tshile Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Weren't you discussing whether having people armed in public might prevent mass shootings or other crimes? May have gotten my protagonists and antagonists confused. I guess I didn't understand the connection. Though we're missing details if you want to go that route. It says she shot the tires... was she trying to shoot the tires? If so... she's a pretty good shot... I know the movies make it out to look like shooting a moving target with a pistol is easy, with the people diving and hitting head shots from a distance, but I believe it's quite hard. Maybe it was an SUV with giant tires on it *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Of course, one of the main reasons that we don't have the data and studies that we all seem to want is because the NRA has pushed through a ban on federal research into the effect of gun ownership on public health. Funding for gun safety studies has dropped by 96% since the mid-1990s. http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1 but of course "both sides" are equally interested in a healthy, fact-based public policy debate, right? The NRA counts as one side like Code Pink stands for the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 The suppression of scientific research into gun violence by the NRA (and its adherents) is just infuriating and is a huge part of the problem. Suppressed by the voters and their representatives just doesn't sound as good does it? Even the Dem controlled congress and a Dem potus ?....probably bought off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 The NRA counts as one side like Code Pink stands for the other. Right. Because Code Pink essentially has veto control over bills and are one of the most powerful lobbies in history who have a stranglehold over not only legislation but whether certain things are even RESEARCHED. More of the same "well both sides are equal" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I agree with him. I don't think the Democrats are interested in ACTUALLY doing something meaningful. Well, it's certainly true that the Democrats are very leery of doing anything that will essentially ensure that every single gun owner in the entire nation shows up at the polls and pulls the GOP lever. The NRA can deliver tens of millions of votes overnight, because studies have shown that gun owners are single issue voters, and if guns become the focus of the election, they will vote come out and vote based on that issue alone, regardless of any other economic or social concerns they might feel. The Democrats would love to have some reasonable gun control measures at the federal level, but they know what happens when you poke that fire ant hill with a stick. Only the Democrats in the very safest of districts are willing to do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Suppressed by the voters and their representatives just doesn't sound as good does it? Even the Dem controlled congress and a Dem potus ?....probably bought off. You have to be kidding if you're claiming representatives voting to make sure no gun research is done by the government has anything to do with their constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 The NRA counts as one side like Code Pink stands for the other. Huh? What does that even mean in the context of this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) Hey Pope - care to compare the political contributions of the NRA vs Code Pink? Yeah, I didn't think so. That's some weak twa level argumenting there - I expected more from you. Edited October 7, 2015 by The Evil Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 When you say the Democrats Predicto I assume you don't mean the Dem voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Suppressed by the voters and their representatives just doesn't sound as good does it? Even the Dem controlled congress and a Dem potus ?....probably bought off. You mean, suppressed by the representative catering to special interest grounp that represents a minority of voters, but voters who care most deeply about the issue and are most likely to punish any representative to strays from the NRA line. Just for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 You have to be kidding if you're claiming representatives voting to make sure no gun research is done by the government has anything to do with their constituents. Have you seen who their constituents are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 You have to be kidding if you're claiming representatives voting to make sure no gun research is done by the government has anything to do with their constituents. Well Predicto is confusing me what with the claim of the Dems fearing the voters.....last I checked the NRA doesn't have a vote. Either that or he was calling the dem leaders spineless cowards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) You are right. The NRA doesn't have a vote. They have about 65 in the Senate and about 250 or so in the House. Edited October 7, 2015 by The Evil Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Well, it's certainly true that the Democrats are very leery of doing anything that will essentially ensure that every single gun owner in the entire nation shows up at the polls and pulls the GOP lever. The NRA can deliver tens of millions of votes overnight, because studies have shown that gun owners are single issue voters, and if guns become the focus of the election, they will vote come out and vote based on that issue alone, regardless of any other economic or social concerns they might feel. The Democrats would love to have some reasonable gun control measures at the federal level, but they know what happens when you poke that fire ant hill with a stick. Only the Democrats in the very safest of districts are willing to do that. Absolutely. Lots of GOPers would support reasonable gun control measures as well. But for the same reasons that Democrats avoid it, those GOPers avoid it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah but what about concealed cars? Of course, one of the main reasons that we don't have the data and studies that we all seem to want is because the NRA has pushed through a ban on federal research into the effect of gun ownership on public health. Funding for gun safety studies has dropped by 96% since the mid-1990s. http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1 but of course "both sides" are equally interested in a healthy, fact-based public policy debate, right? This is, unfortunately, a key reason to be suspicious of Lott's studies, on top of all the other stuff. Money has largely dried up for studies, except apparently from a few select places that conveniently back the talking points the NRA advances. Could be coincidence, but likely isn't. I agree with him. I don't think the Democrats are interested in ACTUALLY doing something meaningful. I don't really buy the "they should have done something while they were in power," bit. Democrats only had a supermajority for a short time frame, during which we also happened to be in the midst of a recession. Any attempt to act on guns would have been savaged from a variety of angles. Moreover, you'd have needed perfect uniformity from Democrats during that small window to change things. Problem is, fast forward to 2013 when someone DID attempt to get a new assault weapons ban passed, and 15 Democrats voted against it. Now, part of that is likely due to the bill not being the best written, but I guarantee some of those 15 votes could not be recaptured on any gun control issue. This means hitting 60 was effectively impossible, which would have been required in order to bring about change during the short supermajority time frame. It's frankly a little silly of Boehner. He comes out shortly after stepping down and chastises the far right for thinking that the majority party can just magically do anything it wants, explaining that procedure bars them from doing most of those things, but then immediately turns around and criticizes Democrats on guns for failing to do what he just told the far right it was impossible to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, unfortunately any Dem from a state that is even close to a reddish hue is always going to be wary about any sort of gun legislation. They're politicians; the very first instinct is making sure they stay in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yeah, unfortunately any Dem from a state that is even close to a reddish hue is always going to be wary about any sort of gun legislation. They're politicians; the very first instinct is making sure they stay in office. The fastest path to making positive progress on gun homicides might be first to address special interest political funding, which seems counter-intuitive since overturning/constitutionally amending Citizens United seems harder than simply passing a piece of legislature, but that's where we're at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 In the gun debate, the NRA isn't a "side" just like Code Pink wasn't a "side" in the war debate. The NRA can't pass a law. You want to quibble that lawmakers kowtow to the NRA, fine. DC and Chicago both banned handguns, despite all the NRA money. Those laws were eventually overturned as unconstitutional. The assault weapons ban was passed in spite of the NRA. NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, despite the NRA. Maryland has passed legislation over the last 4 years making it a strict gun control state, in spite of the NRA. Miraculously, laws are passed and take effect while the NRA still lobbies. I am NOT a member of the NRA. I am in here debating guns. On the "side" that gets me labeled a spouter of NRA propaganda. Believe it or not, there are people that believe in the 2nd Amendment that aren't NRA cronies. So the bull**** labeling gets really old. Lawmakers are a side. Voters are a side. If the country really wanted to overhaul the gun laws, it would happen. Lawmakers only care about staying in power. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 In the gun debate, the NRA isn't a "side" just like Code Pink wasn't a "side" in the war debate. The NRA can't pass a law. You want to quibble that lawmakers kowtow to the NRA, fine. DC and Chicago both banned handguns, despite all the NRA money. Those laws were eventually overturned as unconstitutional. The assault weapons ban was passed in spite of the NRA. NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, despite the NRA. Maryland has passed legislation over the last 4 years making it a strict gun control state, in spite of the NRA. Miraculously, laws are passed and take effect while the NRA still lobbies. I am NOT a member of the NRA. I am in here debating guns. On the "side" that gets me labeled a spouter of NRA propaganda. Believe it or not, there are people that believe in the 2nd Amendment that aren't NRA cronies. So the bull**** labeling gets really old. Lawmakers are a side. Voters are a side. If the country really wanted to overhaul the gun laws, it would happen. Lawmakers only care about staying in power. So the talking points just happen to sound exactly like the ones the NRA puts out regularly (or every time there is a mass shooting now)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) The NRA counts as one side like Code Pink stands for the other. One of them is the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. (And in most states.) A power for legislation which has been granted almost everything it has wanted, for decades. One of them is Code Pink. Suppressed by the voters and their representatives just doesn't sound as good does it? Even the Dem controlled congress and a Dem potus ?....probably bought off. No, from what I understand, mostly it's a case of intimidation. The NRA doesn't have to throw around money, on Capitol Hill. They have the power to deliver or withhold votes. Which in many cases are actually more powerful than money. Edited October 7, 2015 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Cities can get gun bans passed for the same reasons why some municipalities can get public ISPs built; while special interests can strongly influence the Congress (535 people), and even state legislatures (50x several hundred), they can't make their money stretch far enough to influence even at the local level. There are just too many people, and it's too tough to counter local political views which put those people into office. That's why the NRA (and ISPs) deal with it in a different way. ISPs got states to pass laws banning municipally-owned broadband. The NRA used the courts to get bans of firearms overturned (biding their time until the most opportune moment, as Predicto explained in his history lesson). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Round and round we go. Anyone on the pro gun side gets labeled as a NRA hack. EVERY TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Round and round we go. Anyone on the pro gun side gets labeled as a NRA hack. EVERY TIME. No, hacks are ax murderers. Pro gun folks are dum dums, blanks, or sociopaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Round and round we go. Anyone on the pro gun side gets labeled as a NRA hack. EVERY TIME. I might have to join it before I die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDeep81 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Man this debate is in left field now for sure! lol (Fly ball!!) I've just never met a single psycho or criminal who's willing to follow any law, much less more restrictive gun laws.. It's something the NRA preaches and they don't need to brainwash me to get me to agree.. It's basic common sense imho.. Since the debate went from mass shootings to basic gun violence (Since, afaik, there's never been a case where a good guy with a gun made a MASS shooting worse?) then they should start by enforcing the laws that are already on the books.. The Mills case, where the guy buys dozens of guns with fake ID and sells them to felons.. He pleads guilty to 1 (ONE) count and is sentenced with probation? Then there's the brilliant ideas of our government, like Fast and Furious.. That kinda stuff always helps ease gun violence.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts