Many fewer U.S. gun owners

[apple0154]

absolutely not. a parents sole responsibility is to raise their children with the knowledge and skillsets to survive in the modern world. If they fail to do that, then their children don't survive. it's the way of the world. we should already see where countries go that mandates the government teaching the people.

It may be the way of the world but children suffer. There is no shortage of loony parents from hearing stories about young girls giving birth in bathrooms having kept the pregnancy secret (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-26-bathroom-baby_N.htm)
to children denied proper medical care due to a parent's religious beliefs (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP3/).

The child should be removed from the home and the parent neutered.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The NRA is fond of describing itself as the representative of "gun consumers," and the organization bristles at the very suggestion that it more truly represents the gun industry.

There are, however, legions of examples of the NRA choosing the interests of the industry over the safety and well-being of consumers. One recent, glaring example was the organization's support for federal legislation limiting the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries caused by defective guns.

The NRA joined a long list of big business interests, firearm manufacturer trade associations, and individual manufacturers pushing for severe limits on the rights of consumers injured by defectively designed or manufactured products—including firearms and ammunition.

The stakes were very high for firearm consumers since—unlike virtually all other consumer products—no federal agency has the authority to regulate the safety of firearms and ammunition. The liability system is the only recourse available for gun consumers to hold manufacturers accountable and receive fair compensation when they are killed or injured by defective guns.

The composition of the NRA's board may help explain its cozy relationship with the industry. It also may well have dictated the organization's position on a recent, hotly contested issue—inclusion of a provision in federal anti-terrorism legislation requiring the tagging of explosives with microscopic markers. The placement of such markers—commonly known as "taggants"—in explosives is designed to help law enforcement trace the source of bombings.

Three board members appear to have significant financial interests in preventing the tagging of certain gun powder known as "black powder."

The NRA has repeatedly opposed the placing of "taggants" in this type of explosive. The organization argues that the markers could interfere with the stability of cartridges and shells made by shooters who produce their own ammunition, a practice commonly known as "handloading." Taggant proponents note that such markers provide law enforcement personnel with an invaluable investigative tool in determining the source of explosives. The three NRA board members run businesses that sell reloading equipment and/or supplies used by shooting enthusiasts who make their own handgun and rifle cartridges or shotgun shells.

Board member Robert Hodgdon (also cited in the previous section) is president of Hodgdon Powder Company and a charter member of the National Reloading Manufacturers Association. The company makes gun powder. Mr. Hodgdon has in the past maintained that tagging requirements would force an increase in prices that would lead to reduced sales. Hodgdon Powder also advertises in American Rifleman magazine.

Board member Steve Hornady is president of Hornady Manufacturing Company. Hornady manufactures a wide variety of reloading equipment as well as ammunition. Mr. Hornady's biography for the NRA board notes that he has served on the nominating committees of both the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry. The Hornady Manufacturing Company placed a full-page advertisement in the March 1996 issue of American Rifleman magazine.

Board member Kenneth Oehler is founder and president of Oehler Research. His company manufactures chronographs—devices used by handloaders to measure the velocity of a bullet to ensure consistency within a batch of ammunition. Oehler brags that his company has provided a free NRA membership with each chronograph it has sold for the past two years. The seeming intrusion of the financial interests of NRA officials into the group's policy-setting on explosives tagging is not new.

In 1979 Neal Knox—who was then head of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, and is currently an NRA board member and first vice president for the organization—led the organization's campaign against a bill that would have required explosives manufacturers to put taggants in their products. The rationale for opposing the bill was the same as that offered today—that taggants may destabilize home-loaded ammunition.

In the 1980s it was uncovered that Knox, along with Robert Hodgdon, was a founder and stockholder in Pyrodex Corporation (which manufactured a black powder substitute). Mr. Knox was successful in having the taggant provision deleted from broader anti-terrorism legislation.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The NRA is fond of describing itself as the representative of "gun consumers," and the organization bristles at the very suggestion that it more truly represents the gun industry.

There are, however, legions of examples of the NRA choosing the interests of the industry over the safety and well-being of consumers. One recent, glaring example was the organization's support for federal legislation limiting the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries caused by defective guns.

once again, sheer conjecture, supposition, and biased theory. If a firearm truly malfunctions or is defective, it is not immune to a suit for damages. The VPC would like to see the courts declare all firearms as defective because they can be misused by people.

There are over 4 million american members of the NRA, compare that to a dozen? maybe 2 dozen? firearms manufacturers and you should clearly see that they are not a lobby organization for the 'industry'. why are you ignoring the facts I stated to you?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The NRA was admired by Philip Morris management and cited as a template for carrying out effective pro-industry activities in which a corporation itself could not legitimately engage.

The NRA is mentioned numerous times in the tobacco industry's documents as a successful lobbying group worthy of emulation. Operation Downunder Conference Notes (Philip Morris 1987) mention the NRA's "Make it Hurt" strategy (creating political risk for legislators where none otherwise exists).

In a 1985 speech, Bill Murray of Philip Morris admires how the NRA has been able to motivate its members to action, something the tobacco industry had been unable to do. The NRA served as a template for the National Smokers Association (an early Philip Morris's smokers' rights group which preceded the National Smokers Alliance).

A January 1988 PM Five Year Plan states, In 1988, we intend to create local smokers' rights associations throughout the U.S. The basis for these associations will be a network of 50,000 "block captains" who will monitor local smoking issues, write or visit political decision-makers, write letters to local newspapers and generally serve as a grass roots voice for smokers' rights.

We intend to link these "captains" to local, state and ultimately a national rights organization. Once the national organization is established and funded, we will spin the Smokers Newsletters into it and create a self-sustaining membership organization similar to the National Rifle Association. at Page 123
The tobacco industry also found common ground with the NRA as an organization that supported a controversial, yet legal product.

A Tobacco Institute strategy document states industry strategy to Identify large, influential groups concerned with freedom of expression and other Constitutional "rights" (e. g. the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment, groups opposed to polygraph tests and the Fifth Amendment, minority groups and the 14th Amendment, etc.) and encourage their support for consistent and fair application of Constitutional protection for legal products and practices.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Organized Corporate Solicitation Program Disproves Longstanding NRA Claim That It's Independent of Gun Industry



WASHINGTON - April 13 - The National Rifle Association (NRA) receives millions of dollars directly from domestic and foreign gun manufacturers and other members of the firearms industry through an organized corporate outreach program according to a new report issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).


The report, "Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA" (http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf), reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.


Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million.



The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.


Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.


In a recent promotional brochure, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre promises that the “National Rifle Association’s newly expanded Corporate Partners Program is an opportunity for corporations to partner with the NRA....This program is geared toward your company’s corporate interests.”


Among the NRA’s “corporate partners” who gave $25,000 or more to the organization are 22 that manufacture firearms, including such well-known gunmakers as: Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli; Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; DPMS Panther Arms; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Marlin Firearms; Remington Arms Co., Inc.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons. Also among the NRA’s “corporate partners” are numerous high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors.


One manufacturer, Beretta, donated one million dollars to the NRA to work to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller" (which for the first time ever recognized an individual right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense).


VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry. While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."


The NRA's top corporate benefactor is MidwayUSA, the "Official Sponsor of the NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits...” being held in Pittsburgh, PA, later this month. MidwayUSA sells ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other shooting accessories and has contributed between five and 10 million dollars to the NRA via its NRA Round-Up Program (which rounds up customer purchases to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA) and other contributions.


The study concludes, "The mutually dependent nature of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry explains the NRA’s unwillingness to compromise on even the most limited controls over firearms or related products (such as restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines)....The NRA claims that its positions are driven solely by a concern for the interests of gun owners, never mentioning its own financial stake in protecting the profits of its gun industry patrons.


At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told a cheering crowd that 'the guys with the guns make the rules.' The information contained in this report raises the question as to what degree it is the guys who make the guns who make the rules."


http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/04/13-2

 

[leaningright]

The NRA has filled this need for many years, but not in schools, as far as I know.

Maybe the idea of training kids to shoot in high school is a good one.

Let me know how that works for you.

We have a shooting team in our high school...as do many of the othe high schools in our area.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Here's a high school shooting squad you may have heard of:

 

[WinterBorn]

Here's a high school shooting squad you may have heard of:

Do you actually think the NRA or any other lawful shooter thinks what those two mentally deranged misfits did was right?

If you want to debate the topic, stick with it. But that was just sick.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Do you actually think the NRA or any other lawful shooter thinks what those two mentally deranged misfits did was right?

If you want to debate the topic, stick with it. But that was just sick.

Did I say that?

Somebody wanted to talk about high school shooting. What's the first thing that comes to mind?

Remind me again how you get to control what people post here.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The gun industry and the National Rifle Association (NRA) don't want you to know that gun sales have stagnated for years, and their campaigns to legalize concealed carry and fight restrictions on the sales of highly lethal weapons are part of their strategy to boost stagnant gun sales.

Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, argues that this business strategy does a disservice to the sport shooters and hunters who make up the bulk of the NRA's membership, and has resulted in turning the United States into the "last great market" for cheap and highly lethal weapons.

Diaz, the author of Making a Killing and the forthcoming No Borders: Transnational Latino Gangs and American Law Enforcement, spoke to the Shepherd about the true motives of the gun industry, how President George Bush allowed assault-style weapons to be imported into the United States, and what President-elect Barack Obama should do about gun violence.

Shepherd: You're a gun-control advocate, but you are also a gun nut?

Diaz: I'm a former gun nut. Prior to 1994, I was a member of the NRA. I owned multiple firearms-handguns and assault rifles. I shot in pistol competitions. I favored the use of firearms. I even testified against the Washington, D.C., gun ban in a sort of NRA robot manner. I thought, "I'm a good person. Why should anyone take my guns away from me?"

Shepherd: So what happened?

Diaz: I was an attorney on the House of Representatives' crime subcommittee. I was hired to work on terrorism, but I ended up working on gun stuff. I put together some hearings for pending legislation. Now, remember, I'm from a military family. I learned how to shoot in the Boy Scouts in Mississippi. But these larger gun issues were sort of abstract to me. So I put together a hearing on kids and guns and began investigating it. I heard the kids' stories firsthand, from all over the United States, and from all socioeconomic groups.

What I realized was that the gun industry and manufacturers had changed the profile of who their target market was. It was not about self-defense or the right to bear arms. They were hyper-marketing very lethal guns and they flooded the U.S. with them. The NRA doesn't represent sport shooters and hunters. They were selling these killing machines. I was shocked and tormented by these kids' stories. One girl told a story of a friend literally dying in her arms from a stray bullet.

Shepherd: The average person, even the average gun owner, may not know how the gun industry is marketing to new groups of people. What exactly are they doing?

Diaz: This is something that a lot of sport shooters and hunters don't realize. Firearms are very durable products. They are not going to wear out if you take care of them. So how do I, as a gun manufacturer, get you to buy more guns? They recognize this problem. They discuss it. This is their innovation: In the past 25-30 years they have come up with new designs that are more lethal. They push them through magazine articles and gun shows.

Then there is the NRA campaign to allow concealed weapons to be carried everywhere. So the manufacturers started marketing small handguns, so you could walk around with a gun in your pocket. And they are marketing to women and children to broaden their market.

This is not on the radar of most hunters. But then they get hunters and recreational shooters all worked up about people trying to take their guns away. But I don't know any rational person in the gun-control movement who wants to take away someone's hunting rifle. But I am sickened by this proliferation of firearms. And they are inappropriately used when people are angry or depressed. And we are arming up criminals who shouldn't be able to get their hands on guns.

Shepherd: While the NRA is focused on the right to bear arms, you view gun ownership and gun violence as a public health issue. How does this change the discussion of gun ownership?

Diaz: First, adopting a public health perspective would allow us to know more about firearms and death caused by them. The industry has been instrumental in suppressing data on gun violence. Think about it: If you run a tire company that is making defective tires, and the tires cause cars to flip over, there are tracking systems that will alert people if there is a problem. There is data on the safety of every product except guns. That data is suppressed. But if we had it, we could end the debate on guns and crime because we would know the facts.

But the second thing a public health perspective would do is to consider where someone's right should be hemmed in because of the damage it could do to someone. There was a time when cars didn't have seat belts. But people realized that accidents are life-threatening, so now all cars are manufactured with seat belts. So if gun violence was addressed from a public health perspective, guns would not be eliminated. But we could control the types of firearms that are most lethal, like the military-style automatic weapons.

Shepherd: So if the information is being suppressed, who is gathering the data on gun violence?

Diaz: The gun lobby-by that I mean the NRA and the manufacturers-have deliberately shut down the sources of information. There is very little data collected by the federal government. Some data have been patched together from various sources, and much of the research is privately funded. From my point of view, that's insane. And think about it: If the gun manufacturers were so confident about the utilitarian nature of their product, then they wouldn't worry about the data collected on how they're used. The ATF [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] used to release their list of the top guns used in crimes each year. But legislation was passed and now the ATF can't release this data. We want that changed-we want full data and an open discussion. Even law enforcement has trouble getting this information. And there is no data on the guns being trafficked to Mexico. The ATF information is ridiculous. The Mexican government gave them the information, but the ATF won't break it out according to the types of guns being trafficked.

It doesn't make any sense. Would we try to create an energy policy without reliable information about how much is used, what the sources are, and what demand will be? That is just crazy.

Shepherd: How would you assess the Bush administration's stand on gun issues?

Diaz: This is not my opinion, but it's a factual judgment: This administration has been a disaster for the country. If there were a ratings system, and 1 was excellent and 10 was very bad, I would give them a 15 on gun issues.

The Bush administration has been prime co-conspirators with the gun industry. Secretly, the administration has opened the valve for the import of assault riles into the country. This is something that [current President Bush's] dad was against. His father's policy was that only firearms for sporting purposes could be imported into the country. But the current Bush administration-with no publicity-has opened that valve and the U.S. is now flooded with cheap and lethal assault weapons. The most problematic ones are coming in from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. But they're coming from countries that wouldn't allow them to be sold locally-Brazil, some European countries; there's even a Canadian manufacturer of these weapons. The last great market for cheap guns is the United States, and Bush is complicit in this.

Shepherd: If you were one of Obama's advisers, what would you tell him?

Diaz: First, I would tell him to open up the information valve. The Freedom of Information Act means what it means. Information on gun violence should be collected and we should have a full debate. Second, I would tell him to shut down this valve that allows military-style assault weapons to be imported into the country. He can change that easily with an executive decision. Third, I would tell him to renew the debate about assault weapons. The 1994 law was a joke. The gun industry easily got around it because there were so many loopholes.

What's your take?
Write: editor@shepex.com or comment on this story online at www.expressmilwaukee.com



http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-4966-what-the-gun-industry-and-the-nra-donrst-want-you-to-know.html

 

[WinterBorn]

Did I say that?

Somebody wanted to talk about high school shooting. What's the first thing that comes to mind?

Remind me again how you get to control what people post here.

No, someone mentioned high school shooting teams. And you became a bigger asshole.

Not surprising.

 

[WinterBorn]

The gun industry and the National Rifle Association (NRA) don't want you to know that gun sales have stagnated for years, and their campaigns to legalize concealed carry and fight restrictions on the sales of highly lethal weapons are part of their strategy to boost stagnant gun sales.

Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, argues that this business strategy does a disservice to the sport shooters and hunters who make up the bulk of the NRA's membership, and has resulted in turning the United States into the "last great market" for cheap and highly lethal weapons.

Diaz, the author of Making a Killing and the forthcoming No Borders: Transnational Latino Gangs and American Law Enforcement, spoke to the Shepherd about the true motives of the gun industry, how President George Bush allowed assault-style weapons to be imported into the United States, and what President-elect Barack Obama should do about gun violence.

Shepherd: You're a gun-control advocate, but you are also a gun nut?

Diaz: I'm a former gun nut. Prior to 1994, I was a member of the NRA. I owned multiple firearms-handguns and assault rifles. I shot in pistol competitions. I favored the use of firearms. I even testified against the Washington, D.C., gun ban in a sort of NRA robot manner. I thought, "I'm a good person. Why should anyone take my guns away from me?"

Shepherd: So what happened?

Diaz: I was an attorney on the House of Representatives' crime subcommittee. I was hired to work on terrorism, but I ended up working on gun stuff. I put together some hearings for pending legislation. Now, remember, I'm from a military family. I learned how to shoot in the Boy Scouts in Mississippi. But these larger gun issues were sort of abstract to me. So I put together a hearing on kids and guns and began investigating it. I heard the kids' stories firsthand, from all over the United States, and from all socioeconomic groups.

What I realized was that the gun industry and manufacturers had changed the profile of who their target market was. It was not about self-defense or the right to bear arms. They were hyper-marketing very lethal guns and they flooded the U.S. with them. The NRA doesn't represent sport shooters and hunters. They were selling these killing machines. I was shocked and tormented by these kids' stories. One girl told a story of a friend literally dying in her arms from a stray bullet.

Shepherd: The average person, even the average gun owner, may not know how the gun industry is marketing to new groups of people. What exactly are they doing?

Diaz: This is something that a lot of sport shooters and hunters don't realize. Firearms are very durable products. They are not going to wear out if you take care of them. So how do I, as a gun manufacturer, get you to buy more guns? They recognize this problem. They discuss it. This is their innovation: In the past 25-30 years they have come up with new designs that are more lethal. They push them through magazine articles and gun shows.

Then there is the NRA campaign to allow concealed weapons to be carried everywhere. So the manufacturers started marketing small handguns, so you could walk around with a gun in your pocket. And they are marketing to women and children to broaden their market.

This is not on the radar of most hunters. But then they get hunters and recreational shooters all worked up about people trying to take their guns away. But I don't know any rational person in the gun-control movement who wants to take away someone's hunting rifle. But I am sickened by this proliferation of firearms. And they are inappropriately used when people are angry or depressed. And we are arming up criminals who shouldn't be able to get their hands on guns.

Shepherd: While the NRA is focused on the right to bear arms, you view gun ownership and gun violence as a public health issue. How does this change the discussion of gun ownership?

Diaz: First, adopting a public health perspective would allow us to know more about firearms and death caused by them. The industry has been instrumental in suppressing data on gun violence. Think about it: If you run a tire company that is making defective tires, and the tires cause cars to flip over, there are tracking systems that will alert people if there is a problem. There is data on the safety of every product except guns. That data is suppressed. But if we had it, we could end the debate on guns and crime because we would know the facts.

But the second thing a public health perspective would do is to consider where someone's right should be hemmed in because of the damage it could do to someone. There was a time when cars didn't have seat belts. But people realized that accidents are life-threatening, so now all cars are manufactured with seat belts. So if gun violence was addressed from a public health perspective, guns would not be eliminated. But we could control the types of firearms that are most lethal, like the military-style automatic weapons.

Shepherd: So if the information is being suppressed, who is gathering the data on gun violence?

Diaz: The gun lobby-by that I mean the NRA and the manufacturers-have deliberately shut down the sources of information. There is very little data collected by the federal government. Some data have been patched together from various sources, and much of the research is privately funded. From my point of view, that's insane. And think about it: If the gun manufacturers were so confident about the utilitarian nature of their product, then they wouldn't worry about the data collected on how they're used. The ATF [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] used to release their list of the top guns used in crimes each year. But legislation was passed and now the ATF can't release this data. We want that changed-we want full data and an open discussion. Even law enforcement has trouble getting this information. And there is no data on the guns being trafficked to Mexico. The ATF information is ridiculous. The Mexican government gave them the information, but the ATF won't break it out according to the types of guns being trafficked.

It doesn't make any sense. Would we try to create an energy policy without reliable information about how much is used, what the sources are, and what demand will be? That is just crazy.

Shepherd: How would you assess the Bush administration's stand on gun issues?

Diaz: This is not my opinion, but it's a factual judgment: This administration has been a disaster for the country. If there were a ratings system, and 1 was excellent and 10 was very bad, I would give them a 15 on gun issues.

The Bush administration has been prime co-conspirators with the gun industry. Secretly, the administration has opened the valve for the import of assault riles into the country. This is something that [current President Bush's] dad was against. His father's policy was that only firearms for sporting purposes could be imported into the country. But the current Bush administration-with no publicity-has opened that valve and the U.S. is now flooded with cheap and lethal assault weapons. The most problematic ones are coming in from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. But they're coming from countries that wouldn't allow them to be sold locally-Brazil, some European countries; there's even a Canadian manufacturer of these weapons. The last great market for cheap guns is the United States, and Bush is complicit in this.

Shepherd: If you were one of Obama's advisers, what would you tell him?

Diaz: First, I would tell him to open up the information valve. The Freedom of Information Act means what it means. Information on gun violence should be collected and we should have a full debate. Second, I would tell him to shut down this valve that allows military-style assault weapons to be imported into the country. He can change that easily with an executive decision. Third, I would tell him to renew the debate about assault weapons. The 1994 law was a joke. The gun industry easily got around it because there were so many loopholes.

What's your take?
Write: editor@shepex.com or comment on this story online at www.expressmilwaukee.com



http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-4966-what-the-gun-industry-and-the-nra-donrst-want-you-to-know.html

I love that he calls the Bush gun laws a disastor, but the violent crime rate consistently fell during that period. Whereas, when the gun ban took effect in Australia, the violent crime rates have all consistently gone up.

Makes you wonder whether they are interested in stopping crime or maintaining power over an unarmed population.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Then there is the NRA campaign to allow concealed weapons to be carried everywhere. So the manufacturers started marketing small handguns, so you could walk around with a gun in your pocket. And they are marketing to women and children to broaden their market.

This is not on the radar of most hunters. But then they get hunters and recreational shooters all worked up about people trying to take their guns away. But I don't know any rational person in the gun-control movement who wants to take away someone's hunting rifle. "


So the point here is that the NRA is sneaking by all this concealed weapons pressure?

LMAO! That is utterly ridiculous. This is a smear campaign. First of all, if no one wants to take away hunting rifles, why have there been increases in regulations on them over the last 20 years or so?

This is why the NRA is needed. So scum like this guy can divide shooters into good guys and bad guys, based on whether they hunt or want to protect themselves and their loved one.

He makes it sound as though hunting is ok, but allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves (especially women and children) is dangerous. He doesn't think the population should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Total nonsense. The NRA has been campaigning for concealed carry rights for decades. The only reason the anti-gunners are angry now is because the NRA has started winning in more and more states.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, someone mentioned high school shooting teams..

Considering the possession/owning of a firearm is a Constitutional right and the inherent danger that can result from the misuse or lack of knowledge regarding them wouldn't mandatory courses on their proper use be a good idea in High Schools?

And you became a bigger asshole.

I see you have, once again, resorted to insults instead of actual debate using facts. Not surprising.

Not surprising.

You said it. Not me.

 

[WinterBorn]

You said it. Not me.

Except that I am debating and you are avoiding the topics, refusing to answer questions, and throwing out irrelevant bullshit.


I ignored the posts in which you included insults with debate.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I love that he calls the Bush gun laws a disastor, but the violent crime rate consistently fell during that period. Whereas, when the gun ban took effect in Australia, the violent crime rates have all consistently gone up. Makes you wonder whether they are interested in stopping crime or maintaining power over an unarmed population.

He said the "administration has been a disaster for the country", no mention of gun laws in that sentence, is there?

BTW, it's "disaster" (hint - spell check).

Please explain your failed attempt to allege that the issue is relevant to rising or falling crime rates, here or in Australia.

 

[WinterBorn]

He said the "administration has been a disaster for the country", no mention of gun laws in that sentence, is there?

BTW, it's "disaster" (hint - spell check).

Please explain your failed attempt to allege that the issue is relevant to rising or falling crime rates, here or in Australia.

No mention in that sentence. But cherry-picking sentences out of context does not change anything.

From your post:

"Shepherd: How would you assess the Bush administration's stand on gun issues?

Diaz: This is not my opinion, but it's a factual judgment: This administration has been a disaster for the country. If there were a ratings system, and 1 was excellent and 10 was very bad, I would give them a 15 on gun issues."

The discussion/interview was about guns. The fact that the word "gun" is not used does not mean it was not the topic.


Oh, so now spell-checking is your best argument?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Except that I am debating and you are avoiding the topics, refusing to answer questions, and throwing out irrelevant bullshit.

According to your own set of conveniently flexible rules?

I ignored the posts in which you included insults with debate.

How noble you must think yourself.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No mention in that sentence. But cherry-picking sentences out of context does not change anything.

From your post:

"Shepherd: How would you assess the Bush administration's stand on gun issues?

Diaz: This is not my opinion, but it's a factual judgment: This administration has been a disaster for the country. If there were a ratings system, and 1 was excellent and 10 was very bad, I would give them a 15 on gun issues."

The discussion/interview was about guns. The fact that the word "gun" is not used does not mean it was not the topic.


Oh, so now spell-checking is your best argument?

Actually, your attempts to debate are my best argument. Please, continue.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Actually, your attempts to debate are my best argument. Please, continue.

you're losing badly, as everyone else here see's it.