Why I joined the N.R.A.

McG,

Bike theft and the like usually happens when you aren't around to make a difference even if you had a gun.

Bike theft is one of the biggest crimes in Japan, and how it usually plays out is that a drunk guy picks the wrong bike.

Japan has public bikes that anyone can use, many late night drunks confuse them with other bikes.

0 Replies

I'd rather see a lot of bikes stolen around me then see the kind of gun violence we've been spared.

0 Replies

It was a joke Craven.

0 Replies

If I'd had a gun a coupla weeks ago when I was burglared, I mighta been able to grab it and scare the burglar off - if I'd woken up of course.

Or he could have wrestled it from me (no matter how much you train, you can count on pro gangsters to be more trained than you) - and then I would have been dead now.

I'm counting my blessings. Upping the ante ad infinitum is a risky business.

But now I'm getting to my bottom line POV on guns, which is pretty irrelevant since we're never gonna agree on that anyway. So lemme return to the question I originally asked Fedral.

0 Replies

Craven, what part of dispassionate forensic evidence did you not understand?

0 Replies

The part where you try to pass it off as proof for an unrelated claim.

I said that when gun-control is the culture it is, indeed, possible to take the guns out of the hands of the bad guys as well as the good guys (and I added the disclaimer you can read up on above).

You retorted with "Craven, never works."

Your retort is bullshit, and the evidence you bring to the table does not even address it, much less even support it.

To support your "never works" claim you need to illustrate than in nations that have almost no guns, there are actually all these guns that only you know about.

0 Replies

But why do countries with fewer guns have higher crime percentages (as per my example above)?

0 Replies

Societal factors that have nothing to do with guns. I already gave you a short list:

Proximity. People living in greater proximity will have more crime.

Cars. People walking around on foot will suffer more petty theft.

Wealth. Rich nations tend to have fewer crimes as long as the wealth distribution is not very disproportionate.

In any case, your example was selective, there are examples of nations with fewer guns that have far far fewer crims than all teh antions in your example. In fact the nations I speak of have so little crime that many of the crimes are considered foreign to their culture.

Your example in no way established that nations with fewer guns have more crime.

Furthermore, the distinction of the crime is important. Guns have no relation to many crimes (e.g. white collar crime) and the statistics you used counts all the crimes, even those not at all related to guns.

To cut it short, another big factor is simply the rates at which the petty crimes are reported. Deaths and such are easier to compare.

0 Replies

there is no reason why anyone should be allowed to buy a gun without atleast presenting a valid ID.

It's idiotic to argue in favor of not checking someone's identity to ensure they aren't a violent criminal.

In addition, it's idiotic to argue that we should let ordinary people buy bazookas, machine guns, submachine guns, sniper rifles, and teflon tipped bullets designed specifically to pierce body armor and kill police officers.

Yet these are all positions that the NRA takes.

There are many limits on free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't make threats. You can't promote and incite violence. You can't swear on network tv.

Yet the NRA insists that there should be virtually no restrictions on gun ownership what's so ever. Right now, a homicidal maniac who's wanted for murder and escaped from a mental hospital can just walk into a gun show and legally purchase a gun without ever having to present an ID. There's something wrong with an organization that supports such a position.

0 Replies

One reason I am in the NRA...

http://www.imt.net/~mele/images/dragunov1.gif

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

If I'd had a gun a coupla weeks ago when I was burglared, I mighta been able to grab it and scare the burglar off - if I'd woken up of course.

Or he could have wrestled it from me (no matter how much you train, you can count on pro gangsters to be more trained than you) - and then I would have been dead now.

I'm counting my blessings. Upping the ante ad infinitum is a risky business.

But now I'm getting to my bottom line POV on guns, which is pretty irrelevant since we're never gonna agree on that anyway. So lemme return to the question I originally asked Fedral.

(sorry took so long to reply, hard to read and post between getting stuff done at work Very Happy

)

Of COURSE you should have to present I.D. to purchase a firearm.

Since it has been determined that convicted felons are forbidden from owning firearms, a check to ensure that you are not one should be a requirement. I have no problem with such a rule as it ensures that you indeed are an American citizen in good standing and are thus (as per the Second Amendment) legally permitted to purchase one or more weapons as is your right.

Beyond that, any further restriction on my ownership is, in my view, a restriction on my Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

there is no reason why anyone should be allowed to buy a gun without atleast presenting a valid ID.

It's idiotic to argue in favor of not checking someone's identity to ensure they aren't a violent criminal.

I agree, and if you buy a firearm from a store, you must present I.D.

Centroles wrote:

In addition, it's idiotic to argue that we should let ordinary people buy bazookas, machine guns, submachine guns, sniper rifles, and teflon tipped bullets designed specifically to pierce body armor and kill police officers.

Bazookas, machine guns, submachine guns require a special Class A dealers licence to own/purchase. 'Sniper Rifles' are another deal entirely because what YOU call a 'sniper rifle' is merely a hunting rifle that some people use to kill humans. The Marines used the Remington Model 700 as their 'sniper rifle' and it was the same 700 that has been sold for years to sport hunters. Where do you draw the line on restricting that. I have never seen any literature from the NRA that endorsed the continued sale of 'teflon coated rounds' (I have a Life NRA membership and have followed the NRA's battles for many, many years.)

Centroles wrote:

Yet these are all positions that the NRA takes.

You are incorrect on your statement on the NRA's position.

Centroles wrote:

There are many limits on free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't make threats. You can't promote and incite violence. You can't swear on network tv.

And if you commit a crime with a firearm, you are punished for it. But to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the less than 1% of gun owners that break the law is like restricting the sale of all cars and trucks because of some idiot that drives drunk or purposely runs down pedestrians.

Centroles wrote:

Yet the NRA insists that there should be virtually no restrictions on gun ownership what's so ever. Right now, a homicidal maniac who's wanted for murder and escaped from a mental hospital can just walk into a gun show and legally purchase a gun without ever having to present an ID. There's something wrong with an organization that supports such a position.

The NRA does NOT advocate ZERO restrictions on firearms, they advocate responsible gun ownership and keeping a fundamental right of the American people intact.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But why do countries with fewer guns have higher crime percentages (as per my example above)?

Actually, the source you posted said that - on the topic of these overall crime rates - the US was "among the middle ranking countries".

In my book, that means that there are countries, with (much) fewer guns, both above and below it in the list - both with higher, and with lower crime percentages.

Suggests that its determined by other factors (Craven mentioned a few).

Now, if, as your source also said, America has a "high murder rate" in comparison with other countries, it means that most countries that have (much) fewer guns have (considerably) less murders.

Which means that there, 'gun culture' might be an exacerbating factor. (I happen to believe so - but I admit I dont have the stats at hand.)

Hey Fedral, thanks for your (reassuring) answer.

0 Replies

CRAVEN__I give a piece of evidence gleaned from a respected historian Joyce Lee Malcolm... that you call bullshit. Ok, I guess we need a higher plane of acceptance for our evidence.You start.

Centroles-you and I seem to be the main respondants to the original post. While fedral makes a point that NRA is "not for" cop killer bullets. IN FACT NRA DOES NOTHING TO LIMIT THEIR AVAILABILITY. THEIR ONLY AGENDA IS TO KEEP GUNS SELLING AND LOADED, . I dont see NRA coming out againsts shock ammo or teflon coated bullets. (In fact their argument has always been that any idiot could make teflon coatings for bullets, therefore, we cant enact any laws). Also i notice that Fedrals argument regarding auto weapons was more a litany of what it takes to own auto weapons, NOT ,a denouncement of the weapons themselves. I was at a NRA spomsored "pig bash" about 10 years ago. The featured activity was blowing apart a Volvo station wagon with a couple of machine guns. Half of the guys at the party were too hammered to shoot strait but that didnt stop em. Not saying these guys were not responsible citizens but the entire thing gave me the heebies, ( Ive been in situations where people were shooting at us in anger and dont want that kind of thing enculturated in mid Pennsylvania)

0 Replies

farmerman,

Lose the appeal to authority, even if I accept that Joyce Lee Malcolm is an authority it does absolutely nothing to correct that you presented evidence that, even if correct, does nothing to support your contention.

I'll put it in simple words for you.

You said something that the study you cite did not say.

Example:

farmerman: "Man will NEVER score 100 points in a basketball game."

Craven: "Bullshit. You can't support your claim".

farmerman: "I have it on an authority (Marv Albert) that last night nobody scored over 100 points in a game."

Now what you cite may be true, but it is not support for your initial, absurd claim.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Centroles wrote:
There are many limits on free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't make threats. You can't promote and incite violence. You can't swear on network tv.

And if you commit a crime with a firearm, you are punished for it. But to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the less than 1% of gun owners that break the law is like restricting the sale of all cars and trucks because of some idiot that drives drunk or purposely runs down pedestrians.

Or is restricting ownership (of certain all too hefty armery, for example) like imposing speed limits?

Or, for example, is restricting posession of arms like, say, not being allowed to smoke in a movie theater? After all, apart from the nuisance to others, its easy to accidentally start a fire in the dark ... less than 1% of cigarette smokers in the theatre will do so, but still some theatres wisely prohibit all smokers from lighting up ....

0 Replies

It is almost the job of special interest groups to take their issues to stupid levels.

Why can't the NRA agree that ID checks must be done, and a waiting period of a day or two won't hurt anyone? And, no one but law enforcement needs arapid fire type rifle...

The same reasoning that Planned Parenthood takes abortion too far. Everybody is afraid is they give up the stupid aspect of their cause, they'll lose the 'necessary'.

I could agree with both, if they were reasonable.

Why I joined the N.R.A.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know