Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by JMS

I guess we should through common sense out the window, which suggests the higher the possible consequence to the "act", the less likely someone will commit the "act"

Works for some things, but passion and religion make consequences moot. People in a killing frenzy with their wives don't think of consequences; people who believe that God told them to kill just don't care.

Might work for some, though. Does for me.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Works for some things, but passion and religion make consequences moot. People in a killing frenzy with their wives don't think of consequences; people who believe that God told them to kill just don't care.

Might work for some, though. Does for me.

j

And this is what percentage of the people? And how many people in that percentage will be weeded out by background checks? and the few that weren't weeded out, how many of them will be stopped in their tracks while perpetrating such a crime by a law abiding citizen who happens to be carrying?


I'll take the odds, and take my chances Sir!

Originally Posted by JMS

And this is what percentage of the people? And how many people in that percentage will be weeded out by background checks? and the few that weren't weeded out, how many of them will be stopped in their tracks while perpetrating such a crime by a law abiding citizen who happens to be carrying?


I'll take the odds, and take my chances Sir!

Actually, crimes of passion are a pretty high percentage of gun crimes, as far as I know (being lazy here with the research, but I believe it holds up). No way to prevent with background checks because the insanity is temporary and situational.

No research I've seen suggests that the number of crimes stopped by an armed citizen comes anywhere near the number of crimes and accidents enabled by wide-spread gun ownership.

But that's not really the point.

Cars are required to have safety gear because they're dangerous. They're required to be registered and insured for the same reason. Safety equipment, for example, could nearly eliminate kids getting killed with the family gat.

We also need to go upside Hollywood's head about their mania for brainwashing our children into thinking that violence is a solution. Every time Hollywood tries to show kids that they can solve problems with guns, we should be all over them.

Just an opinion. It's what the NRA should be doing -- promoting a responsible image of gun ownership, not cowboys and Indians.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

. It's what the NRA should be doing -- promoting a responsible image of gun ownership, not cowboys and Indians.

j

Two things!
One, you keep spouting facts and figures without offering any links to back you up!

Two, I believe that is exactly what the NRA is doing! That is promoting responsible use of guns!

Originally Posted by JMS

Two things!
One, you keep spouting facts and figures without offering any links to back you up!

Two, I believe that is exactly what the NRA is doing! That is promoting responsible use of guns!

Actually, I normally do give backup. I believe I acknowledged being a bit lazy this time around.

Don't get me started on the NRA. Really. They don't represent gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers. The NRA Loooooves gun violence on TV. They love convincing people that guns=manhood. They love creating gun-nuts -- those folks who convince the rest of the country that gun owners aren't to be trusted. Not only do they do absolutely nothing to counter the negative image of gun owners, they actually go out of their way to promote it. Within days of the Columbine shootings, the NRA was in Columbine holding rallies and taunting the grieving families. It was unbelievable.

Why else do they oppose safety equipment? Why do they oppose banning plastic guns that might get through security? Why do they insist that hunters have a sporting need for magazines that hold more than 30 rounds? Why won't they even try to educate the public about the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. It's all so the manufacturers can sell more stuff. They care about the short-term profit, not the fact that if their negligence creates enough of a backlash, we're all losers. They don't look that far forward. It's really scandalous.

I could go on. Stop me now.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Actually, I normally do give backup. I believe I acknowledged being a bit lazy this time around.

Don't get me started on the NRA. Really. They don't represent gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers. The NRA Loooooves gun violence on TV. They love convincing people that guns=manhood. They love creating gun-nuts -- those folks who convince the rest of the country that gun owners aren't to be trusted. Not only do they do absolutely nothing to counter the negative image of gun owners, they actually go out of their way to promote it. Within days of the Columbine shootings, the NRA was in Columbine holding rallies and taunting the grieving families. It was unbelievable.

Why else do they oppose safety equipment? Why do they oppose banning plastic guns that might get through security? Why do they insist that hunters have a sporting need for magazines that hold more than 30 rounds? Why won't they even try to educate the public about the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. It's all so the manufacturers can sell more stuff. They care about the short-term profit, not the fact that if their negligence creates enough of a backlash, we're all losers. They don't look that far forward. It's really scandalous.

I could go on. Stop me now.

j

Link please?

Originally Posted by JMS

Link please?

WWW.NRA.ORG

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

...They love creating gun-nuts -- those folks who convince the rest of the country that gun owners aren't to be trusted. Not only do they do absolutely nothing to counter the negative image of gun owners, they actually go out of their way to promote it. Within days of the Columbine shootings, the NRA was in Columbine holding rallies and taunting the grieving families. It was unbelievable.

...
j

Not sure where you got your information from (I hope not from Bowling for Columbine), but that NRA meeting was planned way ahead of the Columbine massacre. If anyone is to blame is Eric and Dylan for shooting up the school right before an already planned NRA event. In fact, due to the tragedy at Columbine, the NRA canceled most of their events.

The NRA scaled back its long-planned Denver convention after the April 20 bullet-and-bomb rampage by Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, that left 15 people, including the two shooters, dead. But the group refused a request by Denver Mayor Wellington Webb to cancel the meeting entirely.

emphasis mine

CNN - NRA comes to town on heels of Colorado school massacre - April 30, 1999

I can't remember which documentary it was that I watched, it may have even been a video produced by the NRA, so what I'm going to say next is up to you to decide.

The video said that the only reason they continued with the meeting is because it was an executive annual meeting which was mandatory because of the NRAs "lobby" status. Or something like that.

I'm not and never have been an NRA member. I have mixed emotions about them. But the least you could do if you're going to imply that they were being insensitive for arriving shortly after Columbine is at the very least disclose the fact that they had that meeting planned long beforehand and it wasn't in response to Columbine.