🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Thundercrack85]

Sooner or later we're all gonna get shot at thanks to the NRA.

 

[squeekness]

As long as they shoot me in the head, make it quick.

 

[Schlosser85]

Sooner or later we're all gonna get shot at thanks to the NRA.

Keeping us safe if they have to kill us to do it.

 

[Aximili86]

Pretty sure the NRA's all-in on the notion of tougher background checks and laws requiring safe/secure locked storage away from kids.

But alas, nah. "Durr hurr, NRAz don't want n e action evah."

 

[DeadPresident]

The NRA comes across as a very disingenuous organization that gives token support to stricter background checks but actually does nothing to try and ensure less people die firearm related deaths.

We all know how powerful a lobby they have, if they wanted actual change one way or another they could make it happen by snapping their fingers, but they don't appear to be trying to affect significant policy changes.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, they're not going to snap their fingers and push for what you want to happen, no. They're a 2nd Amendment organization, of course they're going to disagree with the "ban it all!" take on things.

But like, issues as I may have with the group, stating they're not for any action on guns at all is just demonstrably false.

 

[DeadPresident]

What do I want them to do? They're a 2nd amendment organization but that doesn't mean they can't try and affect unnecessary gun deaths. If they have the power to affect it and choose not to that says something serious about their objectives.

 

[Teelie]

The NRA has demonstrated multiple times it is against as many regulations as possible in every single instance the word "regulation" has come up even though it is in the very law they are trying to shield themselves with.

 

[Mike5575]

The media should stop making school shooters famous.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/2/22/17041382/school-shooting-media-coverage-perpetrator-parkland

 

[NotNickFury]

Per that article, this one bit stuck out:

The media do not have to choose between reporting the facts and reporting responsibly. Instead, the ideal coverage would emphasize the how of the attack (the methods through which the perpetrator was able to carry it out) and the why (motivation, mindset). This can be done without talking about the who. And all of this can be accomplished while referring to “the perpetrator.”

Probably, sure, but definitely don't feel that it should. The 'who' is just as integral to the story as the other pieces, especially when or if it comes to finding a motivation. It's not like putting a name to a face or shooter glamorizes them.

 

[Aximili86]

Alrighty then, let's do this.



https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

http://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/



So, basically, the NRA wants bump-stocks gone.

69% of members want tougher background checks (it's 78% among non-NRA-affiliated gun owners in the country). Only 31% of members support a nation-wide database, which is the figure the media likes to run with, but 69% of card-carrying members want tougher check laws in some form.

According to the group themselves with the former, and Time magazine on the actual stats (through Giffords Law Center, a gun-control lobby). To pre-empt any inevitable "lolz that's some Fox stuff omgz" crap.

Politico also did a deep-dive into the background check support thing, investigating a statement Tim Ryan made. Here's their ruling at the end of the article.

That poll found that among the respondents who said they were NRA members, the poll showed that 72 percent supported background checks. Other polls we looked at showed that between 52 and 74 percent of NRA members supported background checks. These polls are imperfect because they include small samples of NRA members, but they all suggest a majority of NRA members support background checks. New polling of larger numbers of NRA members would shed more light on the views of NRA members on background checks.
With all that in mind, we rate this statement Mostly True.

But yeah, nah. The whole group's just screaming from the rooftops "do nothing! nothing to see here!" Yeaaahhh.

 

[Teelie]

What they say and what they pay politicians to (not) do are two entirely different things. As far as what the membership wants, they are in the same boat as voters: The people in charge don't listen to them.

 

[Aximili86]

Ah, the expected response.

Pro-gun types lobby politicians, anti-gun groups lobby politicians. End of the day, what actually gets done is up to the legislature and those who vote them in.

 

[Sithborg]

As David Hogg has appropriately pointed out, the new President of the NRA is someone who illegally sold guns to terrorists. To give money to drug manufacturer. That is a hell of a thing.

 

[Teelie]

Ah, the expected response.

Pro-gun types lobby politicians, anti-gun groups lobby politicians. End of the day, what actually gets done is up to the legislature and those who vote them in.

And it is the NRA-sponsored politicians who never enact or accept gun regulation you might notice. No matter what is said, what they are paid to do is not the same.

 

[Aximili86]

Take it up with your congressman, then. Enough people feel the way you do, and the representatives feel their position is in jeopardy, if they really don't personally stand for anything they'll jump when you tell them to.

It's gotta be enough people doing it though. Evidently they're not there yet, the country's still pretty 50/50 when it comes to measures further than just tightening background checks.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What a completely disingenuous argument. Just like the NRA. By the way, banning bump stocks wouldn't do a thing, as with all gun modification, it can be modded to get by the law.

 

[Mike5575]

What a completely disingenuous argument. Just like the NRA. By the way, banning bump stocks wouldn't do a thing, as with all gun modification, it can be modded to get by the law.

So, what exactly should be done in your opinion? Banning assault weapons wouldn't have stopped the shooter. He was armed with a 38 revolver and a shotgun. I think we can all agree that explosives don't constitute as arms. We should make it mandatory dor people to lock their guns in a safe. With a 4 or 5 digit passcode, an individual could easily access a condition 1 weapon in the event of an emergency.

 

[Mike5575]

And it is the NRA-sponsored politicians who never enact or accept gun regulation you might notice. No matter what is said, what they are paid to do is not the same.

Does Planned Parenthood pay democratic politicians to do their biddings? What about unions? Just be happy that your tax payer dollars aren't funding the NRA.

 

[Mike5575]

Per that article, this one bit stuck out:



Probably, sure, but definitely don't feel that it should. The 'who' is just as integral to the story as the other pieces, especially when or if it comes to finding a motivation. It's not like putting a name to a face or shooter glamorizes them.

I don't know. I think his name shoukd probably be mentioned in the initial report, but all future mentions should be something like "the shooter." But the mddia should stop showing his face, IMO.

 

[DeadPresident]

So, what exactly should be done in your opinion? Banning assault weapons wouldn't have stopped the shooter. He was armed with a 38 revolver and a shotgun. I think we can all agree that explosives don't constitute as arms. We should make it mandatory dor people to lock their guns in a safe. With a 4 or 5 digit passcode, an individual could easily access a condition 1 weapon in the event of an emergency.

Something nobody seems to understand about a theoretical policy regarding gun safety is how you enforce it or even measure it. There are 300m guns in the USA, how on earth do you suggest you roll out an initiative to make sure they're all in safes?

The only thing the US can do is try to curb the sale of firearms going forward, but they're up ****s creek when it comes to those already out there.

 

[Aximili86]

I'd actually love an answer from Darth on that one part: the weapons.

Shotgun & pistol, bought legally. Dad's sane and no criminal past, assuming the wife probably was too. Kid has no diagnosed mental issues, he hadn't previously threatened anyone or displayed problem behavior.

What grounds exactly is there for that household not having a...shotgun and pistol? It's one thing with the AR argument, but a shotgun?

This is Texas, like 3/4 of the kids in that school come from homes where the parents own a shotgun or hunting rifle or pistol, or one of each.

What's the regulation that would have stopped this? Other than the obvious situation at play here that the dad should have stored his guns more securely and ensured the kid couldn't get the key or lock combo. Even then, there were no red flags or concerns over the kid - he still shouldn't have had access to the guns, but this wasn't like Florida where there was stuff going on to make people worried about his state of mind.

 

[Mike5575]

Something nobody seems to understand about a theoretical policy regarding gun safety is how you enforce it or even measure it. There are 300m guns in the USA, how on earth do you suggest you roll out an initiative to make sure they're all in safes?

The only thing the US can do is try to curb the sale of firearms going forward, but they're up ****s creek when it comes to those already out there.

I understand, but was just throwing it out there as something both sides shold agree on:

Guns should be locked up to protect our kids. I realize such a measure would be difficult to enforce. We could enforce harsh penalties for people who violate such a law. It would be an Ex Post Facto sort of thing. It could encourage people to keep guns in safes. The harsh penalth(whatever that may be) could serve as a reminder why such a law exists in the first place.

 

[Teelie]

Does Planned Parenthood pay democratic politicians to do their biddings? What about unions? Just be happy that your tax payer dollars aren't funding the NRA.

And what does Planned Parenthood have to do with it? They aren't donating large amounts of money to do their bidding to prevent regulations of any kind. If anything they are asking for donations because the Republican Conservatives think that somehow family planning and healthcare are evil.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'd actually love an answer from Darth on that one part: the weapons.

Shotgun & pistol, bought legally. Dad's sane and no criminal past, assuming the wife probably was too. Kid has no diagnosed mental issues, he hadn't previously threatened anyone or displayed problem behavior.

What grounds exactly is there for that household not having a...shotgun and pistol? It's one thing with the AR argument, but a shotgun?

This is Texas, like 3/4 of the kids in that school come from homes where the parents own a shotgun or hunting rifle or pistol, or one of each.

What's the regulation that would have stopped this? Other than the obvious situation at play here that the dad should have stored his guns more securely and ensured the kid couldn't get the key or lock combo. Even then, there were no red flags or concerns over the kid - he still shouldn't have had access to the guns, but this wasn't like Florida where there was stuff going on to make people worried about his state of mind.

There inability to keep the guns out of their child's hands. When you give access of the weapons to your kids, stuff like this can happen. Hell, he could have shot himself. That is not only poor parenting, it is awful gun ownership.

He didn't have to go buy a gun on the street. He didn't have to steal it. They gave him perfectly easy access.