Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if the NRA has responded to the Newtown Massacre in this manner?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Kynoch, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Good point. Since you put it that way, I would subtract No's 1 & 9.

    Everything else seems to be rational.
     
  2. Grey_Mana

    Grey_Mana Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    726
    Location:
    EST
    What is the rationale for making the NICS semi-confidential? If the information is FOIA-able, and belongs to the public, then put it on a public website. Let anybody check anybody for any reason, without needing to submit information to the government. Let everybody see their records without needing to submit to the appeals process.

    There is no integral need to tell the FBI or BATF that somebody is trying to buy a gun, in order for the FBI to share their database. Giving the government an opportunity to retain information wasn't the stated intent of NICS. The only reason to give FBI information should be to get their help if there is confusion about who is who in the database.
     
  3. Fishbed77

    Fishbed77 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,017
    Almost none of the proposals offered by politicians in recent weeks even remotely address the issues of gun-related crime.

    What Skribs is proposing makes perfect sense, because he if offering actual points of compromise.
     
  4. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    #1 is by far the most important point of them all. It's also the most difficult to define, the most difficult to implement, the most expensive, etc. Any plan that does not address mental health is a loser.
     
  5. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    Absolutely not.

    If Skribs' point about opening the NFA registry was actually offered by the NRA, the entire game would be over. 90%+ of the US would conclude the NRA is a whack-job organization. The other side would be flooded by a mandate of support to slam though everything on their list.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  6. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,601
    Location:
    Texas
    My point is that your appear to be assuming the nation is having a rational conversation about gun control. We are not having that on the national scale. Instead we are seeing a concerted propaganda effort to push more gun restrictions on law-abiding gun owners in an effort to reduce the number of gun owners over time through increased red tape and reduce their political power.

    In that environment, proposing actual solutions is a moot point because your opponents do not care about actual solutions. They have already acknowledged these proposals will not reduce crime or stop active shooters. None of the proposals would have stopped Newtown and the only proposal supported by the NRA (increased money to better report mental health to NICS) is the only thing that might have made a difference in Aurora, Giffords, and VA Tech.

    If you live in California and don't understand it by now, I don't know how to explain it more clearly. Offering reasonable solutions won't change the response because your opponents don't want solutions and are not reasonable. They think that getting rid of guns is the only way to go and they aren't interested in solutions that don't advance that goal.

    Several of your points are useful, not because they provide a solution or would change the dialogue; but because they would force the antis to acknowledge their hypocrisy by opposing non-controversial things like gun safety and actually preventing future tragedies. However, unless you can get that through the incredibly hostile media filter, pointing out the hypocrisy isn't all that useful. Look at the recent Senate hearings - if you watched that on CNN or MSNBC, you'd never see the great pro-2A testimony. You'd see a highlight reel of Wayne LaPierre's biggest flubs, every piece of anti-gun testimony, and then a cut to montages of past shootings while Dave Kopel testifies.

    So when you ask "What would the response be?", I say "It would be the same because the other side isn't interested in possible solutions that don't further a reduction in legal gun ownership."
     
  7. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    That may be true, but the NRA has not business dealing with it. They have no expertise in mental health. Period.
     
  8. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    Incorrect, "period."

    The topic is stopping/reducing gun-related violence -- particularly gun-related massacres. Being violently whacko is the #1 reason these things happen. That means it belongs at the top of any outline -- prepared by the NRA or anyone else, "period."
     
  9. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    I don't care how rational or irrational the debate may be, pushing their own plan from the very outset would be serving NRA members far better than WLP's grimmaces and tongue-twisted retorts.

    It's probably true that WLP couldn't sell a plan if his life depended upon it. There are other people that can and perhaps one of them should be doing the job he is currently paid to do.
     
  10. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Arming teachers and not designating schools as gun free zones will not fly. Before it can, a substantially large majority of the general public must believe that it is OK for children to be around guns and that just is not the case right now. Adults, maybe but children? :what: HORRORS!!! :eek:

    Over the past 50 years, there has been a steady reeducation program—a propaganda program—not blatant, but subtly reinforcing the idea that guns must, must be kept away from children. "Children are too curious." "Children are too irresponsible." "Children don't know it isn't a toy." All of this is so ingrained that for a great many people, it is just a given. They don't stop to question it and can only be led to do so with great difficulty. Children can be taught the proper respect for firearms, but before that can happen, the parents fears have to be overcome and that means undoing 50 years of programming. But it is necessary if there is to be any hope of parents feeling their children are safe around guns.
     
  11. J-Bar

    J-Bar Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,320
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    I think the NRA has failed miserably in providing the general public with a true image of itself.

    I wish there had been some NRA sponsored ads during the Super Bowl; about five seconds long each:

    ...A photo of a respected physician and his family--"NRA Members", followed by a mug shot of a felon--"Not An NRA Member".

    ...then another photo of a respected community member, followed by a mugshot of a felon, same captions.

    Do twenty or thirty different ones. Fox News would probably air some. There would be enough liberal howling to get them discussed on the liberal media as fallout.

    The general public sees Mr. LaPierre as the "gun lobby". The NRA is missing a bet by not publicizing all of Wayne's friends. The liberals are the weirdos, not NRA members. We are the solid citizens. But who knew?

    And I am a Patron Life Member and I sent the NRA a check the same day Mr. LaPierre made his televised response to the Newtown tragedy.
     
  12. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    I think the NRA has failed miserably in providing the membership with a true image of itself. Based on the mailings and emails I receive and have received for more years than I can count, the NRA is a lobbying organization.

    90% of my NRA initiated contact is either asking for money or is from the NRA-ILA. Oh, and life insurance offers. Can't forget those.

    I support the NRA (I am a life member) because it supports the 2A, but it would be nice to know what else it is doing without having to dig for it.
     
  13. avs11054

    avs11054 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    AZ
    DiFi and Co., dont want a plan to reduce gun violence. They want a plan to reduce guns. No logical plan offered would have changed anything.
     
  14. EBK

    EBK Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    282
    Location:
    IOWA
    "4.) Prosecute those who legitimately fail (felons, insane, etc.) the NICS during the process of attempting to purchase a firearm."

    So if I put the wrong adress (used old adress out of habit after I moved) or forget my apt # and get denied would I be prosecuted for that? I have been denied before for those reasons.

    Or is it only if I get denied for criminal history or sanity reasons?
     
  15. J-Bar

    J-Bar Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,320
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    "the NRA is a lobbying organization."

    Of course they are a lobbying organization. I want them to be a lobbying organization. That's how the game is played.

    My complaint is they are doing a lousy job of showing who they represent.

    The antis have done a terrific job of painting gun owners and NRA members as lunatics. The NRA has not successfully countered that image.

    Woe to us.
     
  16. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,601
    Location:
    Texas
    The NRA did push their own plan from the very beginning, as you noted, they pushed an immediate armed response. This is basically the most effective way to stop an active shooter. So effective in fact, that it was adopted by the Administration, even though the same idea was roundly ridiculed in the media filtering the message.

    Yet here we are sitting on a gun board discussing how inadequate the NRA response was? The NRA gave the A+ answer for responding to active shooters - the same answer pushed by all of law enforcement - get a good guy with a gun in there ASAP and confront the shooter. Yet that A+ answer was so effectively filtered by the media, that even after the President adopted it wholesale as part of his own agenda, we are sitting on a gun board complaining about how the NRA response was inadequate and trying to think of better ways to give something to someone who says they want to take all of our guns and will do so when they have the votes?

    The only way the NRA would get a positive response to their plan would be to agree to adopt measures that would serve to make it more difficult for the average joe to legally own firearms - which would kind of defeat the purpose of the NRA.
     
  17. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    You simply don't know that. I would suggest that more and more people realize that the School Gun Control Act of 1990 is not merely worthless, it's dangerous.

    As far as teachers/administrators CCWing, it would be suicide right now to push that on a national level right now. That's sad too because it might well make a difference.
     
  18. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    No, it didn't. It gave one element of an "A+ answer" and it has done a horrible job of selling that one element since its introduction.

    The media is able to filter the NRA's message only because the NRA allows it to be filtered -- through incompetenence and/or naivete.
     
  19. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    Untrue. This fight is ultimately going to be won based on public support. It's not a matter of selling Feinstein, it's a matter of selling the American people.
     
  20. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    You're right. I don't think he always communicates well and I think he carries a great deal of baggage. He might be a tremendous planner and lobbiest but he's not a great spokesman.
     
  21. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    Quite true...

    And I think the pro-gun camp has come to expect getting beat-up in this manner -- as if it cannot be helped and that's just silly.
     
  22. Sgt_R

    Sgt_R Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Messages:
    754
    Location:
    SC
    Tagged
     
  23. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,601
    Location:
    Texas
    They got the former Democratic Senator from Chicago and Chairman of the Board of the Joyce Foundation to adopt their idea in his list of executive actions (Items 12 & 18) and you feel they have done a horrible job of selling that element? The President of the United States adopted their idea while all of his allies and his base were lambasting it. If that is horrible, then what do you consider adequate or good?
     
  24. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX

    And you simply don't know that. I know what I have learned from talking and corresponding with people acroos the country, and that is what I wrote. If it is true that more and more people are realizing gun free zones are a bad idea, it is equally true that more and more people believe they are a good idea.

    The fact is, for the majority of Americans, firearms are not an important part of their lives if they have any part at all. Polls suggest there are 55 million households with guns representing about 80 million individual gun owners. But these are "owners" because when asked if they own a gun, they answered yes. Some of them have never fired the gun they own because it was their fathers, or their grandfathers. They inherited it and it has been in the closet or the attic ever since. Some of them used to hunt, or used to shoot regularly, but that was when they were younger or before they had kids. Life got too busy and with kids in the house, they keep the guns locked up and out of sight and haven't touched them in years. But they are not anti0gun, they just aren't gun enthusiasts or active shooters. When they think about protecting their families or themselves, from "gun violence", they don't think about using a gun to stop the bad guy with the gun, they think about stopping the bad guy from having a gun.

    But a lot of these households have members that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they learned to depend on a weapon for personal defense. Many of these returning vets still feel the need for a weapon for personal defense so the demographic is changing. The number of enthusiasits is increasing, but are still a minority.
     
  25. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    Sorry, but the mental health folks would tell you that there is no good predictive model to foretell who will or won't commit violent acts.

    Further, violent acts by mentally ill people compromises only a small fraction of the violent acts committed in America. Not understanding why focussing on mental health as a solution to stop mass shootings is a failed option will only lead to further recriminations against the gun lobby.

    Truthfully, you cannot stop these events without focus on security. That was and is the message of the NRA. Getting rid of gun free zones and capitalizing security measures as the only practical solutions. The NRA addressed both of these issues in their press conference.
     

Share This Page