With the number of firearms currently in circulation exceeding that of every man, woman and child in the nation, I doubt that "garage guns" are a serious concern!
Last edited:
One By One, Companies Cut Ties With The NRA
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
- Status
With the number of firearms currently in circulation exceeding that of every man, woman and child in the nation, I doubt that "garage guns" are a serious concern!
glorydaz
Well-known member
***************************************************************************************
With the number of firearms in circulation exceeding the population, I doubt that "garage guns" are a serious concern!
:chuckle: True, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Anything that requires a solution also requires identifying the actual problem in the first place. Unfortunately, mass shootings are not talked about in proper perspective and the real problem is not identified. It's like the Black Lives Matter movement. I agree, but, isn't the real truth that all lives matter; not just black lives?
In 2016 roughly 40,000 people died in motor vehicle accidents. We do not place restrictions on the manufacturers to make cars go a maximum of 20 mph so that the fewest people possible are killed.
In other words, its not a firearms problem any more than it is an automobile problem. Taking another's life is a social issue; a deep cultural cancer that needs to be addressed at the root, not at the point of access to a weapon of choice. A few terrorists and 4 airplanes killed nearly 3000 people at 911. The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 people.
Its also problematic that public opinion is swayed by those who misrepresent statistics. Headlines are telling us that there have been 17 school shootings already this year.
U.S. NEWS
17 school shootings in 45 days — Florida massacre is one of many tragedies in 2018
- The attack on Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is the 17th school shooting in the U.S. within the first 45 days of 2018.
But that is a complete misrepresentation. Fake stats make finding a solution even harder because it falsely suggests there is an epidemic. One of the instances claimed to be a school shooting involved a suicidal man who killed himself outside a school that had been closed for the better part of a year. The real total is more like 3 (which, I agree, is 3 too many).
The common denominator is not the method of choice; it's the choice itself. Its the complicated result of the erosion of morality because of the systematic dismantling of personal responsibility at nearly every level. As a society we have sown seeds of false freedom that are now sprouting violence all around us.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:first:
Well, let's take a look...
There is this:
Up to 2014, the data indicate that schools are becoming safer, not more dangerous.
There is, by now, a familiar script to it all: A mass public shooting, followed by waves of grief and outrage, then calls for gun control on the one hand and harrumphing about politicizing tragedies on the other. The news stories and statements by political leaders write themselves, with only the location, name of the shooter and number of casualties changing. It all seems so routine.
But this perception isn’t because of some unprecedented rise in the rate of mass public shootings—far from it. They’re roughly as common now as they were in the 1980s and ’90s. And the data offer a stark finding: Over the past decade, mass public shootings haven’t become particularly more prevalent, they’ve simply become deadlier
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...hootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678
Shooters are going in with better weapons, larger magazines, and with weapons that cause a great deal more damage from each round. That's what makes mass shooters more effective.
On the whole, schools are safer than they were even a few decades ago. But when there is an incident, it kills more people. In loss prevention terms, the frequency is down and severity is up. It requires a different approach. For example, arming teachers is a foolish move because school shootings are so rare that accidents pose a larger threat, assuming a significant number of teachers were armed. (Edit: more police would be effective, since they presumably are much better trained and practiced in handling firearms, but a cost/benefit analysis would likely show that they could save more lives in other applications.)
Rather, the approach should be to reduce severity by limiting the ability of one person to kill many people in one attack.
Last edited:
The NRA, once supportive of laws keeping guns from criminals and the mentally-ill, has now completely abandoned any pretense at desiring anything more than higher profits for gun makers. Those NRA members who do care about the 2nd Amendment need to bring the leaders of the NRA under control, or the backlash will continue. Enough people are now disgusted with the organization that businesses see less damage from breaking ties with the NRA than there is in angering the gun makers.
DavidK
New member
Wait a second, though. I've thought this is a pretty good parallel myself in thinking about gun legislation. Guns and vehicles are both powerful tools that become deadly in the hands of the incompetent or violent.
Legally operating a vehicle requires demonstrating basic competency and maintaining an operating license and registration for each vehicle. Why isn't this model applied to firearms?
Extraordinary vehicles like semis, construction vehicles, require additional training and licensing. You used an absurd max 20 mph to make your point, but there are restrictions as vehicles become more complicated and potentially deadly. Why not the same with more powerful, faster shooting guns?
Vehicles are thoroughly tracked to the point where I can do a VIN search over the internet. But gun records are kept by the seller and only fall into the government's hands if the seller goes out of business and even those are filed in a big warehouse where they are mandated by law not to be entered into a computer database.
Vehicles do kill more people than firearms. But trying to equate firearm and vehicle regulation leads to an argument for more firearm regulation, not less.
Yep. But no one ever accused the NRA or it's minions of being rational.
Well, "heaven" probably isn't what you think it is for these guys.
Southland corporation is owned by Seven-Eleven Japan Co, Ltd, located in Tokyo.
Which is not generally known, outside financial circles.
1.What a mess. Oh-I did not know that "Southland corporation is owned by Seven-Eleven Japan Co, Ltd, located in Tokyo."
2. You missed the point, as usual. Ban the add campaign, due to reference to "heaven." You're bias, Captain Kangaroo, is turning your mind into mush.
Professor John W Kingsfield
Yeah, I realized that. But I was making a joke. (Barbarian checks)
Ah, I forgot my Warning For The Humor-Impaired. My bad. No wonder you missed the point.
Why does a reference to heaven bother you, even if it's a Japanese company with a different notion of heaven? And shouldn't the market determine whether or not it's a bad idea for them to do so?
No, I'm Barbarian. But you got two letters right.
Haven't watched him in about 58 years. Where do you even find that programming, now?
"Hostility is a weapon only in the hands of your opponent." Kee Lo Nee
Last edited:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Now there is a very well thought out question about this analogy! Good question.
I am going to let someone who knows more about it answer you properly but I will say this:
If registering firearms would lead to safety, that would be a good thing. The problem is that registering automobiles has not led to saving lives, so why would we think registering firearms would?
Registering automobiles is just a way of creating a paper trail (bureaucracy) and taking money from people. It adds organization but it does not add to road safety. In fact, if you want to make the roads safer, why not register cell phones, because distracted driving is killing people. Oh wait, how would registering cell phones...well, you get the idea. It's not about the things that can kill; it's about the attitudes of people. That is where we have to concentrate our efforts.
The biggest offenders are the ones who glorify death and violence, call it entertainment, desensitize us to it, and bring it into our homes as games, sports and TV. And then they attend the Oscars and tell everybody how awful it is, to rounds of applause. What a sham! If the people want to rise up in horror over increasing violence, let them do it where it will do the most good, by not allowing their homes to be places where children learn that violence is fun.
Can you imagine having a police force without guns? Our principle of safety is to put guns in the hands of these good people dedicated to our safety. In fact, the more deadly force in the hands of good people, the safer we are. But what you are talking about is not registration, its restriction. Restricting good people is the opposite of a good answer.
No other modern democracy allows its citizens virtually unlimited access to handguns and semiautomatic weapons - yet all are fully functioning democracies!
Canada, with which America shares 5250 miles of open border, has had 150 years to observe the merits of the "right to bear arms" up close - it has long since concluded that the "cons" far outweigh the "pros!"
The NRA will get new companies who care about the Constitution. Not a problem.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
The weapon of choice for most mass shooters isn't hunting rifles and/or handguns - its assault style semiautomatic rifles!
Hunting rifles and handguns don't provide one disturbed individual with the firepower to kill 58 innocent Americans and wound over 500!
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Its always easier to predict a "rosy" future, rather than address the cruel realities of the present!
- Status