Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

AND IF THE NRA WERE RIGHT ?

  • 17-01-2013 11:08am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭


    Finally, the view that the problem of violence by firearms in America was due to the proliferation of arms in the streets advanced and sustained staunchly by the mass media is not more valid than the theories of NRA about the societal problem (culture of violence promoted by the entertainment industries and the usage of drugs which deteriorated the mental health of youth) according to the American opinion polls.


    http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3380


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


    Speaking of the NRA, why is it that the progressive liberals who steal guns, and then go and kill movie-goers and children in school, have never been a conservative NRA member?

    · Ft Hood- Registered Democrat-

    · Columbine- Too young to vote- both families were Registered Democrats and progressive liberals

    · VaTech- Wrote hate mail to Pres Bush and to his staff -- Registered Democrat

    · Colorado Theater- Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal

    · Conn School Shooter- Registered Democrat, hated Christians

    ALL of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats

    Interesting...isn't it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    School shootings happen in the US because of many reasons, not just relatively easy access to guns.

    Many of these reasons are deep social factors that cannot be solved with legislation

    The easy access to fully automatic weapons and extended magazines (which have absolutely no social purpose) can be enacted upon and changed.

    If the legislation passes, then school and mass shootings won't automatically stop, it will just mean that if someone does want to shoot up a lot of people it will be harder for them to do so.

    Common sense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,294 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Not sure how obama's screening is going to work, "sorry sir you cannot purchase this gun because your 9 year old son has the potential to act out violent thoughts in the future"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    I recommend reading about it rather than guessing how it will work.

    Anyone wanting to get a shotgun here is screened as far as I know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


    I don't think any of this will go anywhere. Obama is just trying to flex himself with power. Only thing it is doing is making firearm sellers very rich ppl. I went last night to purchase ammo and had to hit 2 stores before finding some for just one of my guns. SOLD OUT! It takes a tank of gas just to find any. What the liberals are trying to do is working in reverse. I know ppl in their 80's, pregnant women, people of all walks that never were into guns that are taking classes and arming themselves.

    Why, 2 reasons ~ one, they don't trust the government and 2, with the recession there are more robberies and people are getting meaner.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


    @ Johnny

    I'm not sure about the laws in all states but where I live to buy a rifle you do not have to have a background check, only for pistols.

    Truthfully, with all the mental ppl it is almost too easy. I would support a background check for anyone purchasing a gun BUT I do not support any control on what kind of gun a person can have if they are not mental or a fellon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,693 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    School shootings happen in the US because of many reasons, not just relatively easy access to guns.

    Many of these reasons are deep social factors that cannot be solved with legislation

    The easy access to fully automatic weapons and extended magazines (which have absolutely no social purpose) can be enacted upon and changed.

    F/A are not easily accessible in the US since the 1930's. You have to get apply to the BATFE for a classIII licence for one plus a F/a M16 will cost you upwards of $16000..you can't just pick one up at will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,941 ✭✭✭granturismo


    Blay wrote: »
    ..plus a F/a M16 will cost you upwards of $16000..you can't just pick one up at will.

    I saw a fully automatic AK47 clone in a WI hardware/hunting shop for about $500.

    In some states, cant guns be bought at guns shows for cash with no background check?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,693 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    I saw a fully automatic AK47 clone in a WI hardware/hunting shop for about $500.

    In some states, cant guns be bought at guns shows for cash with no background check?

    Very much doubt it was F/A..more likely a semi...they look the same.

    Yes they can but not a F/A.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    @ Johnny

    I'm not sure about the laws in all states but where I live to buy a rifle you do not have to have a background check, only for pistols.

    Truthfully, with all the mental ppl it is almost too easy. I would support a background check for anyone purchasing a gun BUT I do not support any control on what kind of gun a person can have if they are not mental or a fellon.

    Differing laws for different states, e.g. I believe NY has already implemented proposals very similar to Obama's.

    Personally I would love to be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, however I would fully support a ban on these weapons, they don't serve any purpose (hunting, etc) and are far too dangerous for home defense.

    Basically, there's no reason they should be on sale to the general public because the risks far outweigh the benefits of such weapons.

    ps I'm only referring to fully automatic weapons here and not semi-automatic which are often wrongly labeled by press, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,693 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Differing laws for different states, e.g. I believe NY has already implemented proposals very similar to Obama's.

    Personally I would love to be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, however I would fully support a ban on these weapons, they don't serve any purpose (hunting, etc) and are far too dangerous for home defense.

    Basically, there's no reason they should be on sale to the general public because the risks far outweigh the benefits of such weapons.

    ps I'm only referring to fully automatic weapons here and not semi-automatic which are often wrongly labeled by press, etc.

    They're not on sale to the general public..they're heavily restricted and the people who do have them generally don't even shoot them and invest in them so the firearms will appreciate in value. People bought M16's in the 90's for a few thousand..now they're 15-20000 dollars.


  • Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


    Thank you Blay for bringing up a good point, they increase in value! I looked up one of my guns and it's already worth 3 X's what I paid just 2 months ago. Another one 2 X's what I paid a year ago.

    I figure it's better than buying gold.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭Duck Soup


    Speaking of the NRA, why is it that the progressive liberals who steal guns, and then go and kill movie-goers and children in school, have never been a conservative NRA member?

    · Ft Hood- Registered Democrat-

    · Columbine- Too young to vote- both families were Registered Democrats and progressive liberals

    · VaTech- Wrote hate mail to Pres Bush and to his staff -- Registered Democrat

    · Colorado Theater- Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal

    · Conn School Shooter- Registered Democrat, hated Christians

    ALL of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats

    Interesting...isn't it?

    I've seen this e-mail doing the rounds, so let's go through it. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, wasn't a registered anything. He listened to the sermons of extremist Islamic preachers, but he would have spat on both Democrats and Republicans as Satan's little helpers. Not a Democrat.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Hasan

    The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were not Democrats and not the sons of "progressive liberals". Eric Harris's father was a US Air Force pilot and Dylan Kiebold's family were strict Lutherans. These were two very conservative families.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold

    The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, once again wasn't a registered anything. Upon emigrating to America, his family became devout Christians and church-goers. The shooting was based almost exclusively on the humiliation he felt at the hands of rich kids at Virginia Tech.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

    The Aurora Colorado shooter, James Eagan Holmes? This one is an absolute doozy. Holmes was never an Obama campaign worker. No newspaper or TV station has ever claimed he was an Obama campaign worker. There is exactly zero evidence he was an Obama campaign worker. Holmes was not an Occupy Wall Street member or an Occupy Anywhere Member. There's no evidence he even agreed with OWS. He wasn't a "progressive liberal". He had no connections with any political party. Every 'fact' stated in the e-mail circular about James Eagan Holmes is a verifiable lie, from beginning to end.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes

    And so on and so on. By all means, let's have a discussion of the merits of gun ownership and gun control, but let's not base it on straightforward lies and inventions about the motives of mass killers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


    All "wikipedia" info?:rolleyes:

    sry......got to do better than that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    All "wikipedia" info?:rolleyes:

    sry......got to do better than that.
    All referenced wiki pages. wiki has been proven to be more reliable than the Britaniaca


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 387 ✭✭dango


    All "wikipedia" info?:rolleyes:

    sry......got to do better than that.

    Yet you provide 0 references for your claims.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    You know, its threads like these that make me cherish the fact that I'm Irish and hence from a relatively sane body politic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭Duck Soup


    All "wikipedia" info?:rolleyes:

    sry......got to do better than that.

    I searched for Holmes's name and phrases like "obama campaign" and "occupy". The answers from news sources come back zero, zero and zero.

    Ditto any of them being registered Democrats.

    The Wikipedia pages give you the family histories. Eric Harris's father was a US Air Force pilot and Dylan Kiebold's family were strict Lutherans. Seung-Hui Cho's family were devout church-goers. These were conservative families.

    I can prove via Wikipedia that the backgrounds of these shooters were broadly conservative.

    I can't prove a negative, but I can report back what I find.

    There is no proof, evidence or news reports of James Eagan Holmes having ever worked for the Obama campaign in any capacity. No proof, reports or evidence of James Eagan Holmes ever having even attended an Occupy protest.

    There is no proof, evidence or news reports of Nidal Malik Hasan being a registered Democrat.

    There is no proof, evidence or news reports of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold familes being "registered Democrats" and "progressive liberals". In fact, the military and church-going backgrounds strongly suggest conservative values.

    There is no proof, evidence or news reports of Seung-Hui Cho being a "registered Democrat".

    In fact, I checked out all these claims and not one of them stands up to even the slightest examination.

    Now someone who rolls their eyes at the background information provided by Wikipedia obviously has a lot, lot more hard evidence than a single blowhard email or unsubstantiated message board post to go on.

    You can't prove a negative. All I can do is report back that there is zero, zilch, nada, nothing to back up any of the email's claims.

    But you can prove a positive. So where are the facts and references to back up the email/board post claims?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    All referenced wiki pages. wiki has been proven to be more reliable than the Britaniaca

    Only on matters of science and engineering, if you look at the report which said that. The closer the subject got to current events or politics, the less reliable it becomes.

    Even if something in wiki has a cite, it doesn't mean it's correct, as there is nothing saying the cited newspaper article or whatever is correct. I have encountered a few wiki errors in the course of my work over the last year, and I generally focus on stuff from the 1940s. It is particularly difficult for specialty researchers such as myself. Wiki's editing policy is that it doesn't matter if you are right if you try to change a commonly held understanding, if you hold a minority viewpoint you will be described as such. There was a wonderful article about a year ago by the world's specialist in the US pre-civil war slave trading trials when after much investigation he realised that the commonly held but unresearched belief was wrong and the fight he had with wiki to try to get the record corrected.

    That said, OP provides no references either, so also deserves to be treated with a copious helping of salt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    Only on matters of science and engineering, if you look at the report which said that. The closer the subject got to current events or politics, the less reliable it becomes.

    Even if something in wiki has a cite, it doesn't mean it's correct, as there is nothing saying the cited newspaper article or whatever is correct. I have encountered a few wiki errors in the course of my work over the last year, and I generally focus on stuff from the 1940s. It is particularly difficult for specialty researchers such as myself. Wiki's editing policy is that it doesn't matter if you are right if you try to change a commonly held understanding, if you hold a minority viewpoint you will be described as such. There was a wonderful article about a year ago by the world's specialist in the US pre-civil war slave trading trials when after much investigation he realised that the commonly held but unresearched belief was wrong and the fight he had with wiki to try to get the record corrected.

    That said, OP provides no references either, so also deserves to be treated with a copious helping of salt.

    Some parts of Wikipedia consist of the victory of consensus over accuracy.

    In this case, I'd be incredibly sceptical of the claims without getting as far as Duck Soup's rather good excellent posts on the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


    Oh my goodness, I haven't visited this thread in a while and I apologize for getting a few of you fellows undies in a wad for it wasn't my intention.

    If my information is incorrect then I'm stand corrected. Now I don't believe the wikepedia or those other on-line know-it-all links but I didn't look up the info like accused. For the record, I'm registered Independent so I don't give a puppies butt what their affiliates are to tell the truth. They are mean, and mean ppl sukc!

    Who gets to spank me first? (or should I just be sent to my room?) ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Exile 1798


    Speaking of the NRA, why is it that the progressive liberals who steal guns, and then go and kill movie-goers and children in school, have never been a conservative NRA member?

    · Ft Hood- Registered Democrat-

    · Columbine- Too young to vote- both families were Registered Democrats and progressive liberals

    · VaTech- Wrote hate mail to Pres Bush and to his staff -- Registered Democrat

    · Colorado Theater- Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal

    · Conn School Shooter- Registered Democrat, hated Christians

    ALL of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats

    Interesting...isn't it?
    Duck Soup wrote: »
    I've seen this e-mail doing the rounds, so let's go through it. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, wasn't a registered anything. He listened to the sermons of extremist Islamic preachers, but he would have spat on both Democrats and Republicans as Satan's little helpers. Not a Democrat.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Hasan

    The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were not Democrats and not the sons of "progressive liberals". Eric Harris's father was a US Air Force pilot and Dylan Kiebold's family were strict Lutherans. These were two very conservative families.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold

    The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, once again wasn't a registered anything. Upon emigrating to America, his family became devout Christians and church-goers. The shooting was based almost exclusively on the humiliation he felt at the hands of rich kids at Virginia Tech.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

    The Aurora Colorado shooter, James Eagan Holmes? This one is an absolute doozy. Holmes was never an Obama campaign worker. No newspaper or TV station has ever claimed he was an Obama campaign worker. There is exactly zero evidence he was an Obama campaign worker. Holmes was not an Occupy Wall Street member or an Occupy Anywhere Member. There's no evidence he even agreed with OWS. He wasn't a "progressive liberal". He had no connections with any political party. Every 'fact' stated in the e-mail circular about James Eagan Holmes is a verifiable lie, from beginning to end.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes

    And so on and so on. By all means, let's have a discussion of the merits of gun ownership and gun control, but let's not base it on straightforward lies and inventions about the motives of mass killers.
    All "wikipedia" info?:rolleyes:

    sry......got to do better than that.

    The search warrants relating to Sandy Hook were released by authorities today.
    At the school:

    1 Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15 rifle with a 30-round magazine
    1 Glock 10mm handgun
    1 9mm Sig Sauer P226 handgun
    1 Saiga 12 shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds
    6 30-round magazines, three of them emptied
    At the home:

    Guns:

    1 Enfield bolt-action .323 rifle
    1 Savage Mark II .22 caliber rifle with magazine, 3 live rounds, 1 spent cartridge
    1 black marksman BB gun
    Ammunition:

    5 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells cut open, with buckshot
    1 white plastic bag with 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells
    1 can with .22 caliber and .45 caliber bullets
    8 boxes of Winchester Windcat .22 caliber bullets, 50 rounds per box
    20 “Estate” 12-gauge shotgun shells
    4 boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 10 round per box
    1 box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs
    1 box of 20 Prvi Partizan 303 British rifle cartridges
    1 box of 20 Federal 303 British rifle cartridges
    2 boxes of .22 long rifle Blazer rounds, 50 each box
    1 box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45 caliber bullets
    2 boxes of 50 rounds of PPU .45 caliber automatic
    1 box of 20 rounds for Remington .223 caliber
    3 boxes of Blazer 40 S&W, 50 rounds each
    2 boxes of Winchester 5.56 mm, 20 rounds each
    1 box of Magtech 45ACP with 30 rounds
    1 empty Box of SSA 5.56 mm
    1 box of Fiocchi .45 auto with 48 rounds
    80 rounds of CCI .22 long rifle
    6 boxes of PMC .223 rem, 20 rounds each
    6 Winchester 9 pellet buckshot shells, 12-gauge
    2 Remington 12-gauge slugs
    3 Winchester .223 rifle rounds
    31 .22 caliber rounds
    2 boxes of Underwood 10 mm auto, each with 50 rounds
    130 rounds of Lawman 9mm Luger
    2 spent shell casings for Glock 10mm
    1 empty box of Gold Dot 9mm Luger
    2 empty boxes of Winchester 9mm Luger
    1 box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds
    1 box of 29 miscellaneous 9mm rounds
    1 spent .22 shell casing
    1 small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets
    1 tan bag with numerous Blazer .45 caliber bullets
    1 box of Blazer .22 long rifle with 50 rounds
    1 box PPU 303 British cartridges with 9 rounds
    2 Winchester 9mm rounds
    2 brass-colored shell casings
    1 small caliber bullet (live round) labeled C
    Magazines:

    1 Promag 20-round 12-gauge drum magazine
    1 MD Arms 20-round 12 gauge drum magazine
    3 AGP Arms 12-gauge shotgun magazines
    1 Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge, 9-pellet buckshot
    2 AGP Arms 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds of Winchester 9-pellet buckshot
    2 empty Ram Line magazines for Ruger 10-22
    1 AGP Arms Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine with 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge, 9-pellet buckshot
    1 clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR 15
    1 magazine with 10 rounds of .223 bullets
    Knives:

    Metal bayonet
    1 6-foot-10-inch wood-handled two-sided pole with a blade on one side and a spear on the other
    1 Samurai sword with a 28-inch blade and sheath
    1 Samurai sword with a 21-inch blade and a sheath
    1 Samurai sword with a 13-inch blade and sheath
    1 knife with a 12-inch blade and sheath
    1 wooden-handle knife with a 7.5-inch blade and sheath
    1 wooden-handle knife with a 10-inch blade
    1 knife with a 5.5-inch blade and sheath
    1 black-handled knife with a 7-inch blade and sheath
    1 black rubber-handled knife with 9.5-inch blade and sheath
    1 white and brown-handled knife with 5-inch blade and sheath
    1 brown wood-handled knife with a 10.25-inch blade
    1 Panther brown-handled folding knife with a 3.75 inch blade
    1 small blue folding knife
    Gear:

    1 Volcanic .22 starter pistol wth 5 live rounds and 1 expended round
    Leightning L3 ear protection
    Peltor ear plugs
    Simmons binoculars
    Uncle Mike’s Sidekick nylon holster
    Box for vest accessories
    Leather dual magazine holder
    Black leather handgun holster
    High Sierra fanny pack
    Numerous paper targets
    1 cardboard targets
    1 Bushnell sport view rifle scope
    Plastic bag of miscellaneous parts
    Safariland holster paperwork
    Glock handgun manual
    MD-20 20-round shotgun magazine manual
    MD Arms V-Plug guide
    Bushmaster XM15 and C15 instruction manual
    Savage Arms bolt-action rifle manual
    Glock paperwork

    Miscellaneous:

    Adam Lanza’s National Rifle Association certificate
    Nancy Lanza’s NRA certificate

    Three photographs with images of what appears to be a deceased human covered with plastic and what appears to be blood
    Holiday card with a check from Nancy Lanza to Adam Lanza for purchase of C183 firearm
    1 digital print of a child and various firearms
    1 military-style uniform
    Handwritten notes with addresses of local gun shops
    Receipts and emails documenting firearm and ammunition supplies
    Blue folder labeled “guns” with receipts and paperwork
    Paperwork titled “Connecticut Gun Exchange Glock 20SF 10mm” dated 12-21-11
    Sandy Hook report card for Adam Lanza
    New York Times article on a 2008 shooting at Northern Illinois Unversity
    Books: “Look me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger’s;” “Born on a Blue Day: Inside the Mind of an Autistic Savant;” “NRA Guide to Basics of Pistol Shooting;” “Train our Brain to Get Happy”
    1 Seagate Barracuda 500gb hard drive, damaged
    1 custom-built desktop computer, no hard drive
    1 Microsoft Xbox with partially obliterated serial number
    One cotton swab of blood-like substance
    1 tan sheet with blood-like substance
    1 tan fitted sheet with blood-like substance
    1 striped towel with blood-like substance

    http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503410-read-the-newtown-search-warrants-released-by-authorities


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Amazing the night of the sandy hook shooting the NRA stated the gun/s used would be shown to be illegally held ,interesting statement in its self,
    Now it turns out the shooter was a fully paid certified NRA member ,
    They knew this all along it now seems


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Gatling wrote: »
    Amazing the night of the sandy hook shooting the NRA stated the gun/s used would be shown to be illegally held ,interesting statement in its self,
    Now it turns out the shooter was a fully paid certified NRA member ,
    They knew this all along it now seems

    He also had an Xbox. Is there a point were are drawing out from this?

    Certificate = he attended an NRA firearms class.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    All referenced wiki pages. wiki has been proven to be more reliable than the Britaniaca

    Welcome to the world of the US Right Wing.

    They throw out some outrageous unsubstantiated lie, quoting some right wing rumour mill as a source (or none at all) and then when challenged, instead of arguing the matter they just trash the more reliable source.

    Its the Sarah Palin world of discourse.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    I believe if you buy any (new, from a dealer) gun in the US, it automatically comes with NRA membership.

    Ironic really because it means the NRA has a far more comprehensive registry of gun owners than the government.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,693 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    I believe if you buy any (new, from a dealer) gun in the US, it automatically comes with NRA membership.

    That is incorrect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I receive my NRA certificate in the mail every year.... It means nothing! It doesn't become effective nor official until I send in the money they require, which I have never done. I have never belonged to the NRA, but this year I just might as they seem to be the only organization fighting to keep our second ammendment rights intact, and as president Obama is now using executive power to circumvent the role of congress on gun control. Too bad I threw it out a couple of weeks ago and looks like I may have to apply online.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    I believe if you buy any (new, from a dealer) gun in the US, it automatically comes with NRA membership.

    Unfortunately not.

    However, if you are interested, you can join right now and receive a lifetime membership for a reduced price of $300.smile.png

    Here's the link,
    https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=cheaperthandirttv

    If Canadians can join, I wonder if gun owners in Ireland can.

    That $300 is one of the cheapest insurance policies you can buy, which includes
    • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Life members receive $10,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage at NO COST to you. The plan covers accidents at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting. Insurance must be activated at time of upgrade to Life member status[/FONT]
    • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]$2,500 of ArmsCare coverage with your NRA membership. This plan covers insured firearms, air guns, bows and arrows against theft, accidental loss, and damage. Insurance must be activated. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Link[/FONT]


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    FISMA wrote: »
    If Canadians can join, I wonder if gun owners in Ireland can.
    Yes, they can - we have NRA-accredited instructors in Ireland so they have to be able to be members.
    I would pay extraordinary attention to the fine print though, I know of one Irish shooter who had all of his kit bar his rifle stolen while at an international match and then found out that his UK insurance had a clause in 6-point type that said, basicly, "we don't pay out if it doesn't happen in the UK".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,296 ✭✭✭RandolphEsq


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    School shootings happen in the US because of many reasons, not just relatively easy access to guns.

    Many of these reasons are deep social factors that cannot be solved with legislation

    The easy access to fully automatic weapons and extended magazines (which have absolutely no social purpose) can be enacted upon and changed.

    If the legislation passes, then school and mass shootings won't automatically stop, it will just mean that if someone does want to shoot up a lot of people it will be harder for them to do so.

    Common sense.

    I would just like for this point to be reiterated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    I would just like for this point to be reiterated.
    Can we also reiterate the points that (a) there is no easy access to automatic firearms in the US and hasn't been since 1934; and (b) the worst mass shooting carried out by a single gunman in US history was Virginia Tech and the shooter there did not use high capacity magazines, he just had a backpack full of normal sized magazines -- i.e. a law banning high capacity magazines would not prevent a mass shooting, nor would it make one more difficult to carry out, nor would it limit the damage caused by one. All it would do is punish innocent people by confiscating their property, and give everyone else a false sense of security, thus allowing the problem to go unsolved until the next inevitable shooting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Sparks wrote: »
    Can we also reiterate the points that (a) there is no easy access to automatic firearms in the US and hasn't been since 1934; and (b) the worst mass shooting carried out by a single gunman in US history was Virginia Tech and the shooter there did not use high capacity magazines, he just had a backpack full of normal sized magazines -- i.e. a law banning high capacity magazines would not prevent a mass shooting, nor would it make one more difficult to carry out, nor would it limit the damage caused by one. All it would do is punish innocent people by confiscating their property, and give everyone else a false sense of security, thus allowing the problem to go unsolved until the next inevitable shooting.

    Can we also re-iterate that many of the politicians spouting the need for new gun laws refuse to enforce existing gun laws?

    Can we also re-iterate that in almost every case off mass casualty in the last few decades, the shooter was known to be a psychotic or sociopath.

    Can we also re-iterate that there is nothing in the recent congressional bill that dealt with mental health.

    Reports are now coming in stating that the elder brother in the Boston bombing was reported to the FBI by a foreign government who requested that his background be "scrubbed."

    According to these still early reports, the FBI reported back that he was clean.

    Background checks...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,125 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Besides, it has now been proven that you don't need guns to be a violent mass murder and mutilator. A homemade bomb with nails or ball bearings can cause as much death and/or destruction as a psychopath or jihadist wants to cause, and it will remain the case even if the government takes all the guns away from law-abiding citizens.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    FISMA wrote: »
    Can we also re-iterate that many of the politicians spouting the need for new gun laws refuse to enforce existing gun laws?
    Or to enact the gun control laws even the NRA was calling for after Columbine - for example, if I was a convicted felon in the US and attempted to buy a gun, I'd fail the background check and then be free to walk out of the store unarrested. Where's the sense in that? A person whose motives for buying a gun you can be reasonably suspicious of just walks off after failing a background check?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    I think in the long run, the recent failure of the background check bill will come back to haunt the NRA.
    What they have going for themselves politically right now is an effective lobbying arm that intimidates politicians.

    Gun control advocates have yet to reach the same level.
    Failures to pass legislation that has 90% public support will ultimately drive more money into the gun control lobbies.
    When you start seeing politicians lose primaries to gun control funded candidates then the talk around gun control will get a lot more serious than just background checks.

    Also just to add, gun ownership in the states is declining.
    In the 70s, half the population owned guns. It's now down to about a third.
    The percentage of people in urban areas that own guns is probably lower again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    vetinari wrote: »
    Also just to add, gun ownership in the states is declining.
    In the 70s, half the population owned guns. It's now down to about a third.

    Source?

    That's unbelievable. Ever since Obama got in during his first term, gun sales have been high. Since the events in CT they have broken all records.

    2011 was a record year for background checks.

    Over the last 10 years (from 2002 to 2011) there has been a 54.1 percent rise in the number of NICS checks and the increase hasn’t all taken place since 2008. In 2005 there were 8,952,945 NICS checks. In 2006 the number topped 10 million. In 2007 NICS checks pushed passed 11 million. In 2008 NICS checks passed 12 million, and then hit the 14 million mark in 2009. They increased slightly (4 percent) through 2011. (Same source as above.)

    The country is almost literally sold out. Have a look at impactGuns.com. Their handgun page shows 36 pages of 64 guns, over 2000 handguns.

    Now click on the "available items" checkbox and your choices go down to two pages.

    Try and find an AR-15.

    Again, the country is as close to being sold out as you could imagine.

    You're going to have to prove your assertion that gun ownership is declining in the States.

    Anyone see a Glock 21 or HK 45 for sale, in stock?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all
    The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s

    The people who own guns are buying more of them.
    Existing gun owners who are worried Obama will come for their guns are buying all the guns.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    vetinari wrote: »
    The people who own guns are buying more of them.
    Existing gun owners who are worried Obama will come for their guns are buying all the guns.
    That's a possibility; but the article you linked to discusses many more and makes it very clear that definitive figures on this are just not available.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    That's a bit specious Sparks.

    The evidence that does exists supports the theory that gun ownership has declined.
    If it continues to decline, it will hopefully spur more gun control action.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    It's not specious, it's just the facts - one specific piece of evidence supports the theory that gun ownership is declining, other pieces of evidence support the theory that it's increasing, and it's not clear which theory is correct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    You're using false equivalence.
    The bulk of studies on gun ownership has shown that it has declined.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Actually, that article only talks about the results from one survey. It mentions others, but doesn't give results for any bar one other (the Gallup poll) which it says gives a higher figure for gun ownership and a more modest decline; but it doesn't actually give you figures so you can do a quantitative comparison.

    This is why peer-reviewed research is what you should be reading and not articles or blog posts about that research -- because if you don't read the research itself, you're just getting what some reporter or pundit thought of the research, which isn't the same thing at all.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Commentary from gun-owning Democrat on the recent loss at the Senate.

    Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument | Kontradictions

    It's long (Because she spends some effort supporting each point), but pretty good. Here's the Cliff's Notes to her 6 suggestions as to how to be more effective in the future.

    1) Stop sending mixed messages: "Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away. "

    2) You Have To Understand What You’re Regulating: "New rule: If you don’t know how guns work, you don’t get to craft legislation about them. There is nothing so embarrassing as watching a Democratic politician who has never held a gun in their life attempt to talk about why and how they should be regulated."

    3) Stop Using Children. "Most Americans know when they’re being emotionally played for political gain, and so do the senators who voted against the barrage of legislation that went down in flames this week. Until you can stop marching children around as your cause celeb for no apparent logical reason, and until you propose legislation that at least has something to do with protecting them, no one is going to listen."

    4) Stop Pretending Background Checks Don’t Already Exist. "These figures speak for themselves. When the nation’s police force, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department aren’t on board, you might want to rethink your strategy."

    5) Treat the NRA As What They Are: Other American Citizens. "I hope that one thing this latest loss has taught you is that you cannot advance the discussion on gun policy by treating the NRA as if they were something other than the citizens who intentionally pay for them to do exactly what they do. [...] Your opponent is not the corporate profits of Ruger or Beretta, it is the beliefs and ideas and the resulting money of other citizens just like yourself.

    6) Don’t Forget About Us! "Gun policy is not really as partisan a debate as mainstream media would suggest. There are plenty of left-leaning citizens and Democratic voters who love our guns. [...] You cannot pretend that we don’t exist, and you cannot be surprised when we let our representatives know that we do not support gun control legislation."

    NTM


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    I think I disagree with all of those points.
    What some gun owners seem to forget is that there are plenty of people who don't own guns.

    Us non gun owners for the most part (based on people I know) aren't comfortable at the idea of concealed weapons.
    We're not comfortable about weapons with large magazines either.
    Currently, non gun owners don't prioritize gun control near as much as gun owners prioritize gun rights.
    The only thing that will cause gun control bills to pass is if politicians are worried about voting against gun control.
    Hopefully Bloomberg's organization and others like it will have the financial clout to impact primaries and instill some fear into congress.


    There'll never be any compromise on this issue imo. Gun rights / gun control is so polarized that it's all about your side winning sad as that is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    vetinari wrote: »

    Vetinari,
    Thanks for the link, however, your source is a survey and inconclusive. Quoting the article itself "Detailed data on gun ownership is scarce."

    I doubt that the number of households with a gun has declined, especially given the increase in population over the same time period.

    You claim a decrease of gun ownership from about half the population. Yet, the article also cites "national polls reporting rates" that are "52 percent" on the high side.

    One major flaw in the analysis is that the article has not adjust for the increase in population. Half the population in 1970 is the same number of people as 1/3 the population today.

    If 50% of homes had guns in 1970's and the same percentage had guns today, that's an increase of about 50,000,000 homes having guns.

    Also, gun owners were not demonized in the 1970's the way they are today. Many gun owners in the States prefer anonymity and would not willfully respond yes to a survey. Check out the bias of response and the bias of non-response in sampling surveys to see how badly surveys can be skewed.

    If you have any credible government, atf, ncis, or other data, please advise as it is a topic on which I would like to have more reliable definitive data.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Right now gun control isn’t an issue most Americans think much about. Earlier this month, a Gallup poll asked what people thought the most pressing problems for the country were. The economy topped the list (with 24 percent support). Gun Control was tied in a four way split for seventh place along with immigration, education, and North Korea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    Fisma, my last point on the gun ownership percentage.
    Based on the existing data, gun ownership has declined as a percentage of the population.
    Is it absolutely definitive? No, but it's certainly more likely than saying it hasn't declined.

    Gun owners are not stigmatized. Look at Manic Moran's list of points.
    They're all about pandering to gun owners. A gun ownership survey in the States is as likely to be honestly answered as any other survey. I find it interesting that you ask for more comprehensive information. Gun owners would be against any measure (national registry etc) that would give more accurate information.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    vetinari wrote: »
    I think I disagree with all of those points.
    What some gun owners seem to forget is that there are plenty of people who don't own guns.

    And what gun control supporters seem to forget is that pretty much every single gun owner uses their gun in a responsible manner.
    Us non gun owners for the most part (based on people I know) aren't comfortable at the idea of concealed weapons.

    Then maybe you should be nice to people with concealed weapons. Then you shouldn't have anything to be uncomfortable about concealed weapons.
    We're not comfortable about weapons with large magazines either.

    Why?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭vetinari


    Then maybe you should be nice to people with concealed weapons. Then you shouldn't have anything to be uncomfortable about concealed weapons.

    That reads as a half joke half threat. Hardly an opinion to change anyone's mind.
    As I said, I don't think their is common ground on this topic. It's too polarized.
    My hope is that eventually non gun owners will prioritize gun control laws enough for real action to be taken.

    I'm sure that 99% of people use guns in a responsible manner. I'm not comfortable with the 1% using high capacity guns for killing sprees. Tbh, gun owners are fond of saying that you people who don't own guns don't know what they're talking about.
    If you do own guns, you probably don't appreciate the initimidation factor that a gun can have. There's no other object that people carry around in our society that would allow you to so easily kill someone.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement