Warning by NRA Past President Marion Hammer to NRA Members

[vito]

I don't consider myself a gun nut or an extreme right wing nut case. I'm just a patriotic American that values our sacred Constitution. I use support of the 2nd Amendment as a litmus test for politicians. Those that support it have faith in this land of the People. Those that oppose the 2nd Amendment do not trust the People, and feel entitled to rule over us. Armed we are citizens. Unarmed we are subjects.

 

[barnbwt]

So the lives of those 90% should be weighed, by the government, against the 10%?

How many, of that 90% would be saved by your approach?

If you cannot answer, why should we expect such a restriction to have a net benefit? Assuming for a moment our intrinsic rights are contingent upon the acts of others (i.e. Utilitarianism)

 

[Bigmike79]

So the lives of those 90% should be weighed, by the government, against the 10%?

How many, of that 90% would be saved by your approach?

If you cannot answer, why should we expect such a restriction to have a net benefit? Assuming for a moment our intrinsic rights are contingent upon the acts of others (i.e. Utilitarianism)

So the lives of those 10% should be weighed, by the government, against the 90%?

How many, of that 10% would be saved by your approach?

If you cannot answer, why should we expect such a restriction to have a net benefit? Assuming for a moment our intrinsic rights are contingent upon the acts of others (i.e. Utilitarianism

 

[barnbwt]

By not restricting peoples' options, the government is not weighing *anything.* God is, if anybody. You see, our every action and desire does not come from what the government permits us to do, or not do. They can only restrict our options.

You really should have replaced ''Utilitarianism" with "freedom" to get the point across

 

[barnbwt]

Well, in that study it was 9 out of 10...lol

I'm just kicking a hornets nest. This is almost borderline trolling at this point. It's fun, but you kids will be better off without being subjected to different viewpoints.

I think the funniest part about stuff like this is the fact that most the people I interact with on a daily basis would think I'm a frothing at the mouth crazy gun-nut if they new anything about me, yet I'm like a bleeding heart social justice warrior compared to the type of characters you will interact with on a thread like this on a gun forum. Sometimes when someone like my Sister in-law or my Aunt tell me how crazy conservative they think I am, I just want to show them stuff like this so they can see the eye of the storm for once. They have no idea LOL

Ok, so you're wasting everyone's time with the goal of nuking this thread. Gotcha.

 

[Nanook]

Waiting periods save lives. To say otherwise would be to deny reality. I come from a law enforcement background, so my perspective is different than a lot of gun owners on some of these boards.

If your stance is that you don't care that they save lives because you feel that compromising a first time gun owners rights is the more important variable, I can respect your view. However, if your stance is that waiting periods don't actually stop crimes of passion, I will wholeheartedly disagree with you because I know better.

I realize admitting something like this is often the kiss of death on an online forum. Look, I get it. My dad thought having to even show a valid ID to buy a gun was an infringement on his rights. I understand that mindset very well.

Here in IL, when the waiting period was first passed, the explanation was it would prevent crimes of passion. This of course only works for a person who doesn't already own a gun. If you're a gun person, and own several guns, the waiting period makes zero sense. It stops nothing. It is an infringement under those conditions.

The waiting period may indeed save lives if the person intent on committing a crime doesn't own a gun. Maybe. I'll defer to your experience as an LEO.

 

[barnbwt]

Exactly, and wouldn't all sales be to existing owners since the number of gun owners is decreasing, allegedly..?

 

[bassjam]

If they really wanted to put something on the books that saved a lot of lives, it would be requiring first time gun owners to take a class.

While in theory I do think this would help, how do you determine who is a 1st time gun owner? It would require a registry of gun owners, which I (and many gun owners) would have a huge problem with.

I think the better option is to bring shooting clubs/classes back to highschool. Then those interested can be taught gun safety but there'd be no documentation of who does and doesn't own a firearm.

 

[BSA1]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Yes, most domestic violence develops in the form of patterns as you have pointed out; however, as I have previously pointed out, people with no history of violent behavior "snap" more often than you seem to believe. This is even more true today with 1 out of 6 people being prescribed psychotropic drugs, an increase in unhealthy lifestyles, and more overall stress.

Now you can argue that these individuals would have been killed some other way, or that a waiting period on a gun wouldn't have made any difference all day, and I will respect your opinion, but to say that otherwise normal people don't "snap" is just not true. I't not true at all.

sigh...

You are not only poorly informed about criminal causation and social issues but also suicide causes and prevention.

You are making the argument that "the needs of few outweigh the needs of the many."

You have not presented any documentation to support your statement that "people with no history of violent behavior "snap" more often than you seem to believe."

Nor you provide any documentation or credible argument that "This is even more true today with 1 out of 6 people being prescribed psychotropic drugs, an increase in unhealthy lifestyles, and more overall stress" contributes to gun deaths.

It is unfortunate that you had such a harsh upbringing but your arguments are not any more credible on this forum than the high school kids on TV wanting to ban AR-15's.

 

[Bigmike79]

sigh...

You are not only poorly informed about criminal causation and social issues but also suicide causes and prevention.

You are making the argument that "the needs of few outweigh the needs of the many."

You have not presented any documentation to support your statement that "people with no history of violent behavior "snap" more often than you seem to believe."

Nor you provide any documentation or credible argument that "This is even more true today with 1 out of 6 people being prescribed psychotropic drugs, an increase in unhealthy lifestyles, and more overall stress" contributes to gun deaths.

It is unfortunate that you had such a harsh upbringing but your arguments are not any more credible on this forum than the high school kids on TV wanting to ban AR-15's.

I believe that you believe what you wrote, but that's about it.
One thing I quit doing a long time ago was providing a bunch of sources on forums because it still won't convince someone that has already decided what they want to believe. If you want to convince someone they're wrong, you plant a seed which leads them to investigate something on their own. People are far more likely to change their mind on a subject if they feel that they came to the conclusion themselves. With that being said, this is the only link you will get from me.......................http://www.businessinsider.com/here...e-into-thinking-your-idea-is-their-own-2013-1

With something that has an emotional element, changing someones mind is even more difficult. I could post literally pages of information supporting why every organized religion on this planet is absolute nonsense, yet it probably wouldn't change a single person's beliefs on the matter. This is because human emotion often overpowers logic. Basically, no amount of empirical data will convince someone that they're wrong if they're emotionally charged like yourself or those kids screaming on TV.

 

[vito]

Empirical data might not convince someone who has chosen their beliefs based on emotion, but the lack of empirical data showing the alternative position will have even less credibility. When an anti-gunner says "More guns are not the answer" we can actually present data, as put together by John Lott in his published research, that shows that more guns DO mean less crime. That might or might not get the person who is anti gun to even consider that maybe they have been all wrong on this subject. But if I cannot back up my position, which seems illogical to the anti gunner, then it is likely they will be doubly convinced that they were right all along.