that can address that on some level.

Some will undoubtedly believe in the "culture war" that NRA First VP James Porter mentioned but the rest of the country and even NRA members feel otherwise as indicated, not by opinion, but by scientific results through polling.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. You are free to disagree.


View PostMichelle, on 06 May 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

I have no need for your dissertations. I've researched this for many years and I also have practical, real life knowledge. You have to take into account the psycological, societal issues and our inept justice system. The blame cannot be laid at the feet of guns. In doing so it totally discounts the other aspects of our disfuctional country uncluding our mental health industry.

You both are free to disagree since not everyone has to base their view on science and academia. It is understood that for some who are more simple-minded that it is just too complicated to understand studies produced through scholarship and results obtained through the scientific method. Perhaps it is just too difficult for them to read and/or understand anything of length? We all have our limitations, and that is fine.

Just do not expect others to take you too seriously when sounding off in a simplistic manner. Maturity also requires abandoning ultimatums and masked obscenities, to interject a minor bit of opinion.

Common sense which is derived from "practical, real life knowledge" without being informed through scholarship, and when thrown in opposition against the scientific method, is purely anti-intellectualism. Standing alone, without attempting to discredit science, common sense can be and is surely valuable in certain situations but not in deriving sound policy that will guide our nation.

There is a reason why many consider the radical right as not that bright...

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 May 2013 - 03:16 PM.


#70    ealdwita

ealdwita

    Hwķt éoredmęcg

  • Member
  • 4,887 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Éastcentingas , England

  • Hige sceal že heardra, heorte že cenre, mod sceal že mare, že ure męgen lytlaš.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:12 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 05 May 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

No, because, believe it or not, at that time the British already had their Bill of Rights since 1215 AD, just not for the colonies.

And much good that does us now!

The Magna Carta (1215) and its subsequent issue (1297) applied in reality only to the nobility and not to the 'lower classes' despite its wording.

(Besides, all but three of its 37 original clauses have been repealed!)

"Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnáwan þín gefá!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".
I can teach you with a quip, if I've a mind; I can trick you into learning with a laugh; Oh, winnow all my folly and you'll find, A grain or two of truth among the chaff!
(The Yeoman of the Guard ~ Gilbert and Sullivan)

#71    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,603 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:15 PM

View Postealdwita, on 06 May 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

And much good that does us now!

The Magna Carta (1215) and its subsequent issue (1297) applied in reality only to the nobility and not to the 'lower classes' despite its wording.

(Besides, all but three of its 37 original clauses have been repealed!)

The Bill of Rights applied only to those who were considered "citizens" in its time too, and a citizen was somebody who owned real estate then. So, I guess it went the other way in Britain...

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#72    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,609 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:15 PM

On that topic, Noam Chomsky has penned a rather good read over the Magna Carter and also the Charter of the Forests aka the Commons.

Destroying the Commons: How the Magna Carta Became a Minor Carta by Noam Chomsky


#73    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,004 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:18 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You are free to disagree
You both are free to disagree since not everyone has to base their view on science and academia. It is understood that for some who are more simple-minded that it is just too complicated to understand studies produced through scholarship and results obtained through the scientific method. Perhaps it is just too difficult for them to read and/or understand anything of length? We all have our limitations, and that is fine.

Just do not expect others to take you too seriously when sounding off in a simplistic manner. Maturity also requires abandoning ultimatums and masked obscenities, to interject a minor bit of opinion.

Common sense which is derived from "practical, real life knowledge" without being informed through scholarship, and when thrown in opposition against the scientific method, is purely anti-intellectualism. Standing alone, without attempting to discredit science, common sense can be and is surely valuable in certain situations but not in deriving sound policy that will guide our nation.

There is a reason why many consider the radical right as not that bright...

"When some people post it is noticed if they usually post in regards to a fellow poster instead of a topic."

You really do think you are the perfect little angel don't you? :rolleyes:  How do you look yourself in the mirror, pot? Yes, your nickname is now going to be pot...as in pot calling the kettle black.

You do love to hear yourself talk. You might try listening every now and then...you might learn something. Youngsters usually grow out of this stage at about 22 or 23. It is when people come to the realization there is more they don't know than they actually do know.

Edited by Michelle, 06 May 2013 - 03:23 PM.


#74    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:34 PM

Don't NRA members make up a clear minority of gun owners? I've seen people who are very much pro-gun but think the NRA are nuts.


Though they are right about how deeply linked the gun control debate is linked to America culture. There are many in the US who seem to link gun ownership with freedom and view any suggestion of possible gun law reform as a direct attack on their freedom. That they need a gun to fight off the government and each other. That the slightly gun reforms will lead to a 100% ban on all guns. That gun rights tump every other political issue out there. As an outsider who has never owned a gun and has no real desire to get one, while still having freedom, not being afraid of my government, or my fellow citizens, and sees plenty of gun owners even with various gun reforms this all strikes me very odd. But again it's a cultural thing.

However it does appear that the US does have a real problem with gun violence and that will need to be dealt with in some fashion, and I don't think the suggestions that the NRA has put out are going to work. Because if you need to turn your schools into armed camps either you're living in a horrible war zone or there's something seriously wrong with your society.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#75    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:31 PM

Quote

You both are free to disagree since not everyone has to base their view on science and academia. It is understood that for some who are more simple-minded that it is just too complicated to understand studies produced through scholarship and results obtained through the scientific method. Perhaps it is just too difficult for them to read and/or understand anything of length? We all have our limitations, and that is fine.

Just do not expect others to take you too seriously when sounding off in a simplistic manner. Maturity also requires abandoning ultimatums and masked obscenities, to interject a minor bit of opinion.

Common sense which is derived from "practical, real life knowledge" without being informed through scholarship, and when thrown in opposition against the scientific method, is purely anti-intellectualism. Standing alone, without attempting to discredit science, common sense can be and is surely valuable in certain situations but not in deriving sound policy that will guide our nation.

There is a reason why many consider the radical right as not that bright.


Wow. Why don't you try to sound a little bit more condescending...

I don't have time to troll through the internet to back up my claims. It was just my "humble simplistic" view. For your information, I am just as smart, as you are, (Perhaps even smarter) I just don't feel the need to constantly keep emphasizing that. I find that people, who do do this, are not nearly as smart as they claim to be.
I am hardly "anti-intellectual" after all I read Rousseau. You don't know me, or anything about me for that matter. I really take offense in the way you think you are so much more enlightened and smarter then the rest of us.
You cite these studies as "scientific proof" when in fact, for every study you post, I can find one that contradicts it!
If you ask me, science and logic, are just another way of enslaving the mind.






Also tagged with gun control, nra

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users