5 Dead in Illinois shooting (inc. 2 children)
- Thread starter x-Lundz-x
- Start date
- Status
Mammoth,
Gotta say that your NRA membership is definitely a chink in your otherwise normal armor. They are disgusting cowards. They don't value your rights, just your money, and what it means for gun manufacturers. I respect everything about you, and your constant position on weapons. I respect your right to own guns, but the NRA thing is ridiculous man. NRA's position on things isn't to preserve life, or prevent. I'm sure there will come a point, to where enough is enough. But I don't think that you not supporting the NRA means that you're anti-gun. I know quite a few non NRA's here down in cali, that are batshit gun insane.. but still draw the line at venom in the countries bloodline.
Not that it matters, coming from me. I just see youre so damned on the ball with gun ownership. But then you regurgitate teh NRA's stale messages, which are just to not change any laws, and then they put up roadblocks to enforce the ones on paper, then blame people for not using the laws, they've blocked.
I have my insane conspiracy theory/truther part of my life, you have your insane NRA thing
jim-jam bongs
Member
Mammoth Jones
Member
So then what's your solution? It's easy to piss on others. You step up to the plate. Oh, and no talking points. I expect 100% original ideas that solve the problem. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Sure do, cause I trust them more than people like you. I'll give em 20$ tonight. Deal with it.
So now enforcing existing laws properly is ignorance? Ok. You didn't call me on anything you dodged the substance of the conversation (you know the part where we don't act like angry children) and attempted to hurl personal insults. Congrats? But I guess when you can't debate the ideas and suggestions the only recourse is to go into attack mode. *thumbs up* Good work!
Link
The Autumn Wind
Wow, I thought you were better than that.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Mammoth, I think the point that Dude is clumsily making is that when there are no gun control bills on the table the NRA goes quiet despite their stance that better enforcement is required, whereas when other lobby groups try to change the law they suddenly start to behave like activists.
I suppose the solution would be to not be hypocritical?
You say you want existing laws enforced and then give money to a group that goes against that. You say you want to get rid of lobbying and then give money to a lobbying group. You're not doing yourself any favors here... You pretend to be reasonable in word, but then your actions speak much louder.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Pfft. You and all the other anti gun posters should take your shame game somewhere else.
Maybe we should give our money to the Brady Center instead.
It's always interesting to see how down right insulting you people can be to someone with different views.
MJ ain't done shit, but express his views on his 2nd amendment right and posters spew shit posts like this. Deal with it.
Mammoth Jones said:
I wouldn't bother with him. He doesn't debate he only trolls.
This paper in a law journal has lots of statistics concerning gun defense. For example, apparently 200,000 times a year, a woman uses a gun to defend herself against sexual abuse.
Look at the tables on p. 185 & 186 and such:
http://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kleckarmed.pdf
FBI Crime Statistics show that states that adopted concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, burglaries by 3%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB841185795318576500.html
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy in a recent study concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally (more guns = less crime).
p.649-694, especially 651-653.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I mean, for example, in the UK possession of handguns is illegal and there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people compared to the 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the U.S.A. where it's legal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Another article on concealed carry saving lives though I haven't actually read through this one yet, just briefly skimmed it:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stor...ow-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few
On the topic of current events, with just one exception (though this could be wrong now with all the recent sohotings), every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. And despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had 3 of the worst 6 school shootings.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/gun-free-zone-john-lott/1791085/
I have class so I don't have a lot of time to dig but there's some that I looked at a while ago.
He ain't done shit but express his views and then give to a group that goes against them. Deal with that.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I understand. And to be clear, I don't agree with the NRA on everything. Just like I don't agree with Obama and his current administration on everything yet I'm a registered democrat that voted for him twice and would again because I'm not a single issue voter. Keep in mind the overwhelming majority of gun owners are NOT nra members. I can't complain about the gun manufacturers because I love their products and have funded them and ammo makers by purchasing their products. For me the NRA is great on the local level. The perks and such are nice.
Would I like to see the NRA and the administration sit down and hash out a comprehensive policy deal that leaves me the fuck alone as long as I don't break laws? Sure would. Did I think that had a chance of happening when the administrations opening salvo in this mess was to propose an AWB? Nope.
I have a good buddy in the NRA, he hunts and does all that stuff but he sees no reason for anyone to own an "assault rifle". He's good with his revolver, 12ga and his 30-06. Not every NRA member agrees with every facet of the leadership.
I have my insane conspiracy theory/truther part of my life, you have your insane NRA thing
Haha, fair enough. I just don't view the NRA any more or less "evil" than any other group that advocates their cause. They're passionately myopic. But that doesn't mean I am. Despite some posters insinuating such.
So then your issue isn't with anything I'm specifically saying but the fact that I'm an NRA member? I can gladly deal with that.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
This is one of my biggest talking points. But I also know you can't adequently enforce the existing laws without funding the local, state, and federal governments to do it. This is one area I would gladly pay more in taxes for.
I know I've agreed with you on a few things related to guns in the past.
Why does that matter? The opening solution the NRA had was... fuck video games, and let's put guards trained by them at every school.
Of course people are going to have more extreme things in their opening bid. Then you move to a compromise in the middle. If you start out in the middle, then what ends up isn't a compromise, really.
Did Obama ever express support for Feinstein's amendment?
That's pretty shitty, man. You need a much better reason than that to support the NRA, and presumably discovering as you should that one does not exist, you should stop.
This got brought up in an earlier thread.
Although the UK's violent crime rate is probably marginally higher than ours, the two numbers can't really be compared accurately.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
ViperVisor
Member
Current NRA has no credibility.
“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone,” NRA head Wayne LaPierre said in May 1999
Now they BS about the current enforcement lacking as is before any new laws.
I wonder why... Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF
This would be like football 100 years ago. 'We should require helmets.' 'Why not just follow the current rulebook better.' But the 2nd person is actively sabotaging efforts to have competent referees on the field.
“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone,” NRA head Wayne LaPierre said in May 1999
Now they BS about the current enforcement lacking as is before any new laws.
I wonder why... Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF
This would be like football 100 years ago. 'We should require helmets.' 'Why not just follow the current rulebook better.' But the 2nd person is actively sabotaging efforts to have competent referees on the field.
I see. To be honest I haven't gone back and forth between arguments or sources because I'm a college student and if it's not a research paper for a grade it's not my priority xD but that's interesting to know.
Thanks for the response. I know it gets hairy in these threads, I try so hard to avoid them. I know you're sane and rationale, and I now have a deeper understanding of your relationship with the NRA. However, I will say that if on my deathbed, after hearing news of UFO's surfacing and aliens making contactk, the only thing that will make me smile that much more, is having my assistant refresh gaf and see you renouncing the nra... after you come to the conclusion on your own of course. ;-)
rosebud.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Yeah well he just gave them another $20 so you take THAT.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Thank you. Will peruse through them when I'm not on my phone
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
Manchester is about 30 miles from where I live and about 15 miles from where I work.
Dude Abides
Banned
Sure. Close the "private sale" loophole. Require a uniform 2-week waiting period regardless of the type of firearm. Of course these ideas aren't original because they've been obvious for decades. But when they're proposed the NRA and its followers start howling "enforce the laws" when the NRA does everything it can to prevent that. Apparently you were unaware of that fact, so now you've been educated and can stop making yourself look foolish.
Donate all you want to the LaPierre children's college fund and the jackbooted thugs defense force. I don't care if you want to throw your money away. Just find out what you're talking about before you clutter up the discussion by parroting the daily press release.
Is English not your first language? I didn't say anything like that. What I did say is that advocating X while being a staunch supporter of an organization widely known to be dedicated to not-X is either ignorance or dishonesty. I was being charitable and assuming the former.
Mindless repetition of hoary talking points isn't really debate.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I don't need to do myself any favors to anyone here. This isn't a popularity contest and I don't expect some random person over the internet to understand my specific views on why I joined, why I continue to be a member, and will renew my membership next year with the NRA & SAF.
I simply didn't approve of the administrations proposals as they were going to be implemented and am relieved to see that nonsense defeated.
http://factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
I'm saying I'd have no problem with corporate interests influencing politics being done away with in the US and leaving the NRA and every other corporation on Earth to cope "only" on its member fees/donations. I'd still be a member. They'd still mobilize its members to contact their representatives and express their concerns. But donating money to politicians? I'm ok with ditching that.
http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the-biggest-lobbies-in-washington/
No I don't. But the gun law talk taking over a thread about a horrible event is not what I expected. I mean, it just happened.
Maybe I just need to get offline for a bit.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Thanks for compiling these, Lamp. In addition to the above comment about the fact that the UK and US classify violent crime differently:
Apparently this study has been widely contested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
That study is actually quite disingenuous. The places in European countries which are used to exemplify the point are the areas with the highest gun ownership, but those areas are predominately rural and have lower populations with lower incidence of violent crime overall.
In addition to this, that study wasn't conducted by Harvard at all. It's an article which hasn't been peer reviewed from a right-wing student publication. The Harvard School of Public Health actually disagrees strenuously with the conclusions reached in it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
In Australia we have the harshest gun regulations in the developed world, and we haven't had a single mass shooting since they were instituted. Also, that's another one from John Lott, the author of the disputed study mentioned above.
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as all that.
Hmm. You're probably right actually.
Apparently this study has been widely contested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
That study is actually quite disingenuous. The places in European countries which are used to exemplify the point are the areas with the highest gun ownership, but those areas are predominately rural and have lower populations with lower incidence of violent crime overall.
In addition to this, that study wasn't conducted by Harvard at all. It's an article which hasn't been peer reviewed from a right-wing student publication. The Harvard School of Public Health actually disagrees strenuously with the conclusions reached in it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
In Australia we have the harshest gun regulations in the developed world, and we haven't had a single mass shooting since they were instituted. Also, that's another one from John Lott, the author of the disputed study mentioned above.
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as all that.
Hmm. You're probably right actually.
What... on earth. This was a pretty interesting read, I suppose, thanks.
Mammoth, can you explain why you were relieved to see the Toomey-Manchin amendment regarding background checks defeated? I don't remember seeing a direct answer from you about it in the thread regarding the vote.
TacticalFox88
Banned
LOL, Australia has the harshest gun regulations?
Go look up Japan's regs and then come back and tell me that with a straight face.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Sure it was hyperbole but do you actually disagree with my point or are you just arguing to be a dick?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Close the "private sale" loophole? Ok. How? I've said before that I don't necessarily have an issue with taking a gun that I want to sell a friend to my local FFL and have them run a quick check. But the devil is in the details. What's the price for each background check ran? Who pays for it? Who sets the price? My concern is if it's 20-30 bucks ok, fine. The owner can just fold the cost into the sale of the gun. What do you think of opening the NICS check system up for gunowners to run their checks themselves electronically or over the phone?
What has the NRA done specifically to prevent the Obama administration from prosecuting convicted felons that lie on their NICS background check? Educate me some more, please.
As far as the bolded: Cut that shit out. I know it can be rough, but apply yourself. I'm doing my best to be civil, can you give it a shot? Please?
Thanks, but I think I'll continue to comment where, when and how I see fit. But thanks for the suggestion! You'll just have to learn to cope.
I don't agree with everything the President and Democrats have done, do, or will do. Therefore I shouldn't vote for Obama, or be a democrat. Great logic. I've said time and time again I don't always agree with the NRA. But if you want to use that as an opening to pounce, you go right ahead and go get em, tiger!
Agreed. And being rude doesn't make you "right". Being right makes you right. I don't believe it's a matter of "right vs wrong" or "NRA = Bad". Perhaps in time my opinion will change. It has in the past on many different issues. Such is life. ^.^
Dude Abides
Banned
A good start would be to pass the Toomey-Manchin amendment.
Oh you got me. I hear the NRA hasn't opposed efforts to enforce the laws of Bumfuck, Kansas, either. Clearly, then they don't work to oppose any enforcement anywhere and my statement was wrong.
Thanks, but I'll continue to comment where, when and how I see fit. But thanks for the suggestion! You'll just have to learn to cope.
Here's the Bangladesh thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55206756
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55206756
Mammoth Jones
Member
What's the point when that won't get enforced and people like you will scream and pout to not spew talking points about laws not being enforced?
So you don't have an answer? Gotcha.
You're more than free to. But you got a nasty case of "angry poster syndrome". Once again, if you were as pissed off at the actual people doing the killing you'd be on the right track for dealing with this issue. But yea, good luck with that.
SteveWinwood
Member
Go for it. No one is stopping you.
Also 21 killed (15 of them police officers) in western China in attacks by Muslim Uighers (6 of whom also died, so total 27).
User 100115
Banned
I know a lot of people are against it, but I just wish that there were mandatory classes before you would be allowed to have a gun. There is NO respect for guns in the US; most people treat them as toys or collectables. My ideal scenario for America would be treating guns as a necessary evil, not this 'you ain't a man unless you have a gun! And a big gun at that!' mentality that permeates everything. A 'you can have guns, totally, as long as you pass safety classes, aren't mentally unstable, and haven't abused guns in the past, sure!' type of thing.
I also know it will never, ever happen. Because making guns less sexy will sell less guns.
I also know it will never, ever happen. Because making guns less sexy will sell less guns.
Beyond recreational uses, I can't really see why should a person not want but need to own a firearm, a pistol or whatever. My family has never had a weapon. Nobody I know (friends, relatives, etc.) has ever had a weapon in their homes. We have never need to use one. Never been in a situation where we could even contemplate the need of owning one.
Is it because you need/want to protect your family against any sort of danger that may come to your home? If you live in a place you consider so unsafe you need a gun to feel yourself protected, you should consider moving away. I would not live in a place where I'd think "Heck, I need a gun to keep my family protected".
And I'm suprised some people are even against check-ups and registration. If you're soo responsible with you gun and won't do anything illegal with it, why to be against it? You have nothing to fear.
Is it because you need/want to protect your family against any sort of danger that may come to your home? If you live in a place you consider so unsafe you need a gun to feel yourself protected, you should consider moving away. I would not live in a place where I'd think "Heck, I need a gun to keep my family protected".
And I'm suprised some people are even against check-ups and registration. If you're soo responsible with you gun and won't do anything illegal with it, why to be against it? You have nothing to fear.
The NRA as a lobbying organization is powerful because it moves votes, not because of money.
The more bombastic your anti-gun rhetoric, the more powerful the NRA becomes in their ability to get out the vote.
As we have just seen. It works. People donate to the NRA-ILA. The NRA utilizes momentum and can translate that directly into the one thing that politician care about, getting re-elected.
Do I agree with them? No, hell I'd be all for toomey-manchin if it had a blanket temporary transfer exemption.
But given that the highest vote given to any amendment on the recent bill was for concealed carry reciprocity, the shit the NRA peddles works and works well.
The more bombastic your anti-gun rhetoric, the more powerful the NRA becomes in their ability to get out the vote.
As we have just seen. It works. People donate to the NRA-ILA. The NRA utilizes momentum and can translate that directly into the one thing that politician care about, getting re-elected.
Do I agree with them? No, hell I'd be all for toomey-manchin if it had a blanket temporary transfer exemption.
But given that the highest vote given to any amendment on the recent bill was for concealed carry reciprocity, the shit the NRA peddles works and works well.
Link
The Autumn Wind
The NRA actively hinders enforcement then argues that new laws won't be enforced. You can't have it both ways.
Sure, if it were a popular vote, you'd have a point, but this was a senate vote. And in their case, money=votes. We know it certainly wasn't in line with what polls show the general public wanted.
Actually is was perfectly in line.
Here's the second time I'm posting this link.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...te-and-2014-will-there-be-an-electoral-price/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/
Here's the second time I'm posting this link.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...te-and-2014-will-there-be-an-electoral-price/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Didn't need a gun..until they shot the cop, then car jacked a guy, then got into a shoot out with more cops. Did you think this post thru?
Most of the terror was on the final day...with guns and bombs.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Well, we already filled the quota. Don't want any gaf overages. That's like $20 a thread.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Sorry, I missed that the first time. Good piece, but it doesn't really equate to what I'm arguing. It shows that senators voted in line with gun ownership of their states, and for re-election purposes, but just because you are a gun owner does not mean you disagree with expanded background checks.
The USA Today poll seems to be asking the general question of if you agree with stricter gun laws or not, which would include an AWB, among other things. We know that's always been a close vote. This says nothing about the much higher support of simply background checks, which is a separate poll that we've all seen. I think we can agree that support for that did not drop nearly 40% in the last week.
Going back to the Nate Silver piece, this right here is an issue:
Do you really think an organization should have this kind of power over so many members of the government? It's along the same lines of Grover Norquist's "pledge," completely tying their hands from even sensible legislation. Essentially, it's "vote against us on anything, and we'll spend millions to get you voted out." And that breaks the system.
They only have power if people listen to them. If people felt like they weren't represented they wouldn't listen to them.
The USA today piece was should congress pass a new gun control law.
IE should they pass ANY gun control law.
Wording is everything.
Even the gallup poll that reflects the 90% number states that explicitly.
Dude Abides
Banned
Indeed, what is the point of any law at all?
Of course not, since I'm not in the DOJ or privy to all of the NRA's lobbying efforts. It was a pretty dumb question, though, for the reason I pointed out.
Yeah, ignorance and disengenuousness are two of my largest pet peeves, I'll admit. I'm sure you're right that being very angry at the guy who did this will solve the problem, though. Here I am, being very angry at Rick Smith. Grrr grr so angry at him! I expect a significant decrease in shooting deaths by tomorrow.
Bullshit. You love it.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Either that or self hate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked