NRA Chief Speaks Out

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by 270person

And that certainly hasn't stopped you anytime in the past so carry on my wayward son. Let the paranoia continue.

I can't believe something "potentially" happening in another country has people in this one wringing their hands in angst. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

What do you mean “potentially”?

As I said, most, if not all other countries have consistently enacted more and more gun restrictions. How can you not see that as a fact?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Newview01

What do you mean “potentially”?

As I said, most, if not all other countries have consistently enacted more and more gun restrictions. How can you not see that as a fact?

Exactly, try going goose hunting in Australia with your grandads 1100, or 870.

[professori]

Originally Posted by logician

We have to accept that there will always be tragedies, crimes, school shootings, and accidents in life. That's life. Even if we could take away all firearms from the world (which we couldn't without returning society as a whole to the dark ages), attacks would continue to be done with swords or other weapons. The overall violence would likely be higher in a world without firearms as people would be less able to defend themselves (it takes a lot more investment to become competent in self defense with a sword than with a pistol).

Lots of people are saying they don't want to take away firearms, they just want to increase regulations. But I have yet to hear of a specific regulatory change that would plausibly reduce the number of school shootings. Without providing some concrete idea on how regulations can be improved, you have to accept that maybe they're already as good as they can be.

- Make people take a psychological test before purchasing a firearm? There is no psychological test that can determine if someone might be a school shooter or not with any degree of reliability.
- Force private firearms sales to undergo a background check? Most of these shooters including the Florida one bought their firearms at a gun shop and hence passed a background check.

BS. In Florida, only Federally licensed firearms dealers need to conduct a background check. Florida does not require a firearms dealer to possess either a Federal or State license.

- Ban semi-automatic firearms or "assault rifles" (whatever those are)? Neither of those will prevent people from committing shootings, and they'll both likely still be widely available to criminals and the government.

Strawman argument. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by neither criminals or the government.

I agree with the NRA 100%. There is a strong drive by many people to take away firearms.

Another argument from the paranoid side. There is no evidence whatsoever of this, yet the NRA uses this fear-mongering to build support.

The dark side of humanity (crime, tyranny) is on the side of this drive. We ought to be careful about taking away firearms. There may not be any bad guys behind the bushes today, but they'll appear very quickly once citizens are disarmed.

Show me the evidence. You can't just make this stuff up based on unfounded fear.

Finally, we should never base our decisions on emotional outbursts from people who believe even 1 tragedy is too many and must be prevented. Tragedy and suffering will always be part of life and people who are living in reality know that these risks must be accepted. Anyone to denies that fact of life should not be taken seriously.

The best idea for reducing the occurrence of school shootings that I've heard is by the President: to allow responsible school staff to be armed and able to defend themselves. This is actually a good idea in my opinion, and might even encourage more responsible firearm ownership throughout society and in students.

This is the all time stupidest idea ever. I would give it less than 6 months before some stressed-out, poorly supported teacher snapped and gunned down a student. I am truly glad I don't have to live in a mind so fearful and ignorant as this.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by professori

BS. In Florida, only Federally licensed firearms dealers need to conduct a background check. Florida does not require a firearms dealer to possess either a Federal or State license.

Strawman argument. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by neither criminals or the government.


Another argument from the paranoid side. There is no evidence whatsoever of this, yet the NRA uses this fear-mongering to build support.
Show me the evidence. You can't just make this stuff up based on unfounded fear.

This is the all time stupidest idea ever. I would give it less than 6 months before some stressed-out, poorly supported teacher snapped and gunned down a student. I am truly glad I don't have to live in a mind so fearful and ignorant as this.

I can't believe how fact averse you are.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by professori

This is the all time stupidest idea ever. I would give it less than 6 months before some stressed-out, poorly supported teacher snapped and gunned down a student. I am truly glad I don't have to live in a mind so fearful and ignorant as this.

This is hilarious when you consider the context of the arguments you are making earlier in the same post.
Something about unsupported, irrational fears?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

This is hilarious when you consider the context of the arguments you are making earlier in the same post.
Something about unsupported, irrational fears?

[professori]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

This is hilarious when you consider the context of the arguments you are making earlier in the same post.
Something about unsupported, irrational fears?

I know nuance is probably beyond your grasp. Big difference from saying "I would give it six months" (maybe I should have said this is my opinion) and saying, "they are coming for our guns". One is clearly opinion, the other is stated as fact. Not really comparable. Go take Philosophy 101 and learn how to formulate a logical argument. Until then, avoid battles of the wits as you are only 1/2 equipped.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Where can one buy that shirt?

https://www.amazon.com/Nobody-Needs-.../dp/B00XU8VAD0

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by professori

I know nuance is probably beyond your grasp. Big difference from saying "I would give it six months" (maybe I should have said this is my opinion) and saying, "they are coming for our guns". One is clearly opinion, the other is stated as fact. Not really comparable. Go take Philosophy 101 and learn how to formulate a logical argument. Until then, avoid battles of the wits as you are only 1/2 equipped.

As already stated, here and in headlines, they are coming for our guns. That is a fact. Why can't you understand that?

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by Newview01

As already stated, here and in headlines, they are coming for our guns. That is a fact. Why can't you understand that?

Well if a few paranoid old guys say it, it must be true.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

Well if a few paranoid old guys say it, it must be true.

And if a few slow young guys can't understand it, it must be false

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by bobalong

And if a few slow young guys can't understand it, it must be false

I understand you've provided no facts to back up your assertions and that since I have made no claims I am not required to provide any facts to back up my position. Keep laughing though, the one who laughs longest is usually the last to understand what's going on.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

Well if a few paranoid old guys say it, it must be true.

i am neither old nor paranoid.

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by Newview01

i am neither old nor paranoid.

Lol yeah ok.

[32-40win]

They may not be actually coming at present, there are those that would like to and in the present climate are getting plenty of time from the politicians at the moment. With the fractured community we have concerning firearms, the media push and the general political mood at the moment, it isn't hard for the anti's to get a wedge in the cracks. I wouldn't trust Trudeau or Goodale as far as I can spit, not to try to pull something here in Canada. We do not have a second amendment or a group with the pull of the NRA with the politicians, or that the current politicians will actually take the equal time to listen to, to work with, and a great many things can be done here, by an Order in Council.

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by 32-40win

They may not be actually coming at present, there are those that would like to and in the present climate are getting plenty of time from the politicians at the moment. With the fractured community we have concerning firearms, the media push and the general political mood at the moment, it isn't hard for the anti's to get a wedge in the cracks. I wouldn't trust Trudeau or Goodale as far as I can spit, not to try to pull something here in Canada. We do not have a second amendment or a group with the pull of the NRA with the politicians, or that the current politicians will actually take the equal time to listen to, to work with, and a great many things can be done here, by an Order in Council.

See now that's a reasonable assertion. Yes something could happen. Is it going to? Who knows. Until such time that a bill is tabled I'll continue enjoying my firearms and not worrying about what ifs.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

See now that's a reasonable assertion. Yes something could happen. Is it going to? Who knows. Until such time that a bill is tabled I'll continue enjoying my firearms and not worrying about what ifs.

Seems like a good plan. Pretend nothing will happen. Has worked well in the past.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

Lol yeah ok.

Quote something I have said that backs up either of those assertions.

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Quote something I have said that backs up either of those assertions.

Look at your post history its pretty evident. Why don't you back up your assertions before asking others to?

[logician]

Originally Posted by professori

BS.

Not BS. The Florida shooter bought his firearms legally and he passed a background check as part of the process:

"Gun World of South Florida Kim Waltuch, 54, of Parkland, said Cruz had done nothing to arouse suspicion during the purchase process and had appeared normal to her staff. He also bought a shotgun from the same store in 2016.

'He purchased a shotgun and an AK-47,' she said. 'He purchased a shotgun in 2016 and he purchased the AK in January.

'He was not a regular customer of ours. He did purchase firearms from us but it was not the AR-15 [thought to have been used in the killing spree].

'We went through the process of the background checks which is the only way we release a firearm. He was immediately approved.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-AK-47.html

So enforcing background checks on private sales would've done nil to prevent this shooter (or most of the others I can think of).

Originally Posted by professori

Strawman argument. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by neither criminals or the government.

All mass shootings are committed by criminals or the government because mass shootings are illegal unless the government is the one doing the shooting.

Originally Posted by professori

Another argument from the paranoid side. There is no evidence whatsoever of this, yet the NRA uses this fear-mongering to build support.
Show me the evidence. You can't just make this stuff up based on unfounded fear.

I can't believe you're even disputing that there's a strong drive to take away firearms. That tells me you're likely being disingenous and obstructionist rather than trying to engage in an honest discussion. This has been a hot political issue for years if not decades.

According to this poll, 80% of democrats want to take away semi-automatic firearms and 50% want to take away all firearms:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/su...rticle/2650543

It's already been done in numerous other countries.

Originally Posted by professori

This is the all time stupidest idea ever. I would give it less than 6 months before some stressed-out, poorly supported teacher snapped and gunned down a student. I am truly glad I don't have to live in a mind so fearful and ignorant as this.

I suspect you might be projecting a little of your own instability and irresponsibility here.

Dealing with challenging students without "snapping" is a core part of a teacher's job and something they're trained for. Teachers are by-and-large very responsible people. Many of them are already responsible firearms owners outside of the classroom.

While it's true that eventually, some rogue teacher would likely whip out a gun and start shooting students, you have to consider the risk of that happening vs. the risk of continued school shootings happening as long as schools are gun-free zones. If allowing teachers to carry firearms causes 1 more shooting in 6 months but prevents 20 others, it's a strong positive.

[32-40win]

If the local school board and the local sherriff's office and the FBI had done their jobs as per the guidelines and laws in place, he never would have had the chance to pull it off, his guns may well have been taken from him pending a psyche exam. When the cops are called to his home 30+ times and he had threatened people at the school and it had been reported already, FBI investigated and dropped "because they couldn't track him down", that is a failure of the gov't, and all the laws they already passed. Cry all they want, if it is not enforced, it will not do anything to prevent another occurrence. Even the police depts around the USA are saying the same thing, the system failed, because of SJW policies and incompetence or apathy in that system.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

Look at your post history its pretty evident. Why don't you back up your assertions before asking others to?

What?

[bobalong]

In School Bullet Proof shelter
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-el...ry?id=53409001

[Newview01]

And some good news out of Florida...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/florida-se...154226849.html

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (Reuters) - The Florida Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons, and voted for a measure to arm some teachers, weeks after 17 people were killed in the deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history.

An amendment that would have banned assault weapons attached to a wider bill failed on Saturday in a largely party-line vote, in response to the Feb. 14 killing of 14 students and three faculty at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the Fort Lauderdale suburb of Parkland.

The vote was 20-17 against the assault weapon ban, with two Republicans joining all of the senate's 15 Democrats in support of the proposal, the Miami Herald reported.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Newview01

And some good news out of Florida...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/florida-se...154226849.html

The ironic part , is that assault rifles are already very strictly regulated, and the rifle that the people want to ban, are not assault rifles.

[6.5swedeforelk]

Originally Posted by professori

...Until then, avoid battles of the wits as you are only 1/2 equipped.

Half equipped or not, FClightning did point out an incongruity
in your post.

Similar to winning an arm wrestle with your off-hand?

[6.5 shooter]

Originally Posted by professori

I know nuance is probably beyond your grasp. Big difference from saying "I would give it six months" (maybe I should have said this is my opinion) and saying, "they are coming for our guns". One is clearly opinion, the other is stated as fact. Not really comparable. Go take Philosophy 101 and learn how to formulate a logical argument. Until then, avoid battles of the wits as you are only 1/2 equipped.

A typical LEFTY...can't win the argument so resorts to insults...right Professor?

[barsik]

Originally Posted by professori

I know nuance is probably beyond your grasp. Big difference from saying "I would give it six months" (maybe I should have said this is my opinion) and saying, "they are coming for our guns". One is clearly opinion, the other is stated as fact. Not really comparable. Go take Philosophy 101 and learn how to formulate a logical argument. Until then, avoid battles of the wits as you are only 1/2 equipped.

many have already had legally owned firearms either prohibited or confiscated. I am one of them. fact.