(February 13, 2019 at 10:20 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 13, 2019 at 10:15 am)Brian37 Wrote: BULLSHIT.

How is saying we have way too much firearm violence and death selling fear? It is a fact. 

There is only ONE industry and one lobby's leadership selling fear.

The bullshit slippery slope sold by the NRA leadership that we are going to magically become a fascist state, is what sells guns, not those saying we need to reduce firearm violence.

The NRA thanks you for constantly mentioning the NRA. Without libtards, hardly anyone would know who they are. You make them famous.

I don't care what the newspapers say about me, as long as they spell my name right. ----


In Safire’s Political Dictionary, the late New York Times columnist William Safire gave credit for the saying to “Big Tim” Sullivan. Sullivan was a controversial political figure prominent in New York’s Tammany Hall in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He served briefly in Congress and was responsible for early gun control legislation known as the “Sullivan Act.”

(February 13, 2019 at 10:21 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: ...that's an impressive failure to understand what the NRA is, how they operate, or which political faction contributes to their continued existence......

I think they are more of a sales organization than a lobby. Gun manufacturers give huge amounts of money to the NRA. They don't do it just because the NRA lobbies for them. They do it because the NRA is really effective a promoting gun sales.

Gun related violence in the US is proportionate to the number of guns that exist in the US. When you look at the statistics in terms of incidents of gun violence per gun, then we are no more violent than other nations. Those other countries simply have fewer guns, and not fewer incidents per gun.

When viewed that way, the one thing that you do not want to do is anything that promotes more gun sales. That won't solve the problem, but it will help keep it from growing. There probably is no solution do gun violence that doesn't entail drastically reducing the number of guns that are out there. And that is a real tough sell in the US. Since gun violence directly correlates to number of guns, then we would have to reduce the number of guns by half, just to reduce incidents of gun violence by half. I see no way of taking that many guns out of people's hands without one hell of a lot of push back. So much so, that I think that it isn't possible.

That makes me think that using gun control to save lives just isn't a very effective use of our time and resources. If saving lives is what we want to do, then there are more productive veins to work in. For example, cars kill as many people as guns. And cars are really bad for the environment. We really should be actively working on reducing the number of cars on the road. And if we reduce the number of cars by half, then we will have probably reduced fatalities by quite a bit more than half.

The NSSF is the sales lobby.  The NRA is a politician factory that uses guns as pretext.

Gun violence correlates with the guns accessible to those who would commit a violent offense with a gun, which doesn't actually correlate with the number of guns, but their street value. The removal of a small fraction of the overall number of guns as narrowly defined by trace data would have a pronounced effect on gun violence, but probably wouldn't have a pronounced effect on overall gun deaths. We can stop the gun crimes, but the actions that would be capable of doing that don't effect suicides.

If d's want to reduce the number of overall gun deaths, then they should focus on mental health. If they want to reduce the number of gun deaths accounted for by gun crime, they should reduce the number of cheap pistols in circulation. If they want to do both, they can, but they would be different programs..neither of which have anything to do with banning or regulating black rifles or magazine capacity, which would be it's own program that didn't effect either of the preceding two.

(February 13, 2019 at 10:21 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: ...that's an impressive failure to understand what the NRA is, how they operate, or which political faction contributes to their continued existence......

They're rightwing kingmakers, the gun industry actually has a gun industry lobbying group, "libtards" don't even know their name, they're worse than the nra, and this obscurity helps them, rather than harms them.

---

They're called the NSSF, and while the NRA is busily propping up republican candidates in red states..they reach across the aisle to remove restrictions on selling guns to buyers in active warzones, lol.  An issue so far beyond the pale that we're unlikely to find a gunhumper or a gunbanner that thinks it's a good idea, doesn't even imagine or consider that this is going on, and which no candidate from either side wants to be seen...publicly, supporting.  They get a hell of alot more for their dollar, because they're better at everything than the NRA ever could be.  To them, this entire issue is an irrelevant sideshow.  They don't care who the next king is going to be, our domestic squabbles and laws aren't their most pressing concern..because they have and will continue to make sure that whomever is in power and whatever the laws may be they stand to profit from it.

The NRA hires dana fucking loesch, lol..these guys poach ivy league colleges and international lobbying firms for talent.  Here, enjoy this slick shit and compare it with the nutjobs over at La Pierres Palace of Rightwing Paranoia.

https://www.nssf.org/

Right wing kingmakers! That's hilarious.

Nah, we just need a Democrat who's willing to use a national emergency to ban guns and force confiscation.  Woks for me.

Then we can lock up the people who refuse to give their guns away. Thanks for the idea!

IKR?  It's good to actually understand your enemy and what they do, lol.  Otherwise you end up tilting at windmills of their (and your own) creation..and this only helps them.

You know, Div....doing that would make the NSSF pack up and move shop..but the NRA would still be around, much like the cutout russian buddies they got so chummy with back in '16.

(February 13, 2019 at 10:58 am)Divinity Wrote: Nah, we just need a Democrat who's willing to use a national emergency to ban guns and force confiscation.  Woks for me.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work for you. You should be careful what you wish for. If something like that ever happens, our country is toast.

If our country could survive a made up WALL emergency, and it can...than it would probably survive a real emergency handled poorly.  We've been there before.

(February 13, 2019 at 10:59 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: IKR?  It's good to actually understand your enemy and what they do, lol.  Otherwise you end up tilting at windmills of their (and your own) creation..and this only helps them.

You know, Div....doing that would make the NSSF pack up and move shop..but the NRA would still be around, much like the cutout russian buddies they got so chummy with back in '16.

You don't understand your enemy, dude. You have an exaggerated understanding of your enemy. You actually believe that the NRA is a kingmaker. That is absurd. They have a little bit of power, and most of that power is derived from the free publicity that they get from those who oppose them. Mostly, they have the power to promote gun sales.

(February 13, 2019 at 11:03 am)Yonadav Wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work for you. You should be careful what you wish for. If something like that ever happens, our country is toast.

Our country SHOULD be toast when we're allowing the gun lobby to control us.