NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 05:08 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  And the officers work for free? Facepalm

You don't seem to understand the difference between salary and profit.

The officers are profiting from their scare campaign. You might look up "niggling".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 06:07 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 05:45 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(24-06-2016 08:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975.

You might as well not even try with Brian and lizardboy.....

They're long on insults, short on results...

I'm still waiting for the whiny little bitch to tell us his wonderful plan of how he's going to "limit the manufacturers" from "flooding the market".......

It keeps failing to materialize.

Safe money says it never will.
Still thinking obstreperous is a debating tactic, I see.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 06:09 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 06:06 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  You don't seem to understand the difference between salary and profit.

The officers are profiting from their scare campaign. You might look up "niggling".

It is not niggling. The officers are not profiting, they are being paid for their work.
You simply do not understand the difference between a business and a non-profit organization.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 06:10 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 06:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 06:06 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The officers are profiting from their scare campaign. You might look up "niggling".

It is not niggling. The officers are not profiting, they are being paid for their work.
You simply do not understand the difference between a business and a non-profit organization.
Okay then. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 06:32 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
Two things.

1 - The NRA represents gun makers, not gun owners.

2 - They pulled off the biggest coup in lobbying Congress to eliminated funding to the CDC in regards to studying gun violence.


So we're blinded and unable to make sound policy because we have little to no data to work with, while the gun makers profit on a fear driven market (big shooting are followed by a surge in sales). So the NRA can suck my dick and die in a fire. They and those they represent are profiting on the death of innocent people.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-06-2016, 06:44 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 06:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Two things.

1 - The NRA represents gun makers, not gun owners.

2 - They pulled off the biggest coup in lobbying Congress to eliminated funding to the CDC in regards to studying gun violence.


So we're blinded and unable to make sound policy because we have little to no data to work with, while the gun makers profit on a fear driven market (big shooting are followed by a surge in sales). So the NRA can suck my dick and die in a fire. They and those they represent are profiting on the death of innocent people.

You said it! And that is all there is to this.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 06:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Two things.

1 - The NRA represents gun makers, not gun owners.

It represents everyone in the firearms community - owners, dealers, and manufacturers. Why should they not?

Quote:2 - They pulled off the biggest coup in lobbying Congress to eliminated funding to the CDC in regards to studying gun violence.

Except they didn't, really. In 2013, Obama signed an executive order funding CDC firearms research with $10 million. They produced a report which included:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

"There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Quote:So we're blinded and unable to make sound policy because we have little to no data to work with, while the gun makers profit on a fear driven market (big shooting are followed by a surge in sales). So the NRA can suck my dick and die in a fire. They and those they represent are profiting on the death of innocent people.

Except we're not blinded.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
26-06-2016, 04:48 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 06:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Two things.

1 - The NRA represents gun makers, not gun owners.

It represents everyone in the firearms community - owners, dealers, and manufacturers. Why should they not?


Sure, they represent everyone. Except some people's interest are more equal than others. Like after Sandy Hook, when not only did the vast majority of citizens favor doing something, but also a majority of rank-and-file NRA members? Did they listen to the majority of their members? No. They carried the line of the weapon makers, who profit from increased domestic sales. Both in frightened citizens, and in the police forces that need to gear up and militarize for fear of them, which does nothing but put more energy into this feedback-loop of a domestic arms race that only benefits those who make weapons.

How come some interests are more important than others? Because the gun makers are the ones funding the NRA, so only their opinions matter. The NRA is a lobbying group for gun makers, who can get 2nd Amendment fetishist to do the leg work for them buy raising the boogeyman of Big Brother; ironic as they act like the Pigs in Animal Farm.


(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:2 - They pulled off the biggest coup in lobbying Congress to eliminated funding to the CDC in regards to studying gun violence.

Except they didn't, really. In 2013, Obama signed an executive order funding CDC firearms research with $10 million. They produced a report which included:

Yes, they did. Funding requiring a Presidential executive order is precisely because Congress did the NRA's (who represents the gun manufacturers over the desires of their members, because the manufacturers have the money) bidding. And we both know that 10 million is a pittance when it comes to federal spending, let alone for the CDC and the scope of their other programs.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”


This should surprise no one. However it doesn't answer the opportunity cost that comes with it. How many instances of 'lower injury' come at the cost of gun suicide, and both fatal and non-fatal accidents?



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”


Okay, stats from 2008. So that paltry 10 million really helped the CDC update their numbers, huh?



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”


Doesn't address the fact of just how terrifying it is that a single individual has the power to cause so much death and destruction in such little time. Combine that with open-carry laws, and now we're in a situation where you cannot tell if the guy with the AR-15 walking down the street is a spree killer until after people are dead.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”


Like I mentioned above, it makes you unable to tell if the guy with an AR-15 walking down the street is a spree killer until after people are dead.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  "There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”


That may be, but it's not our only option. 2005 numbers, again, how is that 10 million budget holding up?



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”


The black market. Wouldn't a better, more comprehensive, modern, and truly national gun registration program help to curtail this? How come we cannot get that even? People wanted it, even NRA members wanted it. But the gun manufactures didn't want it. That's why we cannot get it, and that's bullshit.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”


That sounds like an argument that gun assisted suicides are way too fucking high. Probably because they're quick, hard to fuck up, and guns are frighteningly easy to get.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:So we're blinded and unable to make sound policy because we have little to no data to work with, while the gun makers profit on a fear driven market (big shooting are followed by a surge in sales). So the NRA can suck my dick and die in a fire. They and those they represent are profiting on the death of innocent people.

Except we're not blinded.


You really didn't do much to counter that point.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
26-06-2016, 05:24 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
(26-06-2016 04:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  It represents everyone in the firearms community - owners, dealers, and manufacturers. Why should they not?


Sure, they represent everyone. Except some people's interest are more equal than others. Like after Sandy Hook, when not only did the vast majority of citizens favor doing something, but also a majority of rank-and-file NRA members? Did they listen to the majority of their members? No. They carried the line of the weapon makers, who profit from increased domestic sales. Both in frightened citizens, and in the police forces that need to gear up and militarize for fear of them, which does nothing but put more energy into this feedback-loop of a domestic arms race that only benefits those who make weapons.

How come some interests are more important than others? Because the gun makers are the ones funding the NRA, so only their opinions matter. The NRA is a lobbying group for gun makers, who can get 2nd Amendment fetishist to do the leg work for them buy raising the boogeyman of Big Brother; ironic as they act like the Pigs in Animal Farm.


(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except they didn't, really. In 2013, Obama signed an executive order funding CDC firearms research with $10 million. They produced a report which included:

Yes, they did. Funding requiring a Presidential executive order is precisely because Congress did the NRA's (who represents the gun manufacturers over the desires of their members, because the manufacturers have the money) bidding. And we both know that 10 million is a pittance when it comes to federal spending, let alone for the CDC and the scope of their other programs.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”


This should surprise no one. However it doesn't answer the opportunity cost that comes with it. How many instances of 'lower injury' come at the cost of gun suicide, and both fatal and non-fatal accidents?



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”


Okay, stats from 2008. So that paltry 10 million really helped the CDC update their numbers, huh?



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”


Doesn't address the fact of just how terrifying it is that a single individual has the power to cause so much death and destruction in such little time. Combine that with open-carry laws, and now we're in a situation where you cannot tell if the guy with the AR-15 walking down the street is a spree killer until after people are dead.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”


Like I mentioned above, it makes you unable to tell if the guy with an AR-15 walking down the street is a spree killer until after people are dead.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  "There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”


That may be, but it's not our only option. 2005 numbers, again, how is that 10 million budget holding up?



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”


The black market. Wouldn't a better, more comprehensive, modern, and truly national gun registration program help to curtail this? How come we cannot get that even? People wanted it, even NRA members wanted it. But the gun manufactures didn't want it. That's why we cannot get it, and that's bullshit.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”


That sounds like an argument that gun assisted suicides are way too fucking high. Probably because they're quick, hard to fuck up, and guns are frighteningly easy to get.



(25-06-2016 08:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except we're not blinded.


You really didn't do much to counter that point.

The quotes are not my words, they're from the CDC report.

As for NRA funding, I suggest you read this and this.

The NRA's tax returns show "From all these years combined, 73% of all NRA funding comes from membership dues and individual contributions, 9% comes from advertising, and 5% comes from organizational donations. The latter two figures are rounded up."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2016, 05:25 AM
RE: NRA has 2 speeds, sell more or do nothing.
And the "grey" contributions? Any accounting of them?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: