Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Kowalski

'Culture war' more than gun rights

139 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

No worries and I agree it is unlikely but not impossible. Still that is not something I desire, an insurgency here is not something anyone should desire, it would bring us more harm collectively and is not cost effective in bringing political change just because we disagree with the current administration.

In time a Republican will be reelected and our ballot box will prove its value over rhetoric calling for "second amendment remedies" which seem fanciful at best but ill-advised overall.

I believe we all sound like exactly who we are and are just offering opinions. Mine is directed toward the topic and not you personally.

The threats of an "armed uprising" have largely been made by various militia organizations in the USA. The Waco Texas incident on the 90's fuelled membership in these militias. They made threats during the Bush administration, and they make threats now during the Obama administration. The Republicans being reelected will not likely stop this rhetoric. This is because both parties are constantly violating the Constitution.

Odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home.

That has been debunked countless times on this forum.

Edited by Glorfindel
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a pointless argument. As long as americans value the ownership of a gun over the lives of their children then nothing will change. Gun manufacturers with still make big profits, politicians will still pretend to care & children will still get shot up in school once in a while.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you the smart guy who thought the NRA was all for profit, when they are a non-profit organization?

I said gun manufacturers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Both your argument are not particularly convincing as it stands (i.e., simply refuting something without proof.)

Where do you get that statistic from? Most false B.S. post I've seen in a while.

The statistic of "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home" were from scholars and studies within academia.

That has been debunked countless times on this forum.

If (?) you can debunk it be sure to provide academic sources from a univeristy we would all recognize as unbiased.

After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.

American Journal of Public Health - Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).

They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death.

The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).

Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6).

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

American Journal of Epidemiology - Oxford Journals - Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8-fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists.

A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes.The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14 times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed by non-intimate acquaintances.

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health - Intimate Partner Violence and Firearms

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Where there are more guns there is more homicide

Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization.

<snip>

There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders.

The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine - Guns in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk than Benefit - Women, Children particularly vulnerable to increased victimization

The absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. Adolescent suicide risk is strongly associated with firearm availability.

American Academy of Pediatrics - Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population

For a brief review.

The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.

<snip>

Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

<snip>

...guns in the home greatly increase the risk of youth suicides. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics has long urged parents to remove guns from their homes.

[link]

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the first rule of stastics? well here in the funny lands of Oz it's "corolation does not mean causation", dunno what it is in the enlightened Americas LBA lives in.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Patrick Henry so famously said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

.

*cough, cough* it was voltaire who said that jim *cough ahem cough*.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

certainly coincides with the advent of rap music.....

Gangsta Rap is the enemy!!

death to Gangsta Rap!!

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Where do you get that statistic from? Most false B.S. post I've seen in a while.

Over 50,000 homicides and suicides occur each year in the United States (1), making them among the leading causes of death, particularly for young people. In 2001, homicide was the second leading cause of death and suicide the third for persons 15–24 years of age (2). Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm (2).

link :- http://aje.oxfordjou...160/10/929.full

America has one of the highest firearm ownership figures in the western world, American has one of the highest homicide rates due to gunshot in the western world. Is anyone really trying to argue that the two are not related?

Edited by itsnotoutthere
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the first rule of stastics?

.

87.925% of statistics are made up on the spot.....

:-)

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm

.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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:

]Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.[/i]

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

1gihg.jpg

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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

:hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1. False consensus bias

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.

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.

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.

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...

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)

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.

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

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

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.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.