The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.
06 Jan 2015, 1:11 am
Dillogic wrote:
sly279 wrote:
umm... do you mean less then 00.00001 percent. or 99.9999 percent don't murder?
cause as i read it less then 99.9999 could mean that 98.9999 do murder. or am I reading it wrong o.O
cause as i read it less then 99.9999 could mean that 98.9999 do murder. or am I reading it wrong o.O
Less than 00.0001 or so. I forget the exact number, but it shouldn't be hard to do the math.
just meant it wasn't what you wrote. what you wrote seems to say the opposite.
cathylynn wrote:
just about every day, i get something like this on my facebook page:
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/ky- ... ght-video/
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/ky- ... ght-video/
I'd look into your friends then. I just see gun ads, pro defense posts, and stupid fox comics, along with cute puppies and kittens. if you see that every day its likely you have friends who spend time finding that and posting it. similiar to how the media seeks out all the bad stuff to talk about.
06 Jan 2015, 11:27 am
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
To me it's obvious what happened. These people spend too much time thinking about guns than perhaps they need to. You don't have to think about guns all the time and always be around one to be classified as a "gun person."
Anyone who has guns is a gun person.
Anyone who has guns is a gun person.
For some of us it is our hobby and even an obsession. It cannot be helped and there is no harm in it other than spending way too much money on it.
And not everyone who owns a gun is a gun person. There's more to it than just possession.
Quote:
Anyway, the two year old child saw the parents with guns quite often, probably saw them shooting them, and he being a two year old, couldn't really understand the full implications of picking up a gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger. He had just seen it all around him and whether his parents let him fire a gun for the first time prior to this hasn't been stated.
At that age though, he is way too young to really understand what guns are and what they do. That much is clear.
And as far as always having a gun in your purse, it might not be a good idea because purses are one of the worse places to have a gun due to the fact they are so easy for others besides the owner to get into and that is one of the things gun owners are supposed to avoid, other people taking their weapons.
At that age though, he is way too young to really understand what guns are and what they do. That much is clear.
And as far as always having a gun in your purse, it might not be a good idea because purses are one of the worse places to have a gun due to the fact they are so easy for others besides the owner to get into and that is one of the things gun owners are supposed to avoid, other people taking their weapons.
Agreed on the guns in purses practice but women will be women. I don't like the idea for a few reasons but I'm not willing to make laws regarding it. Again, sometimes s**t just happens and this is one such case.
Move past it.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
06 Jan 2015, 12:18 pm
cathylynn wrote:
as for those elsewhere on this thread suggesting my science knowledge is insufficient, i have a bachelor's in biology during which i took statistics and an MD. i have read hundreds of medical articles and can most likely judge much better than you what articles are credible. i have even performed some research (into the potential use of accelerometers to diagnose osteoarthritis). i know a little about research.
And you have and anti-gun agenda that taints any credentials and research skills you may have
Quote:
i am not a gun expert, but am a good target shooter, so not a no-nothing. i am an ex-NRA member. there was a time when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership. now they just say they are.
Ah yes, we have a little concern troll that frequents these gunz-r-bad threads with a similar message repeated ad nauseam. While the NRA is not perfect, they are the premier provider of gun safety training.
Quote:
as far as doctors asking about guns, it's the same as them asking if you take calcium or wear your seatbelt or smoke. it's a safety issue. they can encourage folks to store guns safely if they have them. they can inform of the risks so a person can make a more informed decision. that is a doctor's job. it is your perfect right to choose a less conscientious physician.
Calcium is a dietary supplement which directly affects health.
Not wearing seat belts can cause one to suddenly fly though a windshield. I've seen it happen.
Smoking cause multiple health issues.
So now tell me what harm a gun does all on its own.
Does it emit gamma rays or something? Will it take control of my mind? Is there sorcery involved? Inquiring minds want to know.
Quote:
as far as claims of bias, NEJM (the most respected medical journal in the world) has nothing to gain by publishing something showing gun danger. The NRA, on the other hand, has a vested interest and is therefore vulnerable to believing what they want to believe, as we all are.
First off; I cannot be swooned by titles. I am not wired that way and never have been.
The NEJM may have had my respect had they'd stuck to what they are good at and not fallaciously dabbled in such a hot topic. They have officially expressed an opinion outside the realm of medicine by trying to BS people into seeing an inanimate object as a health care risk. The simpleminded, as always, have fallen for it as expected but the rest of us still capable of independent thought have not. I have skimmed through report but not lately. It didn't take much to see where it was going and it would almost appear that they borrowed it from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence or whatever they're calling themselves this month.
Quote:
the appropriate response to biased research is to do research that shows the facts, not to pass laws that stop the potential for more and better information. the only reason to pass laws against research is if you suspect that the facts won't be on your side.
Then it becomes a research war. Everyone goes and gets their studies and statistics together just to have the other side dismiss them then they inturn dismiss their opponents studies and statistics. Undaunted, they both go dig up more studies and statistics to repeat the same cycle. In the end they one calls the other a douchebag and the other retorts with an accuasation of trolling.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
06 Jan 2015, 1:55 pm
Actually Raptor the answer to this discussion lies somewhere else.
Whether a doctor, freely chosen by you to ATTEND TO YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES is doing the job you hired him/her for is the issue.
Many doctors feel they are closer to God and Ultimate Knowledge than the average citizen and feel they can make decisions for the masses. I don't remember authorizing any doctor to ask me such questions. They are presumptuous as*holes if they think they will father/mother me. Better they should attend to the hundreds of thousands killed, year after year, by medical "mishaps" or "physician errors"; when this number goes down to "zero" then I might be willing to talk about ME. The number of deaths caused by guns in the home is insignificant compared to those killed by doctors inadequacies (try asking your doctor about your concerns in this matter).
Nothing works better for doctors to deflect the concerns of physician inadequacy than making a huge "safety concern" and blaming others (who will be saved by these same wonderful doctors).
06 Jan 2015, 2:05 pm
Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
as for those elsewhere on this thread suggesting my science knowledge is insufficient, i have a bachelor's in biology during which i took statistics and an MD. i have read hundreds of medical articles and can most likely judge much better than you what articles are credible. i have even performed some research (into the potential use of accelerometers to diagnose osteoarthritis). i know a little about research.
And you have and anti-gun agenda that taints any credentials and research skills you may have
Quote:
i am not a gun expert, but am a good target shooter, so not a no-nothing. i am an ex-NRA member. there was a time when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership. now they just say they are.
Ah yes, we have a little concern troll that frequents these gunz-r-bad threads with a similar message repeated ad nauseam. While the NRA is not perfect, they are the premier provider of gun safety training.
Quote:
as far as doctors asking about guns, it's the same as them asking if you take calcium or wear your seatbelt or smoke. it's a safety issue. they can encourage folks to store guns safely if they have them. they can inform of the risks so a person can make a more informed decision. that is a doctor's job. it is your perfect right to choose a less conscientious physician.
Calcium is a dietary supplement which directly affects health.
Not wearing seat belts can cause one to suddenly fly though a windshield. I've seen it happen.
Smoking cause multiple health issues.
So now tell me what harm a gun does all on its own.
Does it emit gamma rays or something? Will it take control of my mind? Is there sorcery involved? Inquiring minds want to know.
Quote:
as far as claims of bias, NEJM (the most respected medical journal in the world) has nothing to gain by publishing something showing gun danger. The NRA, on the other hand, has a vested interest and is therefore vulnerable to believing what they want to believe, as we all are.
First off; I cannot be swooned by titles. I am not wired that way and never have been.
The NEJM may have had my respect had they'd stuck to what they are good at and not fallaciously dabbled in such a hot topic. They have officially expressed an opinion outside the realm of medicine by trying to BS people into seeing an inanimate object as a health care risk. The simpleminded, as always, have fallen for it as expected but the rest of us still capable of independent thought have not. I have skimmed through report but not lately. It didn't take much to see where it was going and it would almost appear that they borrowed it from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence or whatever they're calling themselves this month.
Quote:
the appropriate response to biased research is to do research that shows the facts, not to pass laws that stop the potential for more and better information. the only reason to pass laws against research is if you suspect that the facts won't be on your side.
Then it becomes a research war. Everyone goes and gets their studies and statistics together just to have the other side dismiss them then they inturn dismiss their opponents studies and statistics. Undaunted, they both go dig up more studies and statistics to repeat the same cycle. In the end they one calls the other a douchebag and the other retorts with an accuasation of trolling.
so, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically biased beyond credibility? convenient.
research wars are good things. much is learned on both sides.
Last edited by cathylynn on 06 Jan 2015, 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
06 Jan 2015, 2:22 pm
Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
as for those elsewhere on this thread suggesting my science knowledge is insufficient, i have a bachelor's in biology during which i took statistics and an MD. i have read hundreds of medical articles and can most likely judge much better than you what articles are credible. i have even performed some research (into the potential use of accelerometers to diagnose osteoarthritis). i know a little about research.
And you have and anti-gun agenda that taints any credentials and research skills you may have
Quote:
i am not a gun expert, but am a good target shooter, so not a no-nothing. i am an ex-NRA member. there was a time when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership. now they just say they are.
Ah yes, we have a little concern troll that frequents these gunz-r-bad threads with a similar message repeated ad nauseam. While the NRA is not perfect, they are the premier provider of gun safety training.
Quote:
as far as doctors asking about guns, it's the same as them asking if you take calcium or wear your seatbelt or smoke. it's a safety issue. they can encourage folks to store guns safely if they have them. they can inform of the risks so a person can make a more informed decision. that is a doctor's job. it is your perfect right to choose a less conscientious physician.
Calcium is a dietary supplement which directly affects health.
Not wearing seat belts can cause one to suddenly fly though a windshield. I've seen it happen.
Smoking cause multiple health issues.
So now tell me what harm a gun does all on its own.
Does it emit gamma rays or something? Will it take control of my mind? Is there sorcery involved? Inquiring minds want to know.
Quote:
as far as claims of bias, NEJM (the most respected medical journal in the world) has nothing to gain by publishing something showing gun danger. The NRA, on the other hand, has a vested interest and is therefore vulnerable to believing what they want to believe, as we all are.
First off; I cannot be swooned by titles. I am not wired that way and never have been.
The NEJM may have had my respect had they'd stuck to what they are good at and not fallaciously dabbled in such a hot topic. They have officially expressed an opinion outside the realm of medicine by trying to BS people into seeing an inanimate object as a health care risk. The simpleminded, as always, have fallen for it as expected but the rest of us still capable of independent thought have not. I have skimmed through report but not lately. It didn't take much to see where it was going and it would almost appear that they borrowed it from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence or whatever they're calling themselves this month.
Quote:
the appropriate response to biased research is to do research that shows the facts, not to pass laws that stop the potential for more and better information. the only reason to pass laws against research is if you suspect that the facts won't be on your side.
Then it becomes a research war. Everyone goes and gets their studies and statistics together just to have the other side dismiss them then they inturn dismiss their opponents studies and statistics. Undaunted, they both go dig up more studies and statistics to repeat the same cycle. In the end they one calls the other a douchebag and the other retorts with an accuasation of trolling.
so, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically biased beyond credibility? convenient.
research wars are good things. much is learned on both sides.
also, i'm not anti-gun. i think that if you enjoy guns (much like motorcycles) enough that you are willing to take on risk, you should have them. but don't delude yourself that you're safer.
06 Jan 2015, 2:29 pm
cathylynn wrote:
so, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically biased beyond credibility? convenient.
research wars are good things. much is learned on both sides.
research wars are good things. much is learned on both sides.
Depends on the topic. Thus far no one has been able to form a rational anti-gun argument and we've been at this for several years here on WP. Re-labeling the issue as a "healthcare concern" doesnt change anything.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
06 Jan 2015, 2:33 pm
ZenDen wrote:
Actually Raptor the answer to this discussion lies somewhere else.
Whether a doctor, freely chosen by you to ATTEND TO YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES is doing the job you hired him/her for is the issue.
Many doctors feel they are closer to God and Ultimate Knowledge than the average citizen and feel they can make decisions for the masses. I don't remember authorizing any doctor to ask me such questions. They are presumptuous as*holes if they think they will father/mother me. Better they should attend to the hundreds of thousands killed, year after year, by medical "mishaps" or "physician errors"; when this number goes down to "zero" then I might be willing to talk about ME. The number of deaths caused by guns in the home is insignificant compared to those killed by doctors inadequacies (try asking your doctor about your concerns in this matter).
Nothing works better for doctors to deflect the concerns of physician inadequacy than making a huge "safety concern" and blaming others (who will be saved by these same wonderful doctors).
Whether a doctor, freely chosen by you to ATTEND TO YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES is doing the job you hired him/her for is the issue.
Many doctors feel they are closer to God and Ultimate Knowledge than the average citizen and feel they can make decisions for the masses. I don't remember authorizing any doctor to ask me such questions. They are presumptuous as*holes if they think they will father/mother me. Better they should attend to the hundreds of thousands killed, year after year, by medical "mishaps" or "physician errors"; when this number goes down to "zero" then I might be willing to talk about ME. The number of deaths caused by guns in the home is insignificant compared to those killed by doctors inadequacies (try asking your doctor about your concerns in this matter).
Nothing works better for doctors to deflect the concerns of physician inadequacy than making a huge "safety concern" and blaming others (who will be saved by these same wonderful doctors).
actually, this is a false dichotomy. doctors can (and are) address medical mistakes and gun preventive medicine at the same time.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
06 Jan 2015, 2:48 pm
Dox47 wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
You can look up the study if you want to. It isn't any kind of secret. And trying to paint the NEJM as anything other than a credible source does not paint you in the greatest light.
No, really, take a hard look at the methodology and tell me it's legit with a straight face, I posted a small sample of the problems with it a few posts back.
If you read the limitations section in the study, you'll find that they address many of those issues. I think the problem is that too many of the gun regulation side are seeing it for more than the limited scope study that it was and that everyone on the no regulations ever side wouldn't care if it was a flawless long-term longitudinal study with a sample size of the entire nation if it doesn't say what they want.
So just to be crystal clear, the study is not worth much to anyone in terms of arguing about anything more than the VERY SPECIFIC results found within the article. The reason I jumped in with my prior comment was in part to address the assertion that the an article NEJM is somehow invalid because it is in the NEJM, which was what seemed to be the main thrust of that argument.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
06 Jan 2015, 2:51 pm
Raptor wrote:
Thus far no one has been able to form a rational anti-gun argument and we've been at this for several years here on WP.
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "rational?"
You seem to be dangerously close to a pot and kettle situation here.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
06 Jan 2015, 7:11 pm
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
To me it's obvious what happened. These people spend too much time thinking about guns than perhaps they need to. You don't have to think about guns all the time and always be around one to be classified as a "gun person."
Anyone who has guns is a gun person.
Anyone who has guns is a gun person.
For some of us it is our hobby and even an obsession. It cannot be helped and there is no harm in it other than spending way too much money on it.
And not everyone who owns a gun is a gun person. There's more to it than just possession.
Quote:
Anyway, the two year old child saw the parents with guns quite often, probably saw them shooting them, and he being a two year old, couldn't really understand the full implications of picking up a gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger. He had just seen it all around him and whether his parents let him fire a gun for the first time prior to this hasn't been stated.
At that age though, he is way too young to really understand what guns are and what they do. That much is clear.
And as far as always having a gun in your purse, it might not be a good idea because purses are one of the worse places to have a gun due to the fact they are so easy for others besides the owner to get into and that is one of the things gun owners are supposed to avoid, other people taking their weapons.
At that age though, he is way too young to really understand what guns are and what they do. That much is clear.
And as far as always having a gun in your purse, it might not be a good idea because purses are one of the worse places to have a gun due to the fact they are so easy for others besides the owner to get into and that is one of the things gun owners are supposed to avoid, other people taking their weapons.
Agreed on the guns in purses practice but women will be women. I don't like the idea for a few reasons but I'm not willing to make laws regarding it. Again, sometimes s**t just happens and this is one such case.
Move past it.
There needs to be a law that says concealed carriers must have the gun on their person when they are out and about, not just in a purse or car glove compartment. This is not infringing upon anyone's gun rights it just says if you are going to have a gun on you at all times, you must do so responsibly and the best place for handgun is on one's person, in a holster with a strap.
If carriers cannot be responsible and accidents happen, then laws should be made addressing the issue.
07 Jan 2015, 2:40 am
cathylynn wrote:
sorry about the double post. don't know how it happened. if someone can tell me how to delete one, i will.
seems like once someone post after you, you can no longer edit or delete your post. on the old forum we had like 1-3 days to edit. I miss that.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
There needs to be a law that says concealed carriers must have the gun on their person when they are out and about, not just in a purse or car glove compartment. This is not infringing upon anyone's gun rights it just says if you are going to have a gun on you at all times, you must do so responsibly and the best place for handgun is on one's person, in a holster with a strap.
If carriers cannot be responsible and accidents happen, then laws should be made addressing the issue.
If carriers cannot be responsible and accidents happen, then laws should be made addressing the issue.
freedom.......
I don't get purses. yet women carry all kinds of valuables and possible dangerous stuff in them. then place them out of reach/control. I get if you wearing a dress but they still use them even if they don't have jeans. it is a old fashion thing, mean carry their stuff in pockets , and women in purses. that our society has refused to ride ourselves of.
don't think there should be such a law. it would go too far into telling people how to live their lifes, same as saying you can't buy 2 litter bottles of soda. or can't wear hoodies. for women who don't wear pants it would be very hard to carry. think it comes down to the person needing to decide based on situation.
also straps aren't needed, most good holsters have retention. and having to remove a strap or straps takes time that might prevent you from defending yourself, which is why lots of people and pds have gone from guns with safeties to guns with safe triggers. also not everyone has kids. I carried in my bag for a while and still do when I go to places I have to possible remove my shirt. I just always keep hold of the bag and don't' let others touch it. women should keep their purses under their arm and close to their body and not allow kids to get in them.
07 Jan 2015, 9:55 am
up until 1968, the NRA was a gun safety group. then LBJ said "crime control is gun control." The NRA had been divided among hunters and radical pro-gunners. at the cincinnati convention, the splinter pro-gun group took over.
Gun control was stymied until clinton. after reagan and brady's shooting, the assault weapons ban and the brady background check bill were passed. the gunshow background check loophole passed in the senate by one vote -gore's. LaPierre lobbied the house and successfully navigated between sportsmen and guns rights activists. LaPierre called the government thugs and suggested that the only way to protect oneself from government storming one's house was having plenty of firepower of one's own. (paranoid - very unlikely- and unrealistic- you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun). At this point President George H. W. Bush resigned from the NRA in disgust.
LaPierre apologized for saying anti-government things, but called folks wanting to close the background check at gun shows loophole anti-gun. the house voted against closing the loophole.
When Gore ran for president, the NRA campaigned heavily against him in ohio, w. va., and tennessee. exit polls in ohio showed that the gun issue was primary for 60% of the bush voter. these states lost gore the presidency. with gore in office, we would have likely avoided iraq and gotten ahead of climate change. So, the NRA is killing not only our country, but the world.
under G. W. Bush, the assault weapons ban expired. The NRA came out against licensing, background checks, and testing.
Then Obama was elected and Sandy Hook happened. LaPierre stated that, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." so, in essence, we should solve gun violence with more guns.
Sandy Hook parents wanted to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and ban high capacity magazines. only a really bad hunter needs either of those. or a looney who thinks the government is coming to confiscate his guns. gun safety politicians told the sandy hook parents that the best they could hope for given the current NRA climate would be closing the gun show background check loophole.
Senator Manchin, given an A rating by the NRA for voting with them all the time, thought gun show background checks were a good idea. He was working on a bill with the NRA (supported by 90% of americans and 80% of households containing an NRA member). Then the 300,000 member gun owners of america put up a fuss that the NRA was soft, compromising. The NRA didn't want to look soft, so they backed out of the bill and started attacking Manchin (eating their own).
Gabby Giffords owned a glock 17. She tried to get background checks at gun shows. It was defeated in the senate after much NRA lobbying.
no national effort at gun control can be initiated in the current climate. the NRA calls folks who espouse gun safety anti-gun, an unfair smear which i've seen used in this thread. very few americans are against hunting. none of the gun safety activists are coming for your guns. this is a paranoia campaign to get your money to the NRA so they can remain the most powerful lobby in the country.
07 Jan 2015, 10:37 am
cathylynn wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Actually Raptor the answer to this discussion lies somewhere else.
Whether a doctor, freely chosen by you to ATTEND TO YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES is doing the job you hired him/her for is the issue.
Many doctors feel they are closer to God and Ultimate Knowledge than the average citizen and feel they can make decisions for the masses. I don't remember authorizing any doctor to ask me such questions. They are presumptuous as*holes if they think they will father/mother me. Better they should attend to the hundreds of thousands killed, year after year, by medical "mishaps" or "physician errors"; when this number goes down to "zero" then I might be willing to talk about ME. The number of deaths caused by guns in the home is insignificant compared to those killed by doctors inadequacies (try asking your doctor about your concerns in this matter).
Nothing works better for doctors to deflect the concerns of physician inadequacy than making a huge "safety concern" and blaming others (who will be saved by these same wonderful doctors).
Whether a doctor, freely chosen by you to ATTEND TO YOUR MEDICAL ISSUES is doing the job you hired him/her for is the issue.
Many doctors feel they are closer to God and Ultimate Knowledge than the average citizen and feel they can make decisions for the masses. I don't remember authorizing any doctor to ask me such questions. They are presumptuous as*holes if they think they will father/mother me. Better they should attend to the hundreds of thousands killed, year after year, by medical "mishaps" or "physician errors"; when this number goes down to "zero" then I might be willing to talk about ME. The number of deaths caused by guns in the home is insignificant compared to those killed by doctors inadequacies (try asking your doctor about your concerns in this matter).
Nothing works better for doctors to deflect the concerns of physician inadequacy than making a huge "safety concern" and blaming others (who will be saved by these same wonderful doctors).
actually, this is a false dichotomy. doctors can (and are) address medical mistakes and gun preventive medicine at the same time.
You misunderstand.
Let me compare doctors to dining in a restaurant: I pick what I want to eat and the duty of the restaurant is to provide my request and be paid for their services. Am I interested in having my server begin questioning me about eating more vegetables? A moments thought tells you how presumptuous doctors are. They are merely paid servants, not gods as they would have you believe.
And unfortunately for us, doctors are one of the worst killers we know of. Hundreds of thousands of (documented cases) of people killed by medical doctors through their inadequacies, stupidity and carelessness. Are these the people I want to teach me how to live my life? I think not; at least not until these (self described) brilliant people clean their own house....who can trust them and their self serving "announcements" that change with the political "wind?"
I'm now in my 70s and I've seen and heard enough about doctors deadly mistakes to make me sick for another lifetime. I don't need some stuck-up fallible doctor to tell me how to live my life. Accepting being told how to live by these fallible people is foolishness. They have no credibility, outside the small bit they learned in school, in my opinion.
07 Jan 2015, 11:00 am
cathylynn wrote:
up until 1968, the NRA was a gun safety group. then LBJ said "crime control is gun control." The NRA had been divided among hunters and radical pro-gunners. at the cincinnati convention, the splinter pro-gun group took over.
Gun control was stymied until clinton. after reagan and brady's shooting, the assault weapons ban and the brady background check bill were passed. the gunshow background check loophole passed in the senate by one vote -gore's. LaPierre lobbied the house and successfully navigated between sportsmen and guns rights activists. LaPierre called the government thugs and suggested that the only way to protect oneself from government storming one's house was having plenty of firepower of one's own. (paranoid - very unlikely- and unrealistic- you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun). At this point President George H. W. Bush resigned from the NRA in disgust.
LaPierre apologized for saying anti-government things, but called folks wanting to close the background check at gun shows loophole anti-gun. the house voted against closing the loophole.
When Gore ran for president, the NRA campaigned heavily against him in ohio, w. va., and tennessee. exit polls in ohio showed that the gun issue was primary for 60% of the bush voter. these states lost gore the presidency. with gore in office, we would have likely avoided iraq and gotten ahead of climate change. So, the NRA is killing not only our country, but the world.
under G. W. Bush, the assault weapons ban expired. The NRA came out against licensing, background checks, and testing.
Then Obama was elected and Sandy Hook happened. LaPierre stated that, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." so, in essence, we should solve gun violence with more guns.
Sandy Hook parents wanted to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and ban high capacity magazines. only a really bad hunter needs either of those. or a looney who thinks the government is coming to confiscate his guns. gun safety politicians told the sandy hook parents that the best they could hope for given the current NRA climate would be closing the gun show background check loophole.
Senator Manchin, given an A rating by the NRA for voting with them all the time, thought gun show background checks were a good idea. He was working on a bill with the NRA (supported by 90% of americans and 80% of households containing an NRA member). Then the 300,000 member gun owners of america put up a fuss that the NRA was soft, compromising. The NRA didn't want to look soft, so they backed out of the bill and started attacking Manchin (eating their own).
Gabby Giffords owned a glock 17. She tried to get background checks at gun shows. It was defeated in the senate after much NRA lobbying.
no national effort at gun control can be initiated in the current climate. the NRA calls folks who espouse gun safety anti-gun, an unfair smear which i've seen used in this thread. very few americans are against hunting. none of the gun safety activists are coming for your guns. this is a paranoia campaign to get your money to the NRA so they can remain the most powerful lobby in the country.
Gun control was stymied until clinton. after reagan and brady's shooting, the assault weapons ban and the brady background check bill were passed. the gunshow background check loophole passed in the senate by one vote -gore's. LaPierre lobbied the house and successfully navigated between sportsmen and guns rights activists. LaPierre called the government thugs and suggested that the only way to protect oneself from government storming one's house was having plenty of firepower of one's own. (paranoid - very unlikely- and unrealistic- you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun). At this point President George H. W. Bush resigned from the NRA in disgust.
LaPierre apologized for saying anti-government things, but called folks wanting to close the background check at gun shows loophole anti-gun. the house voted against closing the loophole.
When Gore ran for president, the NRA campaigned heavily against him in ohio, w. va., and tennessee. exit polls in ohio showed that the gun issue was primary for 60% of the bush voter. these states lost gore the presidency. with gore in office, we would have likely avoided iraq and gotten ahead of climate change. So, the NRA is killing not only our country, but the world.
under G. W. Bush, the assault weapons ban expired. The NRA came out against licensing, background checks, and testing.
Then Obama was elected and Sandy Hook happened. LaPierre stated that, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." so, in essence, we should solve gun violence with more guns.
Sandy Hook parents wanted to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and ban high capacity magazines. only a really bad hunter needs either of those. or a looney who thinks the government is coming to confiscate his guns. gun safety politicians told the sandy hook parents that the best they could hope for given the current NRA climate would be closing the gun show background check loophole.
Senator Manchin, given an A rating by the NRA for voting with them all the time, thought gun show background checks were a good idea. He was working on a bill with the NRA (supported by 90% of americans and 80% of households containing an NRA member). Then the 300,000 member gun owners of america put up a fuss that the NRA was soft, compromising. The NRA didn't want to look soft, so they backed out of the bill and started attacking Manchin (eating their own).
Gabby Giffords owned a glock 17. She tried to get background checks at gun shows. It was defeated in the senate after much NRA lobbying.
no national effort at gun control can be initiated in the current climate. the NRA calls folks who espouse gun safety anti-gun, an unfair smear which i've seen used in this thread. very few americans are against hunting. none of the gun safety activists are coming for your guns. this is a paranoia campaign to get your money to the NRA so they can remain the most powerful lobby in the country.
You say: "LaPierre called the government thugs and suggested that the only way to protect oneself from government storming one's house was having plenty of firepower of one's own. (paranoid - very unlikely- and unrealistic- you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun)."
Would this be the same way "you can't stop tanks and bombs with a gun" that insurgents employ in the Middle East? Why would you think such a thing?
You say: "with gore in office, we would have likely avoided iraq and gotten ahead of climate change. So, the NRA is killing not only our country, but the world."
THE WORLD???? Aren't you letting your imagination run wild here? You have no facts and besides damage your overall argument. Foolish argument.
I won't comment further except to add your hyperbole brands you as anti-gun, even though you may not consider yourself such. From the gun owner point of view you're saying "I only want a little tiny reasonable bite out of your gun rights." You label yourself and thus become the leading edge of total gun confiscation, you assist their cause (although we understand from your words, you "didn't mean to.") Unwitting dupes are still unwitting dupes.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| The safety of an unused vape pen |
10 Dec 2024, 5:22 pm |
| Trump administration wants to un-fire nuclear safety workers |
16 Feb 2025, 11:43 am |
| How much Berkeley's underculture/culture merged into Apple? |
19 Feb 2025, 1:06 am |
| SCOTUS declines to hear “culture wars” cases |
18 Jan 2025, 11:07 pm |
