Firearms and Freedom

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Feb 24, 2016.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not going to go through your posting in detail, but as a driveby note this:
    1) All those graphs and illustrations correlate geography and demographics with gun violence better than they do gun laws. This would be especially clear if the homicide data were not graphed by State, which is immediately misleading.
    2) The rating of the gun laws is subjective - it's not actually a bit more difficult to buy a gun in Minnesota than it is in South Dakota, for example, concealed carry permits are "shall issue" with minimal fees or requirements in Minnesota, and so forth. So the Slate gun law ratings that are one entire axis appear to be - how to put it - subjective. And the scale they are plotted on is wholly imaginary. This affects the appearance of the graph.
    3) Most of the gun laws they are ascribing effectiveness to are recent, but the comparative gun violence rankings have not changed much for decades. Absent a mechanism, that invalidates the correlation (what has actually been graphed would then be more likely a correlation between lack of gun ownership or violence and willingness to pass gun ownership restrictions)
    4) Since gun violence rates have been generally falling ever since about twelve years after leaded gasoline was banned in the US, pretty much everywhere, what we would need as evidence of US gun restriction effectiveness would be a visible break in the trend line after passage. But they don't even consider time.
    5) Gun access is not graphed - so any connection between gun prevalence/access and gun violence is not reliably visible in those graphs.
    6) And so forth.

    So, as mentioned, these numbers and so forth are fine as far as they go, but they don't say what you want them to say.

    And it's not just me - a couple of these points I am making are also found in, for example, the third link there, which also includes this factoid:
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    they are.
    they also want my unicorn... but i have her hidden

    posting a study from a university who can't access the relevant information because it isn't there is like...?

    if you had all the information we wouldn't be having this conversation
    you would be king of the US

    1- i would also ask (and ask for proof of) their intent. if it was intentional. if it was accidental. if it was negligent homicide. if it was caused by another person. facts are important in that kind of case, just like all cases

    2- that is also a bad analogy ... you see, you do not have the right to drive a car in the US. it is a privilege, and that is why it is licensed by the state. you have the right to freedom of movement, access to public roads, access to public areas, and more... but driving is a privilege, not a right at all

    but yes, i do advocate for the removal of a license for mowing down people because the law specifically states that it is illegal, thus a weapon
    however, i don't advocate for the removal of the license because the car was a tool...
    i would advocate the removal of the license because of the intent, nature of the crime (if any) and the individual culpability in said crime

    yes, and there are strict laws that govern gun use and ownership too (actual application of said laws depends upon the prosecutors office etc)

    hospitals also have strict laws and regulatory mechanisms, just like guns... in fact, far, far stricter than guns

    as for your fallacy link: if it aint to relevant statistics from the above links (last post), then it is a biased interpretation


    if you want, i can include them... of course, you would also have to include the cultural foods they use to feed with too, as it is common and always relevant , so...
    except that the science in said facts and figures (and in your links, etc) are also severely lacking in a lot of detail and information that i know isn't collected...

    go ahead, read the links i left and learn what is collected where... even within a state the data collected is not the same depending on the org collecting the data, so again, if you would read the source material you would understand what the problem is

    not moving any goal post
    haven't changed the argument at all, in fact
    reported crime
    don't forget that important qualifier to your point
    and don't forget my point that crime is a part of the culture - so there is a lot of "crime" that is technically a crime (by law) that isn't a crime (by culture) or reported as such, like beating the heck out of a stalker

    but that is still not important because the culture is completely different... which is the point!
    comparing subaru to Bud-K again
    wait... you want to argue about taking away the 2nd amendment but you can't take 2 minutes to actually read what it is or it's basic history and why it was put in the constitution?

    i expected a little better considering you are digging up irrelevant biased sites to prove your point while forgetting the major points i made about the fact that the bulk of the relevant data is either not there, not divided up or reported at all, different, not standardized or just plain not reported to the national statistics database
    yeah... read my lines directly above this quote

    you mean like the UCR?

    yeah... if only i had thought of that
    oh wait... i linked it above

    lets look at something important on that very page though
    did you know that the UCR submissions differed from the local databases?
    that is why it says "The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual agencies"... because the local agancies will be using a different method, reporting, statistical analysis and more... likely with more data to differentiate crimes and concentrate on "hot spots" or local problems due to special needs, etc...

    now do you see the problem?
    now do you get what i am saying about not having all the information?

    important note and qualifier: when researching national statistics, you must, absolutely must, have and use multiple databases to cover all the potential issues and problems that may be reported incorrectly, falsely, not reported in all databases or simply just misfiled etc.

    not all databases will have all the info either, and no single database can be definitive or the single source of information because of reporting practices and things like HIPA which may not even be covered even with the NIH or CDC databases.

    Also note, not all databases will cover all places for all years either, so you must be very methodical to unsure your comparisons include all the same info, relevant areas, dates times and crimes as well as conform to the same criteria which may or may not be included in the information which will also require research and public arrest records and necessitate checking facts.

    almost forgot... you should also use the Census information collected for population and other factors etc

    (see the problem now?)
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Only an American (Iceaura) could say this:-
    "I don't think a citizen is - or should be - required to demonstrate "proficiency" [with a gun] to an agent of the government before being allowed to exercise any Constitutional right,..."
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    And you keep missing the point that they, like pretty much other developed countries, have managed to reduce gun violence with gun laws. Or did that fact simply escape you as you went documentary searching for the Yakuza?

    You keep thinking you are different to everyone else, but in reality, you aren't. And even when comparisons are made within the US itself, you still can't bring yourself to recognise the facts. Instead, you go on these weird spiels about the lack of facts and figures, despite facts and figures being provided to you.

    You even go so far as to claim they don't even exist, despite clear evidence that you are wrong.

    And what belief is that?

    That forms of gun control works in every other country? Oh how dare I point out the facts about that.... Shame on me.

    No, really, your argument is now laughable.

    Are you seriously now suggesting that the dramatic decrease in gun violence in countries with gun control is not legitimate? Your argument is as ridiculous as the NRA's more guns means less crimes despite the fact that your crime rate is through the roof and you all have more guns than any other country.

    Oh so now you want to look at Government sites?

    Weren't you the one complaining about Government bias and exhibiting what can only be sheer paranoia about the Government in your previous posts?

    Let's have a look at some of the facts from the CDC and gun violence when it comes to children and their comparison between the US and other industrialised nations back in 1997:

    A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24).

    The rate for firearm-related deaths among children in the United States (1.66) was 2.7-fold greater than that in the country with the next highest rate (Finland, 0.62) (Figure_1). Except for rates for firearm-related suicide in Northern Ireland and firearm-related fatalities of unknown intent in Austria, Belgium, and Israel, rates for all types of firearm-related deaths were higher in the United States than in the other countries. However, among all other countries, the impact of firearm-related deaths varied substantially. For example, five countries, including three of the four countries in Asia, reported no firearm-related deaths among children. In comparison, firearms were the primary cause of homicide in Finland, Israel, Australia, Italy, Germany, and England and Wales. Five countries (Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Taiwan) reported only unintentional firearm-related deaths.

    How about the Bureau of Justice statistics?

    • Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
    • From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.

    And this is despite a general decline over those years in gun violence.

    Between 1993 and 2001 victims were confronted by offenders armed with guns in about 27% of robberies, 8% of assaults, and 3% of all rapes/sexual assaults (table 2). U.S. residents were victims of crimes committed with firearms at a annual average rate of 4 crimes per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Of the average 847,000 violent victimizations committed with firearms, about 7 out of 8 were committed with handguns.

    Are you sure these are the statistics you want discussed in this thread?

    But lets look at a few states that have more gun control measures and see how they measure up with States that have less gun laws and/or more guns.

    Let's compare Arizona and Massachusetts. The reason I picked these two is because one has gun control laws in effect and the other one does not and most importantly, they are very close population wise.

    Massachusetts has some gun laws and gun restriction in effect. Looking at handguns for examples, Arizona has pretty much no restrictions in place, not even a requirement for background checks, whereas Massachusetts requires background checks and permits to purchase.

    So what does the FBI data provide in regards to murders committed with weapons - by which I mean firearms...?

    Arizona.. Total murders 304. Firearms used in murders - 184. Handguns used 133. Rifles and shotguns, 11 times respectively. Unknown types of firearms - 29 times.

    Massachusetts.. Total murders 135. Firearms used in murders 78 times. Handguns used 35 times. Rifles and shotguns - 2 and 0 respectively. Unknown types of firearms 41.

    Now, supposedly, there shouldn't be much difference between the two because the line peddled is that gun control does not work. Can you please explain why one state with the most basic forms of gun control and a similar sized population can have so few gun related murders compared to a state that has little to none gun control laws and restrictions?
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  9. Bells Staff Member

    Funny you should mention knives, etc..

    Massachusetts has laws in place for carrying switchblades and knives (for example, the blade must not exceed 1.5"). Arizona has no such regulation in place. And what do you know, Arizona has more murders and deaths by knives than Massachusetts which has laws and regulations in place on carrying knives.

    So what does that tell you about the difference in numbers when it comes to forms of control?

    Or are you now going to run with the argument that the people in Arizona are simply dumber than those in Massachusetts?

    Which begs the question, why does a State that has such a much lower IQ rate not implement forms of gun control when one considers the role education plays in preventing crime?
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Maybe, the Arizona legislators are a tad less arrogant.
    Freedom ain't free, and it does come with some risks.
    Would you rather live your life in a cage all safe and warm, or risk freedom?
    Bowser likes this.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Well, let's see.

    Because of the gun control laws here, my children cannot even understand the concept of a mass shooting. It is completely foreign to them. Why? Because Australia has not had a mass shooting in their lifetime.

    Compare their freedom and the freedom of children in the States. How many school shootings have there been in the last year? Over 50 at least?

    Do you know how many school shootings there have been in Australia in 2015? None. Not one.

    Who do you think is more free? My kids don't live in fear of a mass shooter or school shooter. Why? Because there hasn't been either in their lifetime. Can you say the same thing about kids in the US?
  12. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    nope. sorry... they did it with their culture, not laws. if the gun laws were effectively enforced, no Yakuza would own a gun. Most Yakuza are well known to the law enforcement and they also know how to spot the ones who aren't known (as noted in the documentary). Plus, one of the more telling indicators (again, as noted in the documentary) is their markings (tats) though that is changing slowly. even the gov't knows that simple monitoring of the private bath house would finger most Yakuza (because it is illegal to bathe in a public house with tat's - again, noted in the documentary)

    so, as i stated: you're comparing Spaghetti to Methodist and extrapolating fork from it
    please note that i provided you with the only sources of those "facts and figures" that are available for the US statistics
    also note that the databases themselves tell you that not all data is reported... shall i remind you of that again?
    lets see for ourself
    so, the UCR doesn't collect all the data... (there are other differences too if you read the fine print - which you didn't, apparently)
    So NIBRS is the most recent detailed report, but you can see that it has changed and also doesn't include all the data
    it is one of the reporting methods the UCR is based upon
    also note the implementation dates, changes etc, which, again, indicate that not all data from past statistics has the same level of accuracy or reliability as current reports, etc
    (read the fine print)

    point is: as i keep trying to tell you - just because you see numbers doesn't mean it is a fully accurate representation of the situation becuase there is a lot of changes made in the NIBRS/UCR as well as other databases as we try to refine the data to insure a more clear picture of reality
    any older stats will be misleading (check your stats on those articles linked - check all dates, etc)

    no. that you can believe what you want as long as you have a means to justify your personal belief
    you believe that gun control works because you don't understand the cultural impacts or other factors in places like Japan
    again, it's like comparing a Maserati to a unicycle and saying "the unicycle has a tire and with a professional user corners far more sharply and able than a Maserati, therefore the Maserati is worthless as a means of transportation"

    it is the only true reporting source for statistics on gun crime or reporting in the US... which, as noted on their own sites, is also limited
    but don't let that fine print bother you with details
    with a touch of sarcasm, mind you... thought that unicorn comment might have supported that
    but you may be referring to the comment about the reasons for the 2nd... that is simply fact. it is there to protect against Tyranny just as much to insure your fundamental right to protection.
    yes, when you learn about the reporting methods, flaws and you don't just ignore the actual problem with just grabbing random sections and comparing them without study... like your post above

    read those quotes you gave... like this:
    now re-read what i wrote about not having all the data and the quotes like
    [emphasis mine - capt]

    so, reporting during 1993 - 2001 is not as accurate as the newly mandated 2011 stats
    hmm.... i wonder where i read that already?

    but apparently that isn't important to you because you want to strongly believe that guns are bad... so you post any biased reporting that supports your own conclusions, even when the reporting sites themselves tell you things like this
    this means, by definition, that it isn't mandatory, correct?
    think on that for a second! what can that mean? can it mean that not all agencies actually report their data and information?
    ... but lets continue with more
    now why would they say that, i wonder?
    maybe because...
    you mean, you can't just quote random sections or statistics on the site and have an accurate representation of the facts?
    wow... where did i read that on this thread?
    Oh! right! i've been saying that to you above!

    what i think i should have said is "The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual agencies."
    Oh, wait... i quoted it from the statistics database site that is providing the numbers for your above stats! wow...
    get it yet?

    now, just for your information, i would like to know the truth. but as i pointed out, you can't get a realistic image of what is going on when the data is either not there to see or it is not mandatory for all reporting agencies. that makes a big difference in what is seen... would you start a database on star formation but completely ignore and leave out all super-massive stars because there just aren't enough to make a difference? Would you leave out observed phenomenon from the Helio-seismology studies on our sun because they're not representative of every star in the universe because our star is not the same as every star?

    statistics are great and can tell a story... but only when you have the necessary data to actually make an informed decision
    otherwise you're pissing into a fan and telling yourself that it's rain

    see what i just wrote about that and the actual disclaimers on the databases where the stat's come from, please

    also note, the cultural aspect in the US differs from place to place and it is not homogeneous

    in the US there are varying degree's of how strictly or if at all a (any) cultural aspect will be adhered to by said followers, unlike a nation or society of xenophobic strict adherents of a mostly homogeneous culture like, say... Japan.

    those simple considerations can alter the stat's in areas by a great amount at times. imagine comparing Chinatown to, say, South Miami ... telling point WRT culture and aspects talked about above
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    You are comparing apples and oranges.
    This country is much more warlike than down under.
    From the top to the bottom and back up again.
    How many troops did Australia put in Iraq, or Afghanistan?
    How many bombs have you dropped on other countries recently?

    How can you expect the USA to be like Australia? I assure you that we do not expect you to be like us.
    Australia is a quiet little back water while we are riding a wild river to a storm filled ocean.
    And, damn the piddling tourist dollars, I ain't selling my rights for a string of glass beads.
    Truck Captain Stumpy and Dr_Toad like this.
  14. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    i don't care who you that is funny!
    ... considering the history of the US and all

    sculptor likes this.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I fail to see how restating this aspect of the problem serves any useful purpose at this point.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    What you really want is to change this countries policies and culture?
    Really, what I want to.
    I want a commander in chief who will order the troops back home, and have the balls to take on the mic.

    Is the "commander in chief" really in charge?
    Or is he a well compensated prisoner of the Military Industrial Complex(mic)?
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2016
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Likewise my childhood, which was passed amid a plethora of firearms and no such gun laws at all.

    Too bad about the Scandinavians, Irish, Russians, Germans, Brits, Mexicans, Indonesians, every single country-ans in South and Central America, and so forth. But happy happy Chinese, Cambodians, Burmese, Saudi Arabians, Tibetans, and the like. Law and order is always best for children.

    Or maybe scratch the Indonesians - usually machetes and the like, not guns, iirc.

    Your studies still do not say what you want them to say.


    Take that under consideration. It's important. I doubt that all non-Americans are in fact that universally benighted, but apparently many are. We wish them luck - it is possible to be lucky, in this world, even in one's government.

    Keep in mind that the American government is not as nice as some - for example, we had slavery in this country, seriously, until about 1965, and so forth. We don't trust our government for very good reason.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Regulations and Costumes..

    As the NRA battles to ensure that there are no regulations to purchase a gun, the same cannot be said for buying or renting the costume of their mascot, Eddie the Eagle.

    Full Frontal host Samantha Bee had a dream: to buy the costume for the NRA's gun safety mascot, Eddie Eagle.

    But it turns out the NRA has all sorts of restrictions on getting the outfit. The group requires an 18-page application. There are rules around what you can do in the costume — for example, no driving or drinking. There's even a national registry that tracks Eddie Eagle costumes around the country. At one point, Bee started a fake gun safety training group — and was told only law enforcement can buy the costume.

    To make matters worse, there is also a 20 day waiting period before one can acquire the costume. That's right. 20 days.

    The application forms details a list of rules and regulations about the costume itself, from not being allowed to drive in the costume, to not being allowed to drink while wearing the costume because Eddie the Eagle does not drink alcohol. Eddie the Eagle is also not allowed to enter or become involved in dangerous situations. Better yet, the costume cannot be sold or rented once acquired because the NRA banned the reselling of the costume.. The NRA also has a national database, where they keep track of each costume. Because you know, a giant eagle costume has to be tracked so carefully. The same organisation that set up these rules for a mascot costume, has demanded that guns be placed within reach of children in schools and homes. In fact, they have attacked laws that require that guns must be kept securely and away from children.

    But what about their mascot's costume? Oh hell no!

    • The Eddie Eagle costume must always be stored in a secure area, inaccessible to the general public. Any loss must be immediately and formally reported to local law enforcement and to the NRA.
    • Only participants in a law enforcement program may use an Eddie Eagle costume.

    At each point where attempts were made to purchase or obtain an Eddie the Eagle costume, Bee and her producers tried to purchase a gun. In New Mexico, for example:

    Compare that with the relatively simple task of acquiring a gun, whether online, at your run-of-the-mill gun shop, or at a gun show in New Mexico:

    "Are you a felon?" one gun own seller in New Mexico asked a Full Frontal producer.

    "No," she replied.


    Another gun secured! As the episode went on, Bee and her team were able to add to their arsenal with frightening ease, all while being repeatedly denied an elusive Eddie Eagle costume.

    One was purchased online, from the back of a guy's car in a public car park. Others in gun shops and at gun shows.

    And certainly, this was a skit. But it does mirror reality in a terrifying way.

    To put it simply, it is easier to purchase a gun than it is to purchase an NRA mascot costume.

    Because this is sane, yes? This is how it's meant to be?

    Now, imagine if the rules they have for their mascot's costume, was applied to guns?

    A detailed application form. A 20 day waiting period as they run background checks. Keeping guns means having to keep it in a secure location, and not accessible to others. Its loss must be immediately and formally reported to the police.

    But no. Oh no. No such regulations must exist for guns. But for a costume of a mascot?

    If it wasn't so insane, it would be funny. If tens of thousands of people weren't dying from gunshots every year, this would be a comedy show.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I am lost for words.
    What is that real big word starting with "h" that would describe what we have here?
    Well make it a capital "H".

  20. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    first of all, the NRA doesn't battle against all regulations to purchase a gun, otherwise there wouldn't be existing laws that require background checks etc...

    secondly, as the NRA own the trademark and copyright for Eddie Eagle GunSafe® program, they have the legal right to control the public distribution of said image - you know, like the college teams owning the mascots... so that argument is pure unadulterated horse-hockey as it is no different than any other controlled owned image, trademarked or copyright object

    as the Eagle is well known and known to be associated with an entire organization (NRA), then it stands to reason they want to protect the image of said organization

    so, are you going to petition the NFL, NBA or all the colleges of the world for their similar protection of copyright or trademarked material?

    considering your above argument, that is the only thing you can do without being a .... how was it put....
    yeah... good point... so, are you both going to argue against the NBA, etc????

    after all, if you don't that would make you the "capital "H" " yourself, right?

    so are you going to also advocate for the banning of cars?
    the problem isn't going to be mediated with more laws that aren't enforced... we already have good laws that work, they're just not enforced (as i keep trying to point out)

    the problem isn't the tool, it's the user. (IOW- fund and correct the violence problem, not the tool which can be used to mitigate said violence)

    If you're going to go after the tool rather than the core problem, then here are more suggestions:
    Trains can be lethal to pedestrians, users as well as innocent bystanders...
    Screwdrivers and Hammers have been proven to be lethal...
    Hospitals are implicated in far, far more deaths yearly by malpractice alone...
    Swimming pools (or any body of water) can be lethal...
    any hard blunt object is a weapon and can be used lethally (so can flexible objects, come to think of it)
    Water has been implicated in most drownings, and is also known to be consumed by 100% of all criminals, convicted or otherwise...
    Flying can be lethal considering the implications of in-air problems...

    but that's not all...lets stop other problems with the same tactic! using your logic, we should ban:
    writing utensils for spelling errors
    eating or cooking utensils for obesity
    cars for drunk driving
    prisons for incarcerating people and holding them against their will
    cops for the death of criminals caught i the act of felonious or other dangerous potentially lethal activity
    firefighters for always mysteriously showing up at every fire
    Doctors and medical professionals for the high death rates surrounding their "practice"

    [sarc/hyperbole intended]
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Of course it is clear it is a matter of protection of image trade mark etc I understand that but it just seems foolish.

    You seem to have a complex problem and all I can offer is my hope that somehow things improve whatever that may mean.

  22. Bells Staff Member


    And yet, they spend so much of their time challenging any laws or regulations that most people would consider sane. But hey, we are going to focus on the word "all" and just ignore the flame that's causing all that smoke.

    I have to say, of all the excuses I've heard for the NRA, yours is particularly amusing.

    Oh, of course. Of course!

    I mean those costumes are so vitally important. Much much more important than the 30,000+ lives lost each year to the guns they demand everyone has access to, guns they want in classrooms and homes, they even argue against laws that require that guns be kept securely away from children.

    I get you, TCS. Protecting that costume is important. It is an issue of copyright, after all.

    Heaven forbid the costume gets into the wrong hands. Like the hands of a child, for example. The damage that costume could do. That's why it needs to have the 20 day waiting period, background checks, registration of the costume in a databank, requirements about how it is to be stored and transported, requirements that who ever is wearing it not drink alcohol or consume drugs, and the like.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh I believe you, truly.

    I don't know.

    Do these organisations petition for and fight against every measure of gun control policies and laws, even laws that require a waiting period of a few days, laws and regulations and policies that require background checks, registration of the firearms in a databank, laws and policies about how guns are stored and transported, for a start?

    The NRA support policies and regulations about a costume, but when it comes to an object that kills tens of thousands of people every year, they fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to impose the very same rules they have for a costume, on guns..

    Perhaps I was not clear enough. Perhaps you kind of missed the whole point of the post. Perhaps you truly are blind to irony..

    You mean cars that require people to pass a driving test, obtain a driver's license that has to be renewed constantly? Cars that require safety laws be complied with for their usage, that have strict laws about how they are used and by whom? You do realise the fallacy of your argument, yes?

    Are you aware that within a year or two, guns will kill more people than cars?

    And the rules and regulations will target the user of guns..

    You do understand this, yes?

    So imagine if the NRA supported the rules they have for their costume, if said same rules were applied to who can use or obtain guns. In other words, the "user".. Understand now?
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Let the excuses begin!

    The whole object of the exercise was to point out that an organisation that supports guns and its usage and availability to all, even convicted felons (even murderers and rapists) and people who are domestic abusers and children, are more concerned about their costume than they are for the guns they demand be available without any form of checks, registration, waiting period, background checks, safe storage requirements.. Once again, irony escapes you, doesn't it? The hypocrisy escapes you completely?

    You see, the NRA backs programs and laws that would allow convicted felons, murderers and rapists and the like, even those who shoot at and injure police officers, to regain their ability to legally purchase firearms through a relief from disability program. As a result, dangerous felons are able to apply for relief, to be able to obtain their firearms again. In some States, this becomes automatic, they don't even have to appear before a judge or even be questioned first.

    Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a certain amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may petition to have their firearms rights restored in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that specifically confer gun privileges.

    Thank you NRA!

    In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr. Zettergren’s girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr. Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.

    Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave. After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson’s hysterical fiancée, at gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.

    It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a judge’s ruling two months before, it would probably never have happened.

    For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous. Yet Mr. Zettergren’s gun rights were restored without even a hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application as long as certain basic requirements had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for safekeeping.

    “If he hadn’t had his rights restored, in this particular instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other person,” said Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in Whitman County, who handled the murder case.

    Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.


    The Times analyzed data from Washington State, where Mr. Zettergren had his gun rights restored. The most serious felons are barred, but otherwise judges have no discretion to reject the petitions, as long as the applicant fulfills certain criteria. (In 2003, a state appeals court panel stated that a petitioner “had no burden to show that he is safe to own or possess guns.”)

    Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in the state — 430 in 2010 alone — according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system. Of that number, more than 400 — about 13 percent — have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.


    When Senator David F. Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican, realized after the law passed that thousands of felons, including those convicted of violent crimes, in his state would suddenly be getting their gun rights back, he sought the N.R.A.’s help in rolling back the provision. Doug Kelley, his chief of staff at the time, thought the group would “surely want to close this loophole.”

    But the senator, Mr. Kelley recalled, “ran into a stone wall,” as the N.R.A. threatened to pull its support for him if he did not drop the matter, which he eventually did.

    “The N.R.A. slammed the door on us,” Mr. Kelley said. “That absolutely baffled me.”

    Zettergren was legally able to obtain his guns in 2004. He was even able to obtain a concealed carry license for one handgun. The very same handgun he used to murder someone a short time later. His friends were shocked his gun rights were restored, because it was well known that he was suffering from mental problems and was receiving disability payments for said mental illness and they felt he was dangerous. But he used his disability due to mental illness to allow him to obtain his gun rights back.. The very program the NRA supports.. And the friends and family were correct. Because he went on to murder someone with the guns that were legally restored to him.

    Now, if only the NRA supported the same rules and restrictions for guns, as they have for their costume.

    But please, continue to ignore the actual point some more. It only makes the point of the problem that much more obvious.

Share This Page