Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2016, 08:32 PM
 
58,512 posts, read 26,813,714 times
Reputation: 14107

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Many responsible gun owners I know do not support the NRA. They are not trying to protect the 2nd Amendment. They are marketing guns and ammo and trying to convince people that sensible gun laws will affect law abiding citizens and take away their right to bear arms. It's just not true.

I am not a hunter and I don't carry a gun, but I agree with most of this article and have expressed the same thoughts many times.

I OWN GUNS, BUT I HATE the NRA

"I agree with the NRA on one point: Tightening controls on gun ownership will not eliminate gun violence. And it may not do much to address the psychopathology of young men who commit mass murder. Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers committed their crimes with bombs, while Adam Lanza, with no criminal record, inexplicably stole his mother’s guns, murdered her, and headed off to Sandy Hook Elementary School.

But by filtering out at least some people who are poor candidates for responsible ownership, gun control will reduce the steady bloodletting of everyday life in our cities, a pervasive environment of danger that police departments around the country have decried, calling for greater handgun controls."
Your fantasiful opinion on this issue means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2016, 08:41 PM
 
19,660 posts, read 9,973,169 times
Reputation: 13009
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Many responsible gun owners I know do not support the NRA. They are not trying to protect the 2nd Amendment. They are marketing guns and ammo and trying to convince people that sensible gun laws will affect law abiding citizens and take away their right to bear arms. It's just not true.

I am not a hunter and I don't carry a gun, but I agree with most of this article and have expressed the same thoughts many times.

I OWN GUNS, BUT I HATE the NRA

"I agree with the NRA on one point: Tightening controls on gun ownership will not eliminate gun violence. And it may not do much to address the psychopathology of young men who commit mass murder. Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers committed their crimes with bombs, while Adam Lanza, with no criminal record, inexplicably stole his mother’s guns, murdered her, and headed off to Sandy Hook Elementary School.

But by filtering out at least some people who are poor candidates for responsible ownership, gun control will reduce the steady bloodletting of everyday life in our cities, a pervasive environment of danger that police departments around the country have decried, calling for greater handgun controls."
Background checks was the idea of the NRA. They can't help it if the government won't enforce it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2016, 09:08 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,465,319 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Background checks was the idea of the NRA. They can't help it if the government won't enforce it.
Background check is utter stupid to begin with but it's a way to appease the clueless.

If you don't trust someone with a gun, why do you let him or her walk on the street, be around you and your children? They should be in prisons or hospitals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 12:37 AM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,837,558 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"since we have an average of 25 mass shootings per month"

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Prove it!

Put up or shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Your fantasiful opinion on this issue means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


Your posts are very rude. I honestly don't care if my comments mean nothing to you.

Anyway, last year there 355 mass shootings. Apparently you have a problem with math. It's a fact. It isn't "stuff."

There is no official FBI description of a mass shooting, but usually it is when 4 or more people are killed. Sometimes the total death count is less and sometimes it is more but not reported as a mass killing, i.e., when a family is murdered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 12:48 AM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,837,558 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Background checks was the idea of the NRA. They can't help it if the government won't enforce it.
Wrong. You've been going to too many Trump rallies. The NRA used to support background checks but haven't in years. La Pierre only agreed that they were a good idea after the Columbine shootings. People were outraged and he thought it was good for public relations. Then he changed his mind.

"used to" (from the free dictionary)

used to
1. main meaning
If something used to happen, it happened regularly in the past but does not happen now.
Similarly, if something used to be true, it was true in the past but is not true now.


Let me refresh your memory.

[url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-nra-used-support-expanded-backgr/]Barack Obama says, 'The NRA used to support expanded background checks.' | PolitiFact[/url]

"We contacted the NRA for our previous story but did not receive a response. In January, NRA board member Sandy Froman told CNN, "The NRA has changed its position, and the reason it's changed its position is because the system doesn't work."

The Froman quote is from a Jan 2013 CNN interview.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,951 posts, read 1,626,031 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
There is no official FBI description of a mass shooting, but usually it is when 4 or more people are killed. Sometimes the total death count is less and sometimes it is more but not reported as a mass killing, i.e., when a family is murdered.
Here's the FBI link on it:

https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/act...m-2000-to-2012

12-16 per year for the Columbine-style mass shootings. A family murdered is targeted homicide, which is different. If we're all using different definitions of mass shootings, we will be talking past eachother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,951 posts, read 1,626,031 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
I think you are MISSING the MAIN point of the Op and ALL his/her supporters.

They are NOT interested in saving lives. They ARE interested in doing whatever they can to ban guns.

IF they cared so much about deaths they would be clamoring for MORE stringent laws on things like cars, swimming pools blunt instruments etc.
Right, that's why BruSan ignored it. No answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 07:11 AM
 
58,512 posts, read 26,813,714 times
Reputation: 14107
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Your posts are very rude. I honestly don't care if my comments mean nothing to you.

Anyway, last year there 355 mass shootings. Apparently you have a problem with math. It's a fact. It isn't "stuff."

There is no official FBI description of a mass shooting, but usually it is when 4 or more people are killed. Sometimes the total death count is less and sometimes it is more but not reported as a mass killing, i.e., when a family is murdered.
I don't give rats a.s if you think it is rude.

I THINK YOUR post is rude as you go on and on insulting gun owners and making false statements.

If you can't TAKE it, DON'T dish it out.

YOU STATED, "since we have an average of 25 mass shootings per month"

You see, when you post numbers YOU HAVE TO BACK THEM UP, and DON"T get your panties in a wad when asked for the data to back them up.

Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-28-2016 at 07:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 09:18 AM
 
19,660 posts, read 9,973,169 times
Reputation: 13009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
I don't give rats a.s if you think it is rude.

I THINK YOUR post is rude as you go on and on insulting gun owners and making false statements.

If you can't TAKE it, DON'T dish it out.

YOU STATED, "since we have an average of 25 mass shootings per month"

You see, when you post numbers YOU HAVE TO BACK THEM UP, and DON"T get your panties in a wad when asked for the data to back them up.
They don't have the data to back it up because it is not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,677,919 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Let me play Devil's advocate for moment and turn your theory around on you....

Had you ever considered that an armed populace is actually what spawns a totalitarian police state? I mean, when the public is as armed as it is, it's little wonder that our police forces have become as militarized as they have and adopt the "Us vs. Them" attitude that they have. 30 years ago, police were still carrying the classic six shooter. Then, in the late 80's and early 90's when the public started to favor semi-autos, and the criminals were outgunning the police, law enforcement started packing more firepower too.

So the irony is that the armed populace that is seen as protection from a totalitarian police state is the very thing that leads to a totalitarian police state in the first place....

Just thinking outside the box here, and trying to look at the situation from both sides as a matter of intellectual clarity and honesty.
This is exactly how and why the FBI acquired the authority and power they have. They responded to out of control gang activity in the 1920s and 1930s. If these mass shootings keep up, it is just a matter of time.....

Quote:
While outlaws operated independently of mobsters, they did rely on organized gangs for the tools of the trade -- firearms, bulletproof vests, and armored cars.
Quote:
outlaws were successfully robbing banks throughout the Midwest. Besides the automobile, they were assisted by new hard-surfaced highways, and the Rand-McNally Road Atlas, which first came out in 1924. Robberies were easier in the Midwest than other parts of the country because small Midwestern towns usually lacked adequate police forces. The long distances between towns also made getaways feasible
American Experience | Public Enemy #1 | People & Events

Quote:
To combat the crime wave, President Franklin D. Roosevelt influenced Congress in his first administration to expand federal jurisdiction, and his Attorney General, Homer Cummings, fought an unrelenting campaign against rampant crime. One case highlighting the rampant crime included the swindling and murder of members of the Osage Indian tribe in Oklahoma for the rights to their oil fields.
Quote:
The legal tools given to the FBI by Congress, as well as Bureau initiatives to upgrade its own professionalism and that of law enforcement, resulted in the arrest or demise of all the major gangsters by 1936.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/brief-history
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top