Shame on the NRA for ignoring gun safety

[Ohioboy]

Something is wrong when, in just 7 years, the AR style semi-automatic rifle suddenly becomes the weapon used in 50% of the top 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history. That quick of a jump to the top 10 should be a red flag to anyone with a brain, but not the NRA, a group that claims to be about gun safety. They want us to think any gun can do what an AR does, and constantly tell us "it's the person and not the gun". Well sorry folks, the design of that particular gun gives the "person" the ability to shoot more people more quickly. AR style rifles are not really, as the NRA will tell you, just like any other semi-automatic. The Las Vegas shooter would never have been able to do what he did with a semi-automatic handgun or semi-auto hunting rifle. Handguns don't have the range and hunting rifles aren't built to accept accessories like bump stocks.


If the NRA was really serious about gun safety it would be looking into why this weapon has made it to the top 10 so quickly, and how it has increased death tolls overall in mass shootings.

[Sherman A1]

1. You have answered your own post

"If the NRA was really serious about gun safety.... " They are not at all concerned about guns safety. They are concerned about selling more units for the manufactures to an increasingly shrinking market.

It is all about money and nothing more.

[Ohioboy]

2. I know

I just had to get it off my chest.

[Hoyt]

3. They have a so-called safety course for kids, but its primarily to indoctrinate them

into gun culture.

They also teach a course for adults needed in some states to get a toting permit. Much of the course teaches them what to say to police if they pull a George Zimmerman. That part is under the guise of teaching toters when they can whip out their gun and kill or intimidate someone.

[Hoyt]

5. You are a gun promoter and look at the NRAs propaganda differently from me.

I’m sorry, any organization run by the likes of gun manufacturers, Ted Nugent, white wingers, etc., is aimed at the wrong thing. You’ve bought into, believe guns are good for society, are OK with the fact the majority of gunners vote for people like trump and worse.

I’m not OK with the NRA.

An NRA certified instructor overseen by the likes of Ted Nugent, Ollie North, John Bolton, Grover Norquist, gun manufacturers, David Keene, etc., doesn’t impress me.

[sarisataka]

10. Quite ironically

it was our Gun Control group that was lobbying for Republicans last GE, not any DU gun owners.

The gun control contingent was quite willing to support Sen. Tammy Duckworth's opponent under the mantra "vote issue over party"

[Straw Man]

6. Oh really?

They also teach a course for adults needed in some states to get a toting permit. Much of the course teaches them what to say to police if they pull a George Zimmerman. That part is under the guise of teaching toters when they can whip out their gun and kill or intimidate someone.

Do you mean like these excerpts from the textbook?

"As has been stated many times in this book, deadly force should be used only as a last resort, when other options, such as deterrence, avoidance or flight, are no longer available."

"You should not show your firearm to deter a person who simply might attack you, or who you merely find threatening; that may result in being charged with brandishing. You are justified in displaying a firearm only in those situations in which firing your handgun would also be justified--situations in which there is a real threat to your life or the lives of your family or other innocent persons."

"In practical terms, it is always preferable, from both a legal and safety viewpoint, to call the police and let them handle a situation."

"A concealed carry permit gives you the right to carry a handgun on your person for the purpose of defending yourself from an attack you may innocently encounter, not to seek out and confront criminals."

Yeah, they're practically begging people to blow somebody away, amirite?

[Hoyt]

7. You too promote guns and apparently buy into their junk on guns.

See post above about the people who ultimately oversee the certified instructor program and gun culture indoctrination program for kids. Do you also contribute to the NRA’s PAC?

[Straw Man]

11. Here's the thing, Hoyt.

Regardless of the political bent of the NRA-ILA, there is no other organization that provides anything comparable to the NRA's firearm safety -- yup, safety -- training programs. And I'm pretty sure that Ted Nugent, Ollie North, John Bolton, and Grover Norquist have nothing to do with those programs.

I see you have scrupulously avoided addressing the excerpts I posted. Why am I not surprised?

[Hoyt]

12. They are responsible for the tenor of the organization, unless you prefer Wayne LaPierre.

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:24 AM - Edit history (1)

They have a lot to do with the programs, which are nothing but outreach for their white wing agenda. Hell, I could pull innocent sounding stuff out of a Klan manifesto like you did with NRA propaganda.

You obviously find guns so important to your life that you have no problem apologizing for the NRA. I don’t.

[Straw Man]

14. The POLITICAL tenor, which has nothing to do with their training programs.

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2018, 02:43 AM - Edit history (1)

But you knew that. I find the NRA-ILA to be an adjunct of the Republican Party and therefore reprehensible, but that's a totally different issue.

White wing? How do you explain Colion Noir?

https://www.nratv.com/home/document/colion-noir-profile

How do you explain Roy Innis being on the NRA Board of Directors for 25 years?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170113/the-nra-bids-farewell-to-roy-innis-civil-rights-champion-june-6-1934-jan-8-2017

Feel free to condemn their politics, but please tell the truth when you do so.

You could "pull innocent sounding stuff" out of a Klan manifesto? Go ahead. Let's see you do it.

[Hoyt]

15. Who do you think you are kidding? Do you really the NRA gun training for kids is designed to teach

them that guns aren't needed to be a man, guns aren't needed to fight off scary Black or Brown people, guns in homes are more likely to be used for spousal abuse than defending the home, daddy is not cool because he has a bunch of guns, etc.


Comments about NRA Eddie Eagle Program for Kids by people who aren't enamored with guns and/or believe the NRA is not an organization designed to promote guns to adults, kids, racists, and the like:

"On the [Eddie Eagle NRA] website, the NRA asserts that the Eddie Eagle program “makes no value judgments about firearms,” yet describes guns as “part of everyday life. . . like swimming pools, electrical outlets, & matchbooks.” The NRA fails to mention, of course, that guns are far more lethal than these other everyday objects, and that children are routinely protected from pools by fences, outlets by outlet covers, and matches by parents keeping them out of reach—not by teaching children a jingle about running away and getting a grown-up. . . . . .

"Finally, the NRA asserts that because Eddie Eagle and his friends don’t touch the gun, there is “no promotion of firearm ownership or use,” yet the video depicts a number of scenarios in which guns are present—including a mother carrying a concealed weapon in her purse.

"No, Eddie doesn’t touch a gun, but maybe his mom and dad have one. Maybe Mom carries one in her purse—I bet he can’t wait to find out (but better wait until Mom isn’t looking!). And when he’s a grown-up, he can get a gun, too. After all, they’re as common as swimming pools, outlets, and matchbook covers.

"My review of the snazzy new Eddie Eagle gun safety program? It hasn’t changed in its message, and I’m sure it hasn’t changed in its ineffectiveness. Some things never change—like the lethality of guns in the hands of curious and impulsive children. . . . . ."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/why-the-nras-repackaged-eddie-eagle-program-still-doesnt-reach-kids


The program for kids is propaganda designed to teach kids gun toters are normal, when only 7% of adults need a gun strapped to their body to walk down the street. You guys think that's normal, it's not. 93% of us do fine without a gun in our pants to go to the store.

No wonder ads like this work with gunners:

[Straw Man]

16. The programs are designed to teach kids and others about gun safety.

If I understand you correctly, you think that we shouldn't teach gun safety to kids because it "normalizes" gun ownership. Should we then conclude that you care less about injured and dead children than you do about ideological purity? Would that be an accurate assessment?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. IOW, you want the "abstinence-only"/D.A.R.E. approach. What makes you think it would work?

[krispos42]

8. So if they didn't have AR-15s, they wouldn't have perform the mass shootings?

I understand the emotion behind your statement, but I feel it's due to the extreme frustration a lot of people (myself including) that this stuff keeps happening.

It's not a hardware problem, but it's very easy to focus on the hardware because it's solid and tangible. But the simple fact is, that people, either individually or in the form of a company, will develop and refine products and techniques to make things (including guns) work better and be better suited for a particular task.

People work on guns to make them handle better, to make them balance better, to make them better able to absorb recoil, to make them get back on target faster, and to make them easier to control. Also to make them more accurate, more comfortable, easier to hold, and so on and so forth. None of this is really a surprise. Evolution is a fact of life.

The techniques are applied to lots of kinds of guns, but because of the dominance of the AR-15-type rifle that is where the general public sees them. So even though rifles are only used to murder about 350 people a year (2016 numbers; the prior few years were less than 300 per) compared to 8,000+ people murdered annually with handguns, it's the focal point.

But this is what people seem to be trying to do:

Under the circumstances of a lone-wolf attack on a random concrete building full of helpless people with no way to escape; at a random time on a random day; usually with no warning; for the sake of simply slaughtering as many people as they can before the cops show up; under these circumstances the hardware limitation will prevent enough killing to call it a "mass shooting".

A lack of AR-15s will not deter these people. They're crazy. It's like saying that "since the Sandy Hook shooter drove a sedan to the school, we need to ban sedans". These people don't have a specific mission to accomplish; as long as they get to see the blood spray and hear the screams of terror, that is enough for them! Mission accomplished! They aren't like a military mission, trying to fight their way to seize control of a vital communications junction or to free POWs trapped in a prison; they just want slaughter before they die themselves.

Trying to produce a lack of AR-15s, however, will keep Republicans in control of things.

There is no easy solution. I doubt there is in fact a solution, at least not one that doesn't entail single-payer health care that includes full mental-health coverage as well as a shitload of time for it to work. My real fear is that, because the pervasiveness of the Internet and social media, this kind of event can marinate in the minds of sick people until another random asshole opens fire. Hell, the brother of the Florida school shooter is as sick as his murderous brother; he's thrilled at all the attention and wants to start a goddamn fan club.

[Hoyt]

13. There is no 100% solution, but 20% short term is better than simply coddling gunners,

the majority of which are white wingers who will refuse to accept a ban.

How about you? Are you like a number of Gungeoneers who say they will tell authorities they lost their 5 AR15 style rifles in a canoeing accident if those weapons were banned?

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Better that than selling them off and pretending you've washed your hands of them...

[Ohioboy]

17. It's like beer and whiskey...

both will get a person drunk, but one will get a person drunk faster and with less effort. I look at the AR as the whiskey of firearms, it kills more faster and with less effort. That's why it's not like other firearms. It is a provable fact that ARs have increased death tolls in mass shootings. Can anyone from the NRA at least admit that fact?