Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nakura on February 09, 2014, 08:47:30 pm
-
I am tired of working dead-end minimum wage (or close to it) jobs, while only being able to go to college part-time (2-3 classes a semester). This is to say nothing for my strong desire to fight for civil liberties and protect our constitutional rights, something which I'm sure many on this forum have noticed. What you're probably thinking is what I could bring to the table and what my qualifications are?
Let me start by saying that I have been a volunteer for the National Rifle Association for over a year, through their Frontlines program. With that being said, however, there hasn't been much activity with the Missouri branch of the organization, as our Second Amendment (and Article I, Section 23 rights under the Missouri Constitution) rights are fairly well respected in Missouri. In addition to being a Frontlines member, I have spent years studying gun laws and violent crime statistics, from both the United States and the world.
I have engaged in regular dialogue with my representatives and have even received phone calls from Senator Roy Blunt's aides, where we discussed the proposals for national concealed carry reciprocity; in fact, I even pointed out some potential flaws in the bill that could have backfired, namely in dealing with states which don't require a license to concealed carry, and how some of the wording of the proposed bill could have backfired on those states. Outside of gun rights work, I have letters of recommendation from my previous employers and charities I have volunteered for; plus I could probably get one from my college, given all of the volunteer work I've done for the college.
I really think that I could bring a different perspective to the National Rifle Association. I have done something that seemingly nobody else has done, in that I have analyzed laws and crime statistics within dozens of countries and analyzed the affects that those laws have had (both positive and negative) within that country. This data is incredibly valuable when defending gun rights, as the data from both other countries and the United States largely supports the National Rifle Association's position. I would be an invaluable asset in arming the NRA's civil liberties debaters, lawyers and journalists with facts from a unique perspective. While my formal writing skills could use slight improvement, I am a fairly proficient when it comes to writing.
In addition, I hope to bring a new mission to the National Rifle Association, and indeed to the United States, and that is to promote the right to bear arms around the world. We could start by working with people in other countries to form NRA branches in other countries. We also need to distance the gun rights movement from people like Alex Jones and Ted Nugent, as these people are generally perceived to be crazy (and rightly so) and they make the gun rights movement look bad. I'd even go a step further and remove the whole "left-right" dynamic of gun rights. I wrote an essay two years ago about how the National Rifle Association has been moving further to the right, and I'm not just talking about rhetoric; I am talking about campaign endorsements and donations. The NRA had previously been much more non-partisan and had send a great deal of aid to pro-gun rights Democrats, however this aid has seen a decline over the past few years.
I don't believe the NRA should to become a wing of the Republican Party. I believe the NRA should stand for our civil liberties, namely our right to bear arms, and remain non-partisan. Besides, I think we can all accept that the Republican Party (in it's current form at least) is dying, whereas the gun rights movement is coming out on top; but what good are all of the victories and public support that we have today, if we latch ourselves onto this sinking husk (the GOP) and go down with them a few decades from now? Would all of our accomplishments have been for nothing?
I believe the NRA should transform into a force to an entity that uses empirical data to completely end the gun control debate in America (and eventually the world) once in for all. Rather than focusing on winning victories against anti-gun opponents, we should focus on winning over our opponents. While many of our opponents are too far gone and oppose guns for purely emotional reasons (like Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg), I believe that most anti-Second Amendment people are merely misinformed and misguided; largely because our political/societal system promotes polarization (and hive-mind behavior) and suppresses independent thinking, but that's another topic altogether.
Anyway, I think I've gotten a bit too off-topic here. What I would like to do is work for the National Rifle Association, in any capacity, as a paid staff member. Right now I can't even afford to become a NRA member or even go to college full time. My parents make too much money for me to qualify for financial aid, but not enough money to fully fund my college education. I really want to work for the NRA and I definitely need more money to pay for college, despite working two jobs. I know that he NRA cares about their people and would do good for me, as I would do good for them, so it would be mutually beneficial. If anyone has any idea as to how I could fulfill this goal of mine, please give any advice or recommendations that you might have, I could really use it.
-
tl;dr:
f anyone has any idea as to how I could fulfill this goal of mine, please give any advice or recommendations that you might have, I could really use it.
I would suggest you get in touch with anyone you've volunteered with in the NRA already and ask them. HLP, suffice to say, is not your local NRA recruitment station.
e: also your university career center should have some general employment information, too.
-
Write this post, except to the NRA.
-
tl;dr:
f anyone has any idea as to how I could fulfill this goal of mine, please give any advice or recommendations that you might have, I could really use it.
I would suggest you get in touch with anyone you've volunteered with in the NRA already and ask them. HLP, suffice to say, is not your local NRA recruitment station.
That would be great, but my local Frontlines branch doesn't even have meetings or anything. It's basically a completely useless organization that basically sends members their bi-weekly newsletter regarding the gun rights movement. They don't actually do anything, which is somewhat disappointing. When I signed up to volunteer, I thought that I would be going to meetings and making connections, but that didn't exactly happen. We should be out educating and reaching new audience, I'd even go so far as to reach out to groups that have traditionally voted for Democrats (such as the LGBT community and blacks). Preaching to the choir might get you more money, but those people already believe in your agenda, perhaps we should reach out to those who don't?
-
Write this post, except to the NRA.
And probably take out some of the "my vision of what the NRA should be" kind of stuff? As much as I might hate to admit it, those in charge of the National Rifle Association probably don't share my views on what the NRA should be and would likely view me as a threat.
-
Before you sign up, remember that the NRA isn't actually that interested in the gun owning public. They get most of their cash from the gun making companies and it's there that their true loyalties lie.
-
Before you sign up, remember that the NRA isn't actually that interested in the gun owning public. They get most of their cash from the gun making companies and it's there that their true loyalties lie.
That's a distortion that anti-gun advocates commonly use, but what evidence do you have, karajorma? The NRA represents gun rights and that benefits everyone, whether they're a retired military veteran, a college student or a firearms manufacturer. The end result is the same regardless. Besides, if the NRA only cared about firearms manufacturers, they would be supporting all of these anti-private gun sales laws that were proposed last year. Firearms manufacturers lose money off of second-hand gun sales, it is in their best interest if these gun laws are passed. Even far more restrictive laws, such as the Assault Weapons ban, resulted in the gun industry raking in money, as they sold plenty of guns that complied with the ban.
-
Write this post, except to the NRA.
^this^
-
That's a distortion that anti-gun advocates commonly use, but what evidence do you have, karajorma? The NRA represents gun rights and that benefits everyone, whether they're a retired military veteran, a college student or a firearms manufacturer. The end result is the same regardless. Besides, if the NRA only cared about firearms manufacturers, they would be supporting all of these anti-private gun sales laws that were proposed last year. Firearms manufacturers lose money off of second-hand gun sales, it is in their best interest if these gun laws are passed. Even far more restrictive laws, such as the Assault Weapons ban, resulted in the gun industry raking in money, as they sold plenty of guns that complied with the ban.
Well they successfully lobbied to make it harder to get compensation if you are injured by your own gun if it was defective in some way. Does that sound like something a consumer advocacy group should be doing?
-
That's a distortion that anti-gun advocates commonly use, but what evidence do you have, karajorma? The NRA represents gun rights and that benefits everyone, whether they're a retired military veteran, a college student or a firearms manufacturer. The end result is the same regardless. Besides, if the NRA only cared about firearms manufacturers, they would be supporting all of these anti-private gun sales laws that were proposed last year. Firearms manufacturers lose money off of second-hand gun sales, it is in their best interest if these gun laws are passed. Even far more restrictive laws, such as the Assault Weapons ban, resulted in the gun industry raking in money, as they sold plenty of guns that complied with the ban.
Well they successfully lobbied to make it harder to get compensation if you are injured by your own gun if it was defective in some way. Does that sound like something a consumer advocacy group should be doing?
I presume you are referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? You do realize that the law exists to protect licensed gun stores and gun manufacturers from being sued for acts of violence, just because a criminal used a gun that they manufactured, right?
-
Before you sign up, remember that the NRA isn't actually that interested in the gun owning public. They get most of their cash from the gun making companies and it's there that their true loyalties lie.
That's a distortion that anti-gun advocates commonly use, but what evidence do you have, karajorma? The NRA represents gun rights and that benefits everyone, whether they're a retired military veteran, a college student or a firearms manufacturer. The end result is the same regardless. Besides, if the NRA only cared about firearms manufacturers, they would be supporting all of these anti-private gun sales laws that were proposed last year. Firearms manufacturers lose money off of second-hand gun sales, it is in their best interest if these gun laws are passed. Even far more restrictive laws, such as the Assault Weapons ban, resulted in the gun industry raking in money, as they sold plenty of guns that complied with the ban.
it's like you are working for them already :p
-
Heh. He did say he wants to actually get paid for it though. :D
-
That's a distortion that anti-gun advocates commonly use, but what evidence do you have, karajorma? The NRA represents gun rights and that benefits everyone, whether they're a retired military veteran, a college student or a firearms manufacturer. The end result is the same regardless. Besides, if the NRA only cared about firearms manufacturers, they would be supporting all of these anti-private gun sales laws that were proposed last year. Firearms manufacturers lose money off of second-hand gun sales, it is in their best interest if these gun laws are passed. Even far more restrictive laws, such as the Assault Weapons ban, resulted in the gun industry raking in money, as they sold plenty of guns that complied with the ban.
Well they successfully lobbied to make it harder to get compensation if you are injured by your own gun if it was defective in some way. Does that sound like something a consumer advocacy group should be doing?
You can read the full text of the law here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901). I don't see where your claim is supported, perhaps you could clarify?
From Section A:
(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.
From Section B:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.
As you can clearly see, the law would not prevent someone from suing a firearms manufacturer due to injuries sustained from a manufacturer defect.
-
My mistake, they didn't successfully (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html) lobby for the change they wanted.
In fact, when LaPierre and other NRA leaders have had to choose between the interests of their corporate sponsors and the safety of its gun-owning members, they've revealed where their loyalties really lie. In 2005, the NRA and the firearms manufacturers successfully lobbied for a law that provided gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- legislation sponsored by GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, and signed by President George W. Bush in October of that year. Little remembered, however, is that the NRA also lobbied for an amendment to that bill to limit the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries to consumers caused by defective guns, a provision (which ultimately didn't pass) that would make it impossible for gun owners to sue the manufacturers.
-
My mistake, they didn't successfully (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html) lobby for the change they wanted.
In fact, when LaPierre and other NRA leaders have had to choose between the interests of their corporate sponsors and the safety of its gun-owning members, they've revealed where their loyalties really lie. In 2005, the NRA and the firearms manufacturers successfully lobbied for a law that provided gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- legislation sponsored by GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, and signed by President George W. Bush in October of that year. Little remembered, however, is that the NRA also lobbied for an amendment to that bill to limit the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries to consumers caused by defective guns, a provision (which ultimately didn't pass) that would make it impossible for gun owners to sue the manufacturers.
Do you have the original source, because that "article" doesn't seem to cite it's sources?
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's $970,000-a-year CEO, does not speak for most gun owners or even most NRA members. Polls consistently show most gun owners and NRA members do not agree with the extremist views that LaPierre espouses in speeches, interviews and his testimony before Congress on Wednesday.
LaPierre represents two constituencies. He is primarily a corporate lobbyist for gun and ammunition manufacturers. They oppose any government regulations that limit their ability to sell more guns and make more profits, and LaPierre's rants reflect their interests. LaPierre also speaks for the ultra-right-wing "survivalist" wing of the NRA, whose members and activities overlap with racist hate groups who believe they need to prepare for an armed struggle against their own government.
So it was sickening to watch Wednesday's Senate hearings on gun violence and possible gun control laws and see Republican senators genuflect to LaPierre's outrageous comments and to witness some Democratic senators treating LaPierre as someone with any claim to expertise on gun matters.
Also, I'm not one to bash sources, but that doesn't sound very objective and scholarly to me, and those are just the first three paragraphs.
-
dude, you totally need to work for them.
-
dude, you totally need to work for them.
Thanks, now how should I go about contacting the NRA? Writing a letter to their headquarters? I really don't think that would work. I had a chance to meet Wayne La Pierre at CPAC last year in St. Louis, but I decided to save my money instead. Though to be honest, I don't think I would have been ready for such a tremendous responsibility a year ago.
-
find their local thing, tell them you want to help.
-
I think I just realized, a little more, how people actually get into politics in the US - and possibly everywhere.
Cartman, it reminds me of Eric Cartman.
-
My mistake, they didn't successfully (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html) lobby for the change they wanted.
In fact, when LaPierre and other NRA leaders have had to choose between the interests of their corporate sponsors and the safety of its gun-owning members, they've revealed where their loyalties really lie. In 2005, the NRA and the firearms manufacturers successfully lobbied for a law that provided gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- legislation sponsored by GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, and signed by President George W. Bush in October of that year. Little remembered, however, is that the NRA also lobbied for an amendment to that bill to limit the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries to consumers caused by defective guns, a provision (which ultimately didn't pass) that would make it impossible for gun owners to sue the manufacturers.
Do you have the original source, because that "article" doesn't seem to cite it's sources?
Unfortunately not. I can't remember where I originally read the story but that was the first link that showed up in a Google search. I did read about it in several places though.
As for the rest of your comments, you seem to have a problem with the tone they are using, but is anything factually incorrect?
-
My mistake, they didn't successfully (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/wayne-lapierre-nra-background-checks_b_2590836.html) lobby for the change they wanted.
In fact, when LaPierre and other NRA leaders have had to choose between the interests of their corporate sponsors and the safety of its gun-owning members, they've revealed where their loyalties really lie. In 2005, the NRA and the firearms manufacturers successfully lobbied for a law that provided gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- legislation sponsored by GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, and signed by President George W. Bush in October of that year. Little remembered, however, is that the NRA also lobbied for an amendment to that bill to limit the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries to consumers caused by defective guns, a provision (which ultimately didn't pass) that would make it impossible for gun owners to sue the manufacturers.
Do you have the original source, because that "article" doesn't seem to cite it's sources?
Unfortunately not. I can't remember where I originally read the story but that was the first link that showed up in a Google search. I did read about it in several places though.
As for the rest of your comments, you seem to have a problem with the tone they are using, but is anything factually incorrect?
For the sake of debate, I'll assume that what you're saying is accurate. In which case what better way to reform an organization than from the inside? Also, just because you saw something reported on several websites, even supposed "news' websites (as if there is such a thing anymore), that doesn't automatically mean it's true. Both liberals and conservatives live in their own echo chambers, where their talking heads, media outlets, forum posters, bloggers and social media pages share all kinds of disinformation and half-truths (at best), which are then repeated by others in their hive mind.
There are a few provably wrong statements in the article, however, such as the comment that 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members supported the Manchin-Toomey bill. This has been disproved due to the wording of the question, regarding "improved background checks." If polled on the individual provisions in the 49 page bill, the actual percentage of support drops markedly. This is also taking into account old data, as these polls were conducted immediately after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago, when emotions and media bias were running high. This isn't much different from the Obamacare polling debate, in which the law itself is widely unpopular, but the individual provisions fare better in polls. Polls of the general public are rather useless when it comes to discussing complex issues, especially given how ignorant and apathetic the average person is, and even more so since you can get anyone to agree to anything, depending on how you word something.
The 90% claim is a follow up to the debunked 40% claim that Obama and anti-gun politicians keep using, even though fact checkers have disproved the claim (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html). Polls also show that only 4% of the public think that controlling gun ownership in any way is an important topic. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics) The National Rifle Association actually supports improving the background check system, and even proposed a law that would do just that, but wouldn't strip law abiding citizens of their rights in the process. (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294499-sens-grassley-and-cruz-present-alternative-gun-bill) Then of course there is the big flip-flop by the authors of the 49 page Manchin-Toomey bill, in which they first said they wouldn't add gun registration requirements to the bill, but then tried sneaking them in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKq3967hUgU).
-
I'm going to ignore most of the rest cause quite frankly I've been in enough gun control arguments where someone has quoted facts which I've later proved are nonsense and it doesn't do much to change people's points of view.
For the sake of debate, I'll assume that what you're saying is accurate. In which case what better way to reform an organization than from the inside?
I completely agree with this. There are some deeply nasty aspects to the NRA. Depending on what you do in that organisation you may or may not rub up against them. I just wanted you to make sure you knew what you were getting yourself into.
-
In addition, I hope to bring a new mission to the National Rifle Association, and indeed to the United States, and that is to promote the right to bear arms around the world.
Dear god no. Trying to tell other countries what to do (or even trying to force it upon them) is the major reason why many people are disillusioned by the US at the moment. Don't be too ambitious, and remember the national thing.
That being said, I don't really see how you are going to get a lot of advice here (except writing people in power in an NRA branch near you). There aren't all that many people from the US on this board, and I am quite certain that you are the only NRA member here. If anyone should know, it would be you :). Follow your gut, i'd say.
I'd even go so far as to reach out to groups that have traditionally voted for Democrats (such as the LGBT community and blacks)
I don't think you should do that either. Those groups have their own goals which are completely unrelated to gun rights. Let individual members which share your views approach you instead, otherwise you seem a bit... overbearing.
-
the thing about blacks and the lgbt community is that they're actually fighting systemic oppression, rather than tilting at the windmills of ~tyranny~
-
the thing about blacks and the lgbt community is that they're actually fighting systemic oppression, rather than tilting at the windmills of ~tyranny~
I'd argue that blacks aren't fighting any sort of real systematic oppression at all. Their so-called "civil rights leaders" are just money grubbers who are actually hurting the ability of blacks to be successful. How many times do you hear people like Al Sharpton telling blacks that they can't become successful in society and that the white man is keeping them down? This is an entirely self-defeating philosophy and I'd argue that it does far more harm than good.
The LGBT community is under some oppression, I'll give you that, but that's why they need guns the most. Look at how often gays and transgendered people are beaten up and murdered by whack-job religious fundamentalists. They are a perfect group we could reach out to. But anyway, I think this is getting a bit off-topic, I have received some legitimate advice in this thread, thanks everyone.
-
Oh sure, all the religiously motivated idiots who hate LGBTQ people will just stop hating them, or stop denigrating them, or stop harassing them because they can get guns.
Sure.
Because they couldn't get guns before.
Look, Nakura, Guns are not a solution to the problem of integrating LGBTQ or coloured people into a society. Guns do not stop hate. Guns do not engender tolerance. Guns do not change religious views. Guns only kill, or injure. They're not the right tools for this job.
-
Guns don't kill people
Uh, uh.
I Kill people.
(tchk tchk)
With guns.
-
I'm going to ignore most of the rest cause quite frankly I've been in enough gun control arguments where someone has quoted facts which I've later proved are nonsense and it doesn't do much to change people's points of view.
Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but if you were just going to ignore what he sent you, why did you ask him for it in the first place?
-
Oh sure, all the religiously motivated idiots who hate LGBTQ people will just stop hating them, or stop denigrating them, or stop harassing them because they can get guns.
Sure.
Because they couldn't get guns before.
Look, Nakura, Guns are not a solution to the problem of integrating LGBTQ or coloured people into a society. Guns do not stop hate. Guns do not engender tolerance. Guns do not change religious views. Guns only kill, or injure. They're not the right tools for this job.
I never said it would stop hate or suddenly make Christian fundamentalists accept homosexuals. They do, however, allow homosexuals to defend themselves. Though I agree with you that self-defense is just a tiny part of the overall civil rights movement, and that there are far more important hurdles that need to be breached.
-
I'd argue that blacks aren't fighting any sort of real systematic oppression at all. Their so-called "civil rights leaders" are just money grubbers who are actually hurting the ability of blacks to be successful. How many times do you hear people like Al Sharpton telling blacks that they can't become successful in society and that the white man is keeping them down? This is an entirely self-defeating philosophy and I'd argue that it does far more harm than good.
:wtf:
Still unsure if trolling...
-
the thing about blacks and the lgbt community is that they're actually fighting systemic oppression, rather than tilting at the windmills of ~tyranny~
I'd argue that blacks aren't fighting any sort of real systematic oppression at all. Their so-called "civil rights leaders" are just money grubbers who are actually hurting the ability of blacks to be successful. How many times do you hear people like Al Sharpton telling blacks that they can't become successful in society and that the white man is keeping them down? This is an entirely self-defeating philosophy and I'd argue that it does far more harm than good.
The LGBT community is under some oppression, I'll give you that, but that's why they need guns the most. Look at how often gays and transgendered people are beaten up and murdered by whack-job religious fundamentalists. They are a perfect group we could reach out to. But anyway, I think this is getting a bit off-topic, I have received some legitimate advice in this thread, thanks everyone.
Maybe there's a way to reply to this that won't set the thread on its inevitable trajectory. Maybe this is even it:
Black people face real systemic oppression. It's rooted in the simple fact that institutional resources - heritable money and land, available parental investment, accrued education available for childrearing - accumulate over time and snowball. Because black people were denied access to these resources for a long time, and because policies enacted since nominal emancipation have continued to disrupt access to those resources (most notably Jim Crow and the War on Drugs), black people face an environment of resource denial and family disruption that makes it harder for them to reach the (dubiously effective, mind) 'keys to the kingdom'.
Compounding this problem, human cognitive biases and the cultural residue of institutionalized racism create pervasive low-level implicit associations between black people and crime, violence, or threat. These biases affect everyone in American society, subtly skewing systemic outcomes against black people.
Both of these conclusions are backed by mountains of empirical data and, in some cases, fairly chilling laboratory experiments.
As for LGBTQ people, remember that violence invites violence. In most situations a handgun will not save a queer person from those who'd target them; worse, it makes queer people objects of terror and discomfort. Handguns are mostly used for suicide and accidental killings, and LGBTQ people are already at elevated risk of suicide. Even performing optimally, a firearm cannot solve any of the real issues that create hatred and fear towards queer people.
-
I think I may have noticed the "problem" here.
Phantom Hoover said "systemic", Nakura said "systematic". He misread the word, that's all.
-
It makes very little semantic difference which of the two I meant and Nakura read.
-
I'll leave it to Nakura to speak for himself now.
But to me, systemic would mean, well, what Battuta said.
Systematic would be conscious, organised effort by the white man to keep the black man down.
-
Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but if you were just going to ignore what he sent you, why did you ask him for it in the first place?
I asked him whether he believed the post factually incorrect or simply of a tone he didn't like. I got an answer. I could probably prove at least some of his claims wrong but what would be the point? It's not like he's ever going to change his view. And I don't particularly want to descend to the kind of tactics that both sides of the gun debate frequently engage in where they simply argue with each other over who is morally right while in the meanwhile people are continuing to get shot because neither side can come up with any common ground.
All I care about is that Nakura realises that the NRA isn't really about what most people think it's about. If he does and he wants to change it from the inside, great.
-
That's another waste of time, IMHO.
-
Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but if you were just going to ignore what he sent you, why did you ask him for it in the first place?
I asked him whether he believed the post factually incorrect or simply of a tone he didn't like. I got an answer. I could probably prove at least some of his claims wrong but what would be the point? It's not like he's ever going to change his view. And I don't particularly want to descend to the kind of tactics that both sides of the gun debate frequently engage in where they simply argue with each other over who is morally right while in the meanwhile people are continuing to get shot because neither side can come up with any common ground.
All I care about is that Nakura realises that the NRA isn't really about what most people think it's about. If he does and he wants to change it from the inside, great.
Ah, I understand you now. Thanks.
-
I never said it would stop hate or suddenly make Christian fundamentalists accept homosexuals. They do, however, allow homosexuals to defend themselves. Though I agree with you that self-defense is just a tiny part of the overall civil rights movement, and that there are far more important hurdles that need to be breached.
Well, the problem is this though. Presumably, LGBTQ people, people of color, all of them are aware that this silly second amendment gives them the right to bear arms. Telling them "Hey, you know all this harassment you're subjected to all the time? A Gun can help with that!" is not the right message. It's not addressing the problems the advocacy groups for these people are working on. So I can't quite see why they'd be intrested in joining up with you, or why the NRA (which has got to be one of the most white, most conservative groups out there) would be interested in taking up the LGBTQ/C equality banner.
You wanting to effect change from within is admirable. But, as has been pointed out, HLP is not the NRA. We're not the right people to ask, because at least a few of us (mostly those which will engage you on these topics) are actively opposed to the values and ideals the NRA represents.
-
In addition, I hope to bring a new mission to the National Rifle Association, and indeed to the United States, and that is to promote the right to bear arms around the world.
Dear god no. Trying to tell other countries what to do (or even trying to force it upon them) is the major reason why many people are disillusioned by the US at the moment. Don't be too ambitious, and remember the national thing.
That being said, I don't really see how you are going to get a lot of advice here (except writing people in power in an NRA branch near you). There aren't all that many people from the US on this board, and I am quite certain that you are the only NRA member here. If anyone should know, it would be you :). Follow your gut, i'd say.
This^^^^
Please don't bring the right to bear arms (guns) to this country, we have enough problems with people carrying knives thanks!
-
Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you. :)
America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.
I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns... :eek2:
-
Social inequality issues are best fixed with education and familiarity. You want that structure built on understanding and tolerance, fear is not a foundation at all. While the fact that a target might have a 1911 may give and aggressor pause before doing something flagrantly bellicose it certainly won't breed long term acceptance. The ultimate aim is to remove those boundaries not just create a deterrent.
-
Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you. :)
America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.
I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns... :eek2:
Actually, I think you'll find quite the opposite. I've spent years studying data and history, and you will find that the British are among the most fervent pro-gun cultures in history. This can be seen through the Assize of Arms of 1181 and 1252, as well as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Though that is to say nothing of the fact that Britain was far better off with guns, than without them. Britain never had a history of mass shootings prior to the late 1980s, yet when they banned semi-automatics with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, they began experiencing mass shootings; namely the Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010) shootings. This is to say nothing of the fact that violent crime and homicide rates in Britain have been on the rise since the 1968, 1988 and 1997 gun control acts. In fact, violent crime rates have been increasing so drastically in Britain, in spite of (and potentially even because of) these laws, that they have not once reached their pre-Firearms Act (1966) levels. Meanwhile, almost every other first world country gets by just fine without a gun ban and most manage to have far lower violent crime rates and less mass shootings than Britain does. Your feeling of safety is just that, a feeling.
-
Nakura, you are making the same very crucial mistakes you did last time.
-
Nakura, you are making the same very crucial mistakes you did last time.
Don't worry, I'm not advocating that we invade the United Kingdom or anything over the top like that. I was merely suggesting that the NRA work with grassroots activists in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, and help restore Britain's gun laws to how they were prior to 1988. Not necessarily laws such as those in the United States, but rather, something more along the lines of Sweden, France or any other country. Heck, even Australia-style gun laws would be an improvement over the current system.
-
Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you. :)
America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.
I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns... :eek2:
Actually, I think you'll find quite the opposite. I've spent years studying data and history, and you will find that the British are among the most fervent pro-gun cultures in history. This can be seen through the Assize of Arms of 1181 and 1252, as well as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Though that is to say nothing of the fact that Britain was far better off with guns, than without them. Britain never had a history of mass shootings prior to the late 1980s, yet when they banned semi-automatics with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, they began experiencing mass shootings; namely the Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010) shootings. This is to say nothing of the fact that violent crime and homicide rates in Britain have been on the rise since the 1968, 1988 and 1997 gun control acts. In fact, violent crime rates have been increasing so drastically in Britain, in spite of (and potentially even because of) these laws, that they have not once reached their pre-Firearms Act (1966) levels. Meanwhile, almost every other first world country gets by just fine without a gun ban and most manage to have far lower violent crime rates and less mass shootings than Britain does. Your feeling of safety is just that, a feeling.
I don't think data from many centuries ago has any bearing here.
And two mass shootings in that timeframe is very, very good going in my book. How many mass shootings does the US have? The UK has a fifth of the US population, so they should have 5X the mass shootings all thing being equal. It's more.
It's funny you mention Dunblane, because that's when this country really turned on guns, that's when it all changed.
In my experience people don't talk about guns. Guns are largely irrelevant here. I've never heard anyone, whether it be in person, on the TV, or in a piece of reading material say anything about wanting to bring guns to the UK.
-
I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.
1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.
2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.
-
Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you. :)
America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.
I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns... :eek2:
Actually, I think you'll find quite the opposite. I've spent years studying data and history, and you will find that the British are among the most fervent pro-gun cultures in history. This can be seen through the Assize of Arms of 1181 and 1252, as well as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Though that is to say nothing of the fact that Britain was far better off with guns, than without them. Britain never had a history of mass shootings prior to the late 1980s, yet when they banned semi-automatics with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, they began experiencing mass shootings; namely the Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010) shootings. This is to say nothing of the fact that violent crime and homicide rates in Britain have been on the rise since the 1968, 1988 and 1997 gun control acts. In fact, violent crime rates have been increasing so drastically in Britain, in spite of (and potentially even because of) these laws, that they have not once reached their pre-Firearms Act (1966) levels. Meanwhile, almost every other first world country gets by just fine without a gun ban and most manage to have far lower violent crime rates and less mass shootings than Britain does. Your feeling of safety is just that, a feeling.
I don't think data from many centuries ago has any bearing here.
And two mass shootings in that timeframe is very, very good going in my book. How many mass shootings does the US have? The UK has a fifth of the US population, so they should have 5X the mass shootings all thing being equal. It's more.
It's funny you mention Dunblane, because that's when this country really turned on guns, that's when it all changed.
In my experience people don't talk about guns. Guns are largely irrelevant here. I've never heard anyone, whether it be in person, on the TV, or in a piece of reading material say anything about wanting to bring guns to the UK.
Two mass shootings in about 15-20 years is a lot, considering there had been none for centuries prior to that and Britain had gun control laws similar to what the rest of Europe has now. It doesn't matter how many mass shootings the United States does or doesn't have, as they are two completely different societies and it's two different discussions; heck, all I have to do is say "look at France/Germany/Switzerland/Poland/Italy/Sweden/Norway/Czech Republic/Slovakia/etc." and point out how they have had less mass shootings; and that's just as valid, more-so-actually (due to the amount of data) as your claim on mass shootings in the United States.
Though I must admit that it was disingenuous of me to mention mass shootings, as they are statistically insignificant in every country, including the United States. It is virtually impossible to be killed in a mass shooting in the United States, United Kingdom or any other country for that matter, given that you're vastly more likely to be killed an infinite number of other ways. The real focus should be on violent crime, which is a legitimate problem. So that really was my fault, setting a trap for you like that, Lorric, I apologize.
-
I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.
1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.
2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.
Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to make Lorric feel like an idiot or belittle him, and I think he knows this. Lorric and I are pretty much internet friends, and I wouldn't insult him (or anyone else here, without cause). I merely meant to point out that from an anthropological perspective, Britain, and indeed Anglo-Saxon cultures in general, have long been very friendly to gun ownership. Lorric himself pointed out that prior to the Dunblane/Hungerford shooting, nobody in Britain supported a ban on most firearms.
-
The real focus should be on violent crime, which is a legitimate problem. So that really was my fault, setting a trap for you like that, Lorric, I apologize.
Alright, don't worry about it.
And I don't know where you get the idea violent crime is going up in the UK, it's going down, and has been year on year for a long time, and quite sharply too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280
I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.
1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.
2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.
Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to make Lorric feel like an idiot or belittle him, and I think he knows this. Lorric and I are pretty much internet friends, and I wouldn't insult him (or anyone else here, without cause). I merely meant to point out that from an anthropological perspective, Britain, and indeed Anglo-Saxon cultures in general, have long been very friendly to gun ownership. Lorric himself pointed out that prior to the Dunblane/Hungerford shooting, nobody in Britain supported a ban on most firearms.
Listen to him Nakura. I made the mistake of no.1 in a gun control debate on here badly a while back. Try not to over-rely on data alone.
I don't know how Brits felt about guns prior to Dunblane, but it had the feeling of a "that's it, no more" moment, which might mean guns had a low opinion even then.
On another note, you can own a gun in the UK. I know, as someone I know has at least one rifle, I think he has more, and belongs to a rifle club. He could also gun down an intruder in his home legally if in self-defence. National Rifle Association your NRA is, well don't worry, you can own a rifle in this country if you want. I know there's more to it than that, but you can own a gun in the UK, there isn't a blanket ban. Though it will take considerable effort to be allowed to.
-
The real focus should be on violent crime, which is a legitimate problem. So that really was my fault, setting a trap for you like that, Lorric, I apologize.
Alright, don't worry about it.
And I don't know where you get the idea violent crime is going up in the UK, it's going down, and has been year on year for a long time, and quite sharply too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280
It's seen a decrease in the past year or two, but the overall trend has been an increasing one and they haven't come close to reaching their previous levels.
I was talking about specifically the last gun control debate and more specific things in general. Sorry about the confusion, but there's a distinct pattern.
1) Telling someone, who is part of a certain culture or country, that his culture or country is not like that at all, even though he himself lives there and experiences it every day. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do, and won't help your arguments in any way.
2) Making very broad stroke assumptions about first world countries, even though they are all very much different from one another, what with the various different cultures and semi-constant warfare and/or rivalry since the 'nation state' became a thing.
Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to make Lorric feel like an idiot or belittle him, and I think he knows this. Lorric and I are pretty much internet friends, and I wouldn't insult him (or anyone else here, without cause). I merely meant to point out that from an anthropological perspective, Britain, and indeed Anglo-Saxon cultures in general, have long been very friendly to gun ownership. Lorric himself pointed out that prior to the Dunblane/Hungerford shooting, nobody in Britain supported a ban on most firearms.
Listen to him Nakura. I made the mistake of no.1 in a gun control debate on here badly a while back. Try not to over-rely on data alone.
I don't know how Brits felt about guns prior to Dunblane, but it had the feeling of a "that's it, no more" moment, which might mean guns had a low opinion even then.
On another note, you can own a gun in the UK. I know, as someone I know has at least one rifle, I think he has more, and belongs to a rifle club. He could also gun down an intruder in his home legally if in self-defence. National Rifle Association your NRA is, well don't worry, you can own a rifle in this country if you want. I know there's more to it than that, but you can own a gun in the UK, there isn't a blanket ban. Though it will take considerable effort to be allowed to.
I am well aware of British firearms law, you can indeed own a rifle or shotgun, and a very select few handguns. However, it is virtually impossible for anyone, even the most ardent collector or sports shooters, to obtain a modern handgun or semi-automatic rifle in Britain. Herein lies the problem, it is not realistically possible for people to pursue their hopes and dreams.
-
:banghead:
Here's the UK violent crime rate graph from 1981 to 2007.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png).
-
Herein lies the problem, it is not realistically possible for people to pursue their hopes and dreams.
little timmy had one dream in his life, to own a weapon with the primary purpose of killing other human beings
the government took timmy's dream away from him, now he's an accountant
checkmate gun control?
-
(http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090923164241/halo/images/3/31/Ball_peen_buster.gif)
-
:banghead:
Here's the UK violent crime rate graph from 1981 to 2007.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Violent-crime-rates-UK-1981-to-2007.png).
Here is the homicide rate in England and Wales:
(http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.png)
My data comes straight from the British government, or to be precise, the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
-
Herein lies the problem, it is not realistically possible for people to pursue their hopes and dreams.
little timmy had one dream in his life, to own a weapon with the primary purpose of killing other human beings
the government took timmy's dream away from him, now he's an accountant
checkmate gun control?
Don't kid yourself, Phantom Hoover, there are countless legitimate purposes to own a gun, not just committing murder or waging war on other countries. There are hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners in the United States alone who have never and will never kill a single person, this is to say nothing of the over hundreds of millions of gun owners in other countries (including over 2 million in Britain).
-
(including over 2 million in Britain).
... So what's your beef about gun control laws?
-
(including over 2 million in Britain).
... So what's your beef about gun control laws?
Because virtually all of those gun owners are only allowed to own a bolt-action rifle and shotgun, unlike the rest of the civilized world, where semi-automatics and most handguns are legal.
-
Don't kid yourself, Phantom Hoover, there are countless legitimate purposes to own a gun, not just committing murder or waging war on other countries.
name one purpose for a 'modern handgun' other than killing other humans (bonus points if it's not 'sport shooting')
-
Here is the homicide rate in England and Wales:
[snip]
There are footnotes on this graph. What are the footnotes on this graph?
-
Look Nakura, we already have our own NRA:
http://www.nra.org.uk/
And check the wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_the_United_Kingdom
Interestingly, it’s older than the American one. And if you scroll to the bottom, it seems at least several other countries have their own NRA. I don’t think they’ll have anything to do with the American one, especially the British one, which came first, but other countries have their own organisations to handle this sort of thing.
It's seen a decrease in the past year or two, but the overall trend has been an increasing one and they haven't come close to reaching their previous levels.
You didn't read the link I gave you, did you. I am disappointed in you. :(
That's for the past 10 years, showing it's fallen by a quarter over that period.
Where are you getting this impression from? Throw it away. Here's another one, for last year, stating violent crime is at it's lowest in 33 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25858421
*Lorric sees all the other posts*
It's interesting that there was a lower rate of violent crime all those years ago. But it's still going down and has been doing for some time. I also don't know how you'd link the law changes to changes in the data. Violent crime in the UK nearly always does not involve a gun.
Also, if you want to improve the violent crime statistic, why would the introduction of guns have a positive effect on that?
-
(http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090923164241/halo/images/3/31/Ball_peen_buster.gif)
What is that?
-
Here is the homicide rate in England and Wales:
[snip]
There are footnotes on this graph. What are the footnotes on this graph?
Here are the full footnotes:
† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings
* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
The above source uses the data directly from Section 1.2 (Page 10) of the Home Office report: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
-
Look Nakura, we already have our own NRA:
http://www.nra.org.uk/
And check the wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_the_United_Kingdom
Interestingly, it’s older than the American one. And if you scroll to the bottom, it seems at least several other countries have their own NRA. I don’t think they’ll have anything to do with the American one, especially the British one, which came first, but other countries have their own organisations to handle this sort of thing.
Their National Rifle Organization isn't a political organization, it is strictly a sporting body. The United States National Rifle Association is both a sporting body and a civil liberties organization. With that being said, the British National Rifle Association has done some political lobbying to protect the rights of gun owners and hunters, but not to any significant degree.
It's seen a decrease in the past year or two, but the overall trend has been an increasing one and they haven't come close to reaching their previous levels.
You didn't read the link I gave you, did you. I am disappointed in you. :(
That's for the past 10 years, showing it's fallen by a quarter over that period.
Where are you getting this impression from? Throw it away. Here's another one, for last year, stating violent crime is at it's lowest in 33 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25858421
*Lorric sees all the other posts*
It's interesting that there was a lower rate of violent crime all those years ago. But it's still going down and has been doing for some time. I also don't know how you'd link the law changes to changes in the data. Violent crime in the UK nearly always does not involve a gun.
Also, if you want to improve the violent crime statistic, why would the introduction of guns have a positive effect on that?
I think we're discussing two different things, I'm discussing homicide rates and homicide rates alone, whereas you're discussing violent crime rates in general; including violent crime rates where the victim survives. Yes, there have been fluctuations as statistics are dynamic and change each year, but the overall trend for the past several years has been an increasing one. Even the lowest numbers possible are still far higher than prior to the implementation of heavy firearms regulation, with the Firearms Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents). The European Union, and indeed just about every reliable statistics organization uses trends, rather than data from a specific year or years, when publishing data. Though compared with other first world countries, where firearms are much more available to the public (relatively speaking), Britain is still lagging far behind in regards to both violent crime and homicides, as you can see here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF
Though note that this data is for Europe only, and doesn't include countries outside of Europe, such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, etc.
-
The graph is not in there. Neither is the text.
-
Nakura's graph is highly disingenuous. Notice how it starts immediately after the gun ban? Get a graph which includes crime from the 50's onwards and you'll see that rising violence is a trend on that graph from years before the ban. To say that this proves his argument is at best misguided but more likely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
EDIT: I got suspicious about this particular set of evidence being used so I did a little digging. Turns out I'm correct, I did point out the reason why that particular statistic was misleading back when Nakura posted them as Swazi Spring (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=83130.msg1662538#msg1662538)
So I'm definitely inclined to say that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
-
Sorry, I almost forgot to address a portion of your post. Do I believe that the introduction of guns into Britain would decrease violent crime rates? Probably not. In fact, it wouldn't have any noticeable impact one way or the other. Guns don't cause crime, nor do they stop it; just as gun control laws don't cause crime, nor do they stop it. Though with that being said, the Center for Disease Control reports (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx) that handguns save far more lives than they take. I personally don't think it would make a noticeable difference on crime statistics.
-
It's not in there.
-
Nakura, homicide is on it’s way down also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20219375
I looked at “Table 3: Crimes recorded by the police: Homicide, 2004-2010” in the 8th page of your link. Looking at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants column, we’re not lagging behind at all, we’re somewhere around the middle.
-
Nakura's graph is highly disingenuous. Notice how it starts immediately after the gun ban? Get a graph which includes crime from the 50's onwards and you'll see that rising violence is a trend on that graph from years before the ban. To say that this proves his argument is at best misguided but more likely a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The graph starts in 1967, which is two years before reliable data could be obtained concerning the impact of the 1968 law. Besides, Karajorma, I'm afraid that you're going to have to cite your sources. The British Home Office does not provide homicide rates prior to 1967; go to page 20 of the report (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf). Though even if you were right, you'd merely be supporting my argument, as it would show that the laws did nothing to prevent or weaken the rise of homicide rates, which increased even further after the Firearms Act.
-
I addressed those points last time you posted them. Read my edited post.
-
It's not in there.
Try the eleventh page.
Nakura, homicide is on it’s way down also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20219375
I looked at “Table 3: Crimes recorded by the police: Homicide, 2004-2010” in the 8th page of your link. Looking at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants column, we’re not lagging behind at all, we’re somewhere around the middle.
Britain is still lagging behind other Western European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.
As seen in Table 3 (Page 8): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF
-
On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced Now Is the Time, a plan to address firearm violence1 in order “to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson” (White House, 2013a, p. 2). These multiple-victim homicides, because of their shocking nature, have commanded the attention of the public, the media, and policy officials, even though they are relatively rare and account for a small proportion of all firearm-related injuries and deaths in the United States. Mass shootings are part of a larger, complex firearm violence burden that encompasses nonfatal and unintentional injuries, homicides, suicides, and crimes involving firearms. In the past decade, firearm-related violence has claimed the lives of more than a quarter-million people in the United States.2 By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.
Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such
Nope, not there. Do you even read your sources before you post them? And if you do, why do you consistently lie about their contents?
-
I addressed those points last time you posted them. Read my edited post.
And I disproved your claim last time, just as I did here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734824#msg1734824). I responded to your post and am waiting for you to reply to mine.
-
highly suggest everyone hop over to the bill nye thread and read battuta's posts for an eloquent explanation of why you should not be engaging with nakura's **** in earnest
-
Funnily enough that's what I tried to do earlier in the thread and what I'm going to do now.
And I disproved your claim last time, just as I did here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734824#msg1734824). I responded to your post and am waiting for you to reply to mine.
You disproved nothing. You never actually replied to my last post either.
Your attempts to talk about murder rates rather than gun homicide rates or violent crime in general are basically a deliberate, bad faith argument and I'll have nothing further to do with them.
-
Britain is still lagging behind other Western European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.
As seen in Table 3 (Page 8): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF
Before you just said lagging far behind other countries, and we're not. We're behind those you list, but France only barely. And we're ahead of others, such as Belgium.
Anyway, what we really need is figures on gun crime, all of it. A law about guns is going to have no impact on a knifeman. I don't see how the homicide stats can prove anything.
-
On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced Now Is the Time, a plan to address firearm violence1 in order “to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson” (White House, 2013a, p. 2). These multiple-victim homicides, because of their shocking nature, have commanded the attention of the public, the media, and policy officials, even though they are relatively rare and account for a small proportion of all firearm-related injuries and deaths in the United States. Mass shootings are part of a larger, complex firearm violence burden that encompasses nonfatal and unintentional injuries, homicides, suicides, and crimes involving firearms. In the past decade, firearm-related violence has claimed the lives of more than a quarter-million people in the United States.2 By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.
Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such
Nope, not there. Do you even read your sources before you post them? And if you do, why do you consistently lie about their contents?
I do believe you owe me an apology. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15)
-
I do believe you owe me an apology. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15)
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
That does not match what you said (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734818#msg1734818).
-
Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?
Stop engaging with him!
Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.
-
Funnily enough that's what I tried to do earlier in the thread and what I'm going to do now.
And I disproved your claim last time, just as I did here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734824#msg1734824). I responded to your post and am waiting for you to reply to mine.
You disproved nothing. You never actually replied to my last post either.
Your attempts to talk about murder rates rather than gun homicide rates or violent crime in general are basically a deliberate, bad faith argument and I'll have nothing further to do with them.
Because homicide rates are what's important, it's not a "bad faith argument." Dead is dead, whether someone kills you with a knife, a gun or a baseball bat. Though if you really want to delve into that area, you'll be surprised to learn that you're far more likely to be killed with a hammer than you are a scary looking rifle (or any rifle for that matter). (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8) You accuse me of acting in bad faith, but you're the one who is completely ignoring homicide data and trying to pretend that it is impossible for firearms to ever be used for defensive purposes.
-
I do believe you owe me an apology. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15)
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
That does not match what you said (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734818#msg1734818).
How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.
-
That's some very selective reading there.
-
Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?
Stop engaging with him!
Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.
I legitimately want to work for the National Rifle Association. My uncle seems to think that they would only hire people that have published papers in several scholarly journals, however. To get back on topic, do you guys think he is right? Do you think that a young, college-educated civil liberties activist has any chance being hired by a massive political organization like the National Rifle Association?
-
Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?
Stop engaging with him!
Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.
Quoting to bring this over from page 4. This thread ends when everyone decides to stop being manipulated into repeating this argument over and over again for Nakura's benefit.
[EDIT]Didn't realize I had already been quoted - didn't get the red text warning about new posts for some odd reason.
-
Do you think that a young, neofascist stooge for the gun lobby has any chance being hired by a massive political organization like the National Rifle Association?
ftfy
-
Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?
Stop engaging with him!
Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.
Quoting to bring this over from page 4. This thread ends when everyone decides to stop being manipulated into repeating this argument over and over again for Nakura's benefit.
While it's nice to sharpen my debate skills, that was never the intent of this thread. I legitimately came here seeking career advice. Did you see me post this on MMO-Champion or Steamgifts or any of the other forums I frequent? No. I know better than to create a political debate thread in GenDisc. I legitimately want to work for the NRA and can show you chat logs that I have sent my friends and family members well before I posted this message and before it got derailed to prove it.
I have treated every member of this forum as though they were acting in good faith, so why not show me the same respect?
-
I do believe you owe me an apology. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15)
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
That does not match what you said (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734818#msg1734818).
How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.
*searches for info on Kleck's paper*
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660
Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."
I couldn't find much on Cook and Ludwig's papers, but if the first Cook is the same researcher as the second referred Cook, I would assume the papers' values are somewhat similar, or an updated/improved figure. Which contrasts wildly with the first *cough* paper.
-
I do believe you owe me an apology. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15)
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
That does not match what you said (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734818#msg1734818).
How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.
*searches for info on Kleck's paper*
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660
Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."
I couldn't find much on Cook and Ludwig's papers, but if the first Cook is the same researcher as the second referred Cook, I would assume the papers' values are somewhat similar, or an updated/improved figure. Which contrasts wildly with the first *cough* paper.
Even if Keck's numbers are a bit off, that still leaves all of the other journals. Surely they can't all be wrong. Even the lowest study records 500,000, which is nearly twice as many defensive uses compared to offensive uses.
-
I do believe you owe me an apology. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15)
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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 (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
That does not match what you said (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86806.msg1734818#msg1734818).
How doesn't it? The report clearly states that firearms are used for defense more often than they are used to commit crimes; up to three million times more, even. While "far more often" isn't a set range, I'm fairly certain that over three million times more often would qualify as "far more often," in the eyes of most people.
*searches for info on Kleck's paper*
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660
Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."
I couldn't find much on Cook and Ludwig's papers, but if the first Cook is the same researcher as the second referred Cook, I would assume the papers' values are somewhat similar, or an updated/improved figure. Which contrasts wildly with the first *cough* paper.
Even if Keck's numbers are a bit off, that still leaves all of the other journals. Surely they can't all be wrong. Even the lowest study records 500,000, which is nearly twice as many defensive uses compared to offensive uses.
A bit off? Over 100% use in defense is "a bit off"? The only other study cited is Cook's which points to 108 thousand.
-
While it's nice to sharpen my debate skills, that was never the intent of this thread. I legitimately came here seeking career advice.
Whether you were attempting that or not, the fact remains that your arguments you have used on this forum are in bad faith. The statistics you quote frequently do not mean what you claim they mean (In the case you asked for an apology over, there were two figures given and you bold-faced picked the one that agreed with your position)
You have constantly refused to address the flaws in your arguments (I asked you last time why murder rates and not gun homicide rates or violent crime rates in general were important and you gave a rather pointless answer to that which completely failed to address the central point of why that was a good metric for your argument).
For that reason I'm closing this thread. You gotten as much advice as you're going to get.
-
Since this post was still in the moderator queue before the thread was closed...
Do you think that a young, neofascist stooge for the gun lobby has any chance being hired by a massive political organization like the National Rifle Association?
ftfy
You've been warned before, repeatedly, about making personal attacks. You'll now spend a week in Political Prisoners.