Las Vegas...

JLSpinner wrote: Senan, I don't think telling people that it's okay to get shot because you're going to die anyway is going to help. It's not irrational to want some protection in modern America. I don't carry but I don't blame others for wanting to. That being said more accountability for gun owners might help keep unregulated sales down and prevent guns getting in the wrong hands.

But whom are you protecting yourself from? Others with guns? We have created a self fulfilling prophecy. It requires constant elevation of firepower in order to feel "safe", while only creating a higher level of danger to be afraid of. You have a gun to stop the mugger with a knife, so the mugger gets a gun. Then you need a bigger gun. And on and on and on... The point I was trying to make about danger is that it is always there, whether we're talking about guns or ebola or an infected splinter that kills you. I never said it is okay to get shot. I'm saying why not mitigate the risk of getting shot by regulating guns since we have all these other threats to worry about already.

Trisskar wrote:

Senan wrote: You are afraid

You are 100% correct. Yes. I am afraid. And I have every right to be.

But fear does't have to motivate irrational action.

and your fear justifies.....

Yes. Yes it does. What of it?

No, it doesn't. Your fear of being mugged or burglarized justifies a semi-automatic pistol, not a semi-automatic rifle. We can meet the threat with equal force rather than escalating the danger by introducing military grade weaponry onto our streets.

your irrational ignorance about the actual statistics.

This is where you are wrong. You just want to be right and only want to see things your way.

I do want to be right, and that is why I actively seek out as much information as possible about gun violence and the legislation proposed in the past and being proposed currently. A lot of the information I get is from gun advocacy groups including the NRA. It isn't about "my way". It's about making logical decisions based on evidence rather than fear.

I’m not calling anyone stupid or cowardly.

Except that you just did

I said "ignorance", not stupidity. It's in our code. "Ignorance, yet knowledge." Ignorance is a lack of information. Stupidity is a lack of intelligence. I don't believe anyone here lacks intelligence. I also didn't call anyone a coward. I said people are being motivated by fear. Again, it's in the code. "Emotion, yet peace." It is okay to feel emotion, but we are warned against reacting based on it. Fear is a powerful emotion and as you have already admitted, it is one that is motivating your behavior. I argue that it is motivating irrational behavior, but we can disagree on that and still not consider each other cowards.

I’m saying that if fear causes someone to ignore math based on facts,

And assumed passive logic dosn't do much better lol

It isn't assumed or passive. It is based on hard numbers.

Ignoring strong evidence for causation of a certain trend in favor of the answer that makes you feel safe is dangerous.

The number of deaths caused by guns in the US is a verifiable fact, and it is a vastly larger number than deaths caused by trucks or bombs or machetes or lighters or knives or whatever other weapon is used. It is also ridiculously higher in the US than any other industrialized nation in the world. Again, this is simple math.

Math is not a logical reason to surrender our rights of gun ownership. When you can give me a logical way to get rid of ALL guns at the same time....including all knowledge of how to build and manufacture guns under the table. Then we will talk.

Minimizing the number of deaths caused by guns is a logical course of action based on everyone's right to life. I have never advocated getting rid of all guns. Not once in this conversation have I called for confiscating all weapons. I have asked for reason in considering the regulation of semi-automatic rifles. I actually advocate FOR semi-automatic handguns and shotguns because I believe they are a more reasonable form of self defense. The escalation of firepower should stop there.

......walking down the street everyday with an AR ]/quote]

Who here said they were walking down the street with an AR? I know I sure didn't. In fact ive stated often that I only carry a Taurus. And I believe others have only mentioned pistols for street protection.

No. AR, AK, Semi Auto Rifles are home defense and back of truck for long outdoor vacation trips.

The only reason why you see people these days walking around publicly and in full view with these weapons are because they are making a political statement. A stupid and asking for trouble one. But a statement none the less.

As I just mentioned, I'm fine with trained people having concealed handguns assuming they have the proper permit and bought it legally. I'd like to see more thorough checks on people buying them, but that is an issue that is also open to debate. If a semi-automatic rifle is for home defense, I should never see one anywhere but inside someone's home. I know they are fun to shoot, and I've fired them myself at gun ranges in Las Vegas, but my ability to enjoy these guns should not outweigh they risk they pose to people when they end up in the wrong hands. I bet driving a tank is fun too, but it is still really stupid to let anyone other than trained military personnel use them.

This isnt an issue of what hardware you should be able to own as much as why you think you need to own it.

Except that it is the hardware you and others are attempting to regulate, ban and control.

Yes, because the motivation to own them is fear, and fear should never be a motivation to own a deadly weapon that is designed to kill people, not for any other reasonable use. Hunting, recreation, sport, even home defense are logical reasons to own firearms, but not semi-automatic rifles. Other weapons can be just as effective, but also used for recreation and hunting because they weren't designed specifically for killing other humans.

As to the rest....I have run out of time. Gotta get ready for work now. So.....to end this post.....I don't quite appreciate the fact that you have chosen to put our Practice of Jedi and the Doctrine on the line because of our choices that do not align with your own. I never question your Jedi qualities.... I feel I am doing the right thing for me and my family. That should be good enough.

But it isn't enough to just do what is right for you and your family. We should also take others into consideration as well. When we all feel safer, we don't need to fear each other and we won't have to carry guns. If we are only concerned about ourselves, it creates this "us vs them" mentality. That does go against most of what we teach here. If we are not willing to constantly question our own beliefs and measure them against our Doctrine, then what is the point of having one? I welcome anyonhe to call me out on my Jedi qualities, especially when they are not Jedi according to the home page of this Temple.

OB1Shinobi wrote: Every time i come back to this discussion i have the same reaction. Many of you have been sheltered and protected well enough that you dont know that the world is inherently violent, and that death and predation are always close by. You have the sincere assumption of safety. You believe (at the emotional level) that the world is basically safe- and that its SUPPOSED to be safe. That you are OWED safety by the rest of your society. Nice as that sounds, it is in total contradiction to the actual nature of life, and even of reality itself. I cant bring myself to hope that the bubble of your naivety is burst, but, since you dont know what youre talking about on this topic, i also cant bring myself to take your position seriously.

This is exactly the type of fear motivated reasoning I am speaking about. Statistically, the world is safer now than it has ever been. This isn't naivety. It is fact. People believe the world is more dangerous because we have access to more information and we get it much more quickly, but that doesn't mean there is more violence. You are just hearing about more of it. And this isn't just about guns. We are safer from disease, we are safer from natural disaster, we have safer food and water. Nearly every aspect of human life is safer now than it was even fifty years ago.

And yes, I do believe we owe it to each other to build a safer society. I don't expect bears to stop acting like bears, but I do expect people to act like decent people, mainly because we are not bears. We are capable of creating a safer world, and we should be operating on the idea that it is supposed to be safe according to the aspects we can control. We cannot control a meteor from wiping out all life on the planet. We can regulate semi-automatic weapons. In fact, that seems pretty easy compared to curing cancer, a disease that is currently making me very aware of my own mortality and the dangers that still exist. My bubble burst when my doctor told me there was a high likelihood I would be dead by now.
I am not naive. You don't have to take me seriously, but I don't need you to. That's what evidence is for.

OB1Shinobi wrote: Violence is always within arms length (though you dont notice it), as is death, and it is your responsibility to be prepared to respond to it on the day that it reaches out for YOU. Making the rest of the world harmless will never work: make yourself dangerous instead.

Reasonable gun laws and means of enforcing them, yes. We do need to review what those ought to be.
But i am owning the weapons that i feel are most appropriate to my own defense, and theres not anything you can say to make me unlearn the importance of that, which ive learned through personal experience. Understand that or dont understand it, it is what it is and im willing to express it but im not going to argue about it.

Thankfully there are others who are willing to argue about it, and when they come to a conclusion we don't like, we will see if we are willing to be flexible, or if we will be absolute and unbending in our personal beliefs. The same is true for all of us, and it is a true test of our character.

Senan wrote: This is exactly the type of fear motivated reasoning I am speaking about. Statistically, the world is safer now than it has ever been. This isn't naivety. It is fact.

The data to back that statement up

The world is more peaceful and much safer than ever before, as you said, and the research backs that up.

Senan wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Senan, I don't think telling people that it's okay to get shot because you're going to die anyway is going to help. It's not irrational to want some protection in modern America. I don't carry but I don't blame others for wanting to. That being said more accountability for gun owners might help keep unregulated sales down and prevent guns getting in the wrong hands.

But whom are you protecting yourself from? Others with guns? We have created a self fulfilling prophecy. It requires constant elevation of firepower in order to feel "safe", while only creating a higher level of danger to be afraid of. You have a gun to stop the mugger with a knife, so the mugger gets a gun. Then you need a bigger gun. And on and on and on... The point I was trying to make about danger is that it is always there, whether we're talking about guns or ebola or an infected splinter that kills you. I never said it is okay to get shot. I'm saying why not mitigate the risk of getting shot by regulating guns since we have all these other threats to worry about already.

Because many of these regulations often do nothing and only leave people in further danger. Professor Johnson from Fordham University in the video below has a pretty articulate explanation as to legislation both in American as well as other countries including the often mentioned Australia gun ban and poses an explanation as to WHY many are unconvinced of gun control propositions.

These laws "never work to perfection and sometimes threatens to makes things worse."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXxQBIfH7I&t=2s

As myself and others have mentioned before through out the conversation. (refer back to previous pages where I cite several sources). These laws don't make people safer.

You argue that those who are standing in the way of this legislation or owning certain types of firearms or supporting certain organizations are "Complainant" (as you did with me.) You claim that by using other nations as examples there are "Verifiable facts" on the issue yet the very reason it is argued is because people have a counter argument with counter evidence (See my post several pages back with credible sources that you out-right ignored, one of them being your own source).

There is a host of evidence available many choose too willingly not see. Such as this study done by a FiveThirtyEight where the analyst states,

"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly."

"I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/ar-AAsRR7y

You ask, why people aren't convinced? If you listen to them and their evidence you'd see the reason why is because their is no set clear answer, as also stated by a Harvard study.

jag1993 wrote:

Senan wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Senan, I don't think telling people that it's okay to get shot because you're going to die anyway is going to help. It's not irrational to want some protection in modern America. I don't carry but I don't blame others for wanting to. That being said more accountability for gun owners might help keep unregulated sales down and prevent guns getting in the wrong hands.

But whom are you protecting yourself from? Others with guns? We have created a self fulfilling prophecy. It requires constant elevation of firepower in order to feel "safe", while only creating a higher level of danger to be afraid of. You have a gun to stop the mugger with a knife, so the mugger gets a gun. Then you need a bigger gun. And on and on and on... The point I was trying to make about danger is that it is always there, whether we're talking about guns or ebola or an infected splinter that kills you. I never said it is okay to get shot. I'm saying why not mitigate the risk of getting shot by regulating guns since we have all these other threats to worry about already.

jag1993 wrote: Because many of these regulations often do nothing and only leave people in further danger. Professor Johnson from Fordham University in the video below has a pretty articulate explanation as to legislation both in American as well as other countries including the often mentioned Australia gun ban and poses an explanation as to WHY many are unconvinced of gun control propositions.

These laws "never work to perfection and sometimes threatens to makes things worse."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXxQBIfH7I&t=2s

As myself and others have mentioned before through out the conversation. (refer back to previous pages where I cite several sources). These laws don't make people safer.

"These laws" haven't been passed yet. They have not been allowed to pass and have never been implemented. Bump stocks have never been outlawed. Laws concerning semi-automatic rifles have always been handled at the state level. Federal laws have always been blocked. How could you know if they would make people safer or not? We didn't know if seat belt laws would make people safer or not, but we had a pretty good idea. Guess what? The law worked. When evidence shows a high probability that a law will have the intended effect, it makes sense to apply the law and then tweak it, rather than not trying at all. I could easily apply your argument to the Second Amendment itself. Nobody knew if that law would make people safer, and we still don't. We know it doesn't work to perfection, and there is certainly an argument that it has made things worse.

Being articulate doesn't make one accurate. It just means you are good at utilizing language. The assertion that laws "sometimes threaten to make things worse" is not a strong argument at all, no matter how eloquently it is stated. Taking no action based on what might happen instead of taking action based on what is happening now in front of us is not progressive or intelligent. That's like saying I should ignore my cancer and not treat it because chemo might make me feel crappy. Yeah, it might, but it also will save my life. The benefit outweighs potential downside, and is proven by evidence. Until there is evidence that the law doesn't work, it should be considered, particularly if there is evidence that it has been successful elsewhere. If it doesn't work, it can be rewritten or repealed. We learned that from Prohibition. At least some of us did.

We can't judge laws that have never been passed in the U.S., but we can use the example of other countries. Australia has yet to have another mass shooting event since enacting tougher gun control regulations. This is not "what might happen, maybe." This is a fact. The evidence backs it up.

jag1993 wrote: You argue that those who are standing in the way of this legislation or owning certain types of firearms or supporting certain organizations are "Complainant" (as you did with me.) You claim that by using other nations as examples there are "Verifiable facts" on the issue yet the very reason it is argued is because people have a counter argument with counter evidence (See my post several pages back with credible sources that you out-right ignored, one of them being your own source).

There is a host of evidence available many choose too willingly not see. Such as this study done by a FiveThirtyEight where the analyst states,

"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly."

"I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths."

I had to bold that part, as it is exactly the evidence cited by proponents of gun control. Australia had less guns to begin with, and even less now. Mass shootings are so rare there that this guy wants to say it makes the evidence unreliable. The lack of mass shootings IS the evidence. Kind of like how a lack of easy access to Anthrax makes Anthrax poisoning very rare. The link below clearly points out this is an OPINION piece, not science.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/ar-AAsRR7y

You ask, why people aren't convinced? If you listen to them and their evidence you'd see the reason why is because their is no set clear answer, as also stated by a Harvard study.

I agree, there is no set answer, but your research quoted here and the prevailing attitude of gun enthusiasts is that doing nothing is better than doing anything. That puts the deaths caused by irresponsible or mentally unfit gun owners at your doorstep, not mine. You cannot dismiss the outrage of families who have lost loved ones to gun violence when the NRA remains silent on the issue and continues to poor millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions meant to lessen restrictions on guns.

And while we're talking about that, it should be noted that the NRA's membership is actually quite small at around fourteen million. Planet Fitness has ten million members nationwide by comparison. The American Automobile Association, known as Triple A, has 55.6 million members in the U.S. Yet, the NRA spends massive amounts of money to sway votes a certain way that far exceeds the spending of much larger organizations. That money isn't coming from NRA members. It is coming from gun and ammunition manufacturers. Votes on legislation are being bought buy the people selling the weapons in the first place. It is the same scheme being run by the drug companies when it comes to healthcare. There is no concern given to safety or the well-being of our citizens. It's about making money. And you might want to look at who is funding those studies you cite, because the same people (the NRA) have lobbied to make it ILLEGAL for the Center For Disease Control to study the effects of gun violence. They are literally not allowed to do any scientific research in this area without breaking the law. Can you at least agree that this is horrible when it comes to making any policy? Would we accept a law making it illegal for the FDA to study the effects of cigarette smoking? Why would the NRA be afraid of science that supports responsible gun ownership and could prevent the mentally ill from using them irresponsibly? My guess is that they don't care about safety or responsibility. That study might cut down on gun sales.

I didn't ask "why people aren't convinced" because the number of people unconvinced is smaller than the number of voters who are. It isn't a lack of conviction on the part of the public. These laws don't pass because of political bribes. Despite the assertions of the NRA, people are convinced. The majority of voters polled are for stricter gun regulation, but voters don't decide, Congress does, and Congress members are bought by the NRA through campaign contributions and lobbying.

Senan wrote:

jag1993 wrote:

Senan wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Senan, I don't think telling people that it's okay to get shot because you're going to die anyway is going to help. It's not irrational to want some protection in modern America. I don't carry but I don't blame others for wanting to. That being said more accountability for gun owners might help keep unregulated sales down and prevent guns getting in the wrong hands.

But whom are you protecting yourself from? Others with guns? We have created a self fulfilling prophecy. It requires constant elevation of firepower in order to feel "safe", while only creating a higher level of danger to be afraid of. You have a gun to stop the mugger with a knife, so the mugger gets a gun. Then you need a bigger gun. And on and on and on... The point I was trying to make about danger is that it is always there, whether we're talking about guns or ebola or an infected splinter that kills you. I never said it is okay to get shot. I'm saying why not mitigate the risk of getting shot by regulating guns since we have all these other threats to worry about already.

jag1993 wrote: Because many of these regulations often do nothing and only leave people in further danger. Professor Johnson from Fordham University in the video below has a pretty articulate explanation as to legislation both in American as well as other countries including the often mentioned Australia gun ban and poses an explanation as to WHY many are unconvinced of gun control propositions.

These laws "never work to perfection and sometimes threatens to makes things worse."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXxQBIfH7I&t=2s

As myself and others have mentioned before through out the conversation. (refer back to previous pages where I cite several sources). These laws don't make people safer.

"These laws" haven't been passed yet. They have not been allowed to pass and have never been implemented. Bump stocks have never been outlawed. Laws concerning semi-automatic rifles have always been handled at the state level. Federal laws have always been blocked. How could you know if they would make people safer or not? We didn't know if seat belt laws would make people safer or not, but we had a pretty good idea. Guess what? The law worked. When evidence shows a high probability that a law will have the intended effect, it makes sense to apply the law and then tweak it, rather than not trying at all. I could easily apply your argument to the Second Amendment itself. Nobody knew if that law would make people safer, and we still don't. We know it doesn't work to perfection, and there is certainly an argument that it has made things worse.

Being articulate doesn't make one accurate. It just means you are good at utilizing language. The assertion that laws "sometimes threaten to make things worse" is not a strong argument at all, no matter how eloquently it is stated. Taking no action based on what might happen instead of taking action based on what is happening now in front of us is not progressive or intelligent. That's like saying I should ignore my cancer and not treat it because chemo might make me feel crappy. Yeah, it might, but it also will save my life. The benefit outweighs potential downside, and is proven by evidence. Until there is evidence that the law doesn't work, it should be considered, particularly if there is evidence that it has been successful elsewhere. If it doesn't work, it can be rewritten or repealed. We learned that from Prohibition. At least some of us did.

We can't judge laws that have never been passed in the U.S., but we can use the example of other countries. Australia has yet to have another mass shooting event since enacting tougher gun control regulations. This is not "what might happen, maybe." This is a fact. The evidence backs it up.

jag1993 wrote: You argue that those who are standing in the way of this legislation or owning certain types of firearms or supporting certain organizations are "Complainant" (as you did with me.) You claim that by using other nations as examples there are "Verifiable facts" on the issue yet the very reason it is argued is because people have a counter argument with counter evidence (See my post several pages back with credible sources that you out-right ignored, one of them being your own source).

There is a host of evidence available many choose too willingly not see. Such as this study done by a FiveThirtyEight where the analyst states,

"Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly."

"I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths."

I had to bold that part, as it is exactly the evidence cited by proponents of gun control. Australia had less guns to begin with, and even less now. Mass shootings are so rare there that this guy wants to say it makes the evidence unreliable. The lack of mass shootings IS the evidence. Kind of like how a lack of easy access to Anthrax makes Anthrax poisoning very rare. The link below clearly points out this is an OPINION piece, not science.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/ar-AAsRR7y

You ask, why people aren't convinced? If you listen to them and their evidence you'd see the reason why is because their is no set clear answer, as also stated by a Harvard study.

I agree, there is no set answer, but your research quoted here and the prevailing attitude of gun enthusiasts is that doing nothing is better than doing anything. That puts the deaths caused by irresponsible or mentally unfit gun owners at your doorstep, not mine. You cannot dismiss the outrage of families who have lost loved ones to gun violence when the NRA remains silent on the issue and continues to poor millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions meant to lessen restrictions on guns.

And while we're talking about that, it should be noted that the NRA's membership is actually quite small at around fourteen million. Planet Fitness has ten million members nationwide by comparison. The American Automobile Association, known as Triple A, has 55.6 million members in the U.S. Yet, the NRA spends massive amounts of money to sway votes a certain way that far exceeds the spending of much larger organizations. That money isn't coming from NRA members. It is coming from gun and ammunition manufacturers. Votes on legislation are being bought buy the people selling the weapons in the first place. It is the same scheme being run by the drug companies when it comes to healthcare. There is no concern given to safety or the well-being of our citizens. It's about making money. And you might want to look at who is funding those studies you cite, because the same people (the NRA) have lobbied to make it ILLEGAL for the Center For Disease Control to study the effects of gun violence. They are literally not allowed to do any scientific research in this area without breaking the law. Can you at least agree that this is horrible when it comes to making any policy? Would we accept a law making it illegal for the FDA to study the effects of cigarette smoking? Why would the NRA be afraid of science that supports responsible gun ownership and could prevent the mentally ill from using them irresponsibly? My guess is that they don't care about safety or responsibility. That study might cut down on gun sales.

I didn't ask "why people aren't convinced" because the number of people unconvinced is smaller than the number of voters who are. It isn't a lack of conviction on the part of the public. These laws don't pass because of political bribes. Despite the assertions of the NRA, people are convinced. The majority of voters polled are for stricter gun regulation, but voters don't decide, Congress does, and Congress members are bought by the NRA through campaign contributions and lobbying.

But they aren't the opinion of Gun Enthusiasts... The analysts above openly admitted to opposing the NRA but after looking at the evidence and data saw that the proposed laws wouldn't have an impact. The Professor from Fordham is a Professor of Law and is able to see the effects of laws. Mass shootings were already rare to begin with so how can we say the law was a success if there's so little evidence to point to a need at all.

You argue that the NRA spends such a massive amount but how is that any different from any other organization (Besides that fact you support their platform verses another.). The NRA and its members are not silent, they grieve as well (Caring differently is not the same as not caring at all) but they also do not simply jump on a wagon in the face of emotional tragedy. The NRA does support studies done, HENCE THE HARVARD STUDY WHICH I CONTINUE TO TRY TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS. EVEN THE CDC UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID A STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE AND FOUND INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. I HAVE TO PUT THIS IN BOLD SO YOU FIND THIS. Why would the Food and Drug Administration do a study on guns at all? They should be focused on Food and Drugs hence the name.


If you are so convinced that blood is on my hands (Or on the hands of others who only crime is owning an object or supporting an organization they align with) then get a lawyer and bring me to court.

jag1993 wrote: You argue that the NRA spends such a massive amount but how is that any different from any other organization (Besides that fact you support their platform verses another.).

The NRA spent $50.6 million on campaign contributions in the last federal election cycle. That is 96% of their outside spending. That was just in 2016. The organization only has 14 million members. This ranks the NRA in the top spenders in this election, and nearly every election in the last 20 years, despite the fact that their membership is barely 5% of the U.S. population. The spending vastly outreaches the actual influence that population should have over legislation. It is different from other organizations because the money isn't being spent to support legislation. They are literally buying votes the same way the pharmaceutical industry does, and doing it on behalf of gun manufacturers. I don't argue this as my personal opinion. I just looked up the numbers.

jag1993 wrote: The NRA and its members are not silent, they grieve as well (Caring differently is not the same as not caring at all) but they also do not simply jump on a wagon in the face of emotional tragedy. The NRA does support studies done, HENCE THE HARVARD STUDY WHICH I CONTINUE TO TRY TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS. EVEN THE CDC UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID A STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE AND FOUND INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. I HAVE TO PUT THIS IN BOLD SO YOU FIND THIS. Why would the Food and Drug Administration do a study on guns at all? They should be focused on Food and Drugs hence the name.

I didn't say they were silent, but they make up 5% of the U.S. population. It's not a bandwagon issue when other Americans believe that an organization consisting of 5% of the population shouldn't have the financial influence to persuade 51 Senators who are beholden to them. I didn't say NRA members don't care. I simply believe that if you represent yourself as a responsible gun owner, you should support responsible gun legislation. If you genuinely need a semi-automatic rifle to defend your home, fine, but why then wouldn't you all publicly condemn a man who used them irresponsibly to murder 58 people? Nobody is coming after your guns. We're simply wondering why it is so easy for one (possibly) crazy person to get 50 guns legally and then legally modify them to make them function similar to an illegal automatic weapon, and why the NRA wouldn't want to also stop this kind of person from giving responsible gun owners a bad name. Instead, the NRA remains silent about mass shootings. while continuing to push for legislation lifting restrictions on silencers and suppressors. What do you need those for? To quietly defend your house? To kill a deer without it hearing the shot? To make sure a paper target can't see where you are shooting from? This isn't responsible gun legislation, but it is lobbied for in the name of NRA members.

If you want to SCREAM AT ME about one piece of research I've already read, allow me to quietly counter with a link of my own explaining the facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

This part seems particularly relevant to me:
“Dr. Mark Rosenberg was the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC at the time that the Dickey Amendment was passed and funding for gun research was taken away. He told ABC News that without comprehensive firearm-injury research, public health officials cannot give research-based advice for reducing deaths and injuries associated with firearms use.

“There are basic questions ... How do you get people to buy gun safes? How do you get people to store guns unloaded?” Rosenberg told ABC News. “Can firearms instructors who teach shooting also teach safe storage? Will that work? We don’t know.

”We’re trying to do two things at the same time with interventions,” Rosenberg said of both reducing harm from firearms and complying with the Second Amendment. “It’s like treating a cancer patient with chemotherapy and you can treat them with chemotherapy and stop the tumor but at a certain point you kill the patient’s vital organs. The only way you can find the answer to what is a better chemotherapy is to do research ... You can’t figure it out in your head.”

The CDC collected gun violence STATISTICS under Obama after Newtown, but is not allowed to study the EFFECTS OF GUN VIOLENCE. It is literally ILLEGAL for them to do so, and all funding related to said research has been taken away. They are allowed to collect data, but not study it. Congress has also consistently cut funding to the CDC that would be used for study of gun violence, but continues to fund it for other studies. In fact, in 2012 the law was expanded to include the entire Department of Health and Human Services. An entire department of the executive branch is forbidden from studying the effects of gun violence. The American Medical Association and the CDC have been trying to link mass shootings to mental illness as so many NRA members are quick to point to as a cause, but the Dickey Amendment prohibits them from doing so. The NRA has literally blocked these scientists from proving what would be their best argument for mental health screening and against gun control. My point is that we don't make it illegal for the FDA to study the effects of drugs, so why is it illegal for the CDC to study the effects of gun violence? Is the NRA afraid of what the CDC would conclude?

jag1993 wrote: If you are so convinced that blood is on my hands (Or on the hands of others who only crime is owning an object or supporting an organization they align with) then get a lawyer and bring me to court.

I'm not convinced that there is any blood on your hands, unless you've killed someone. I clearly went to far with my language there, and I apologize. I was trying to express that when the next mass shooting happens (and it will, sadly), there will be those calling again for ways to prevent them, and those who continue to support an organization actively trying to prevent those changes. When one is consistently on the side of the NRA, you become complicit in the NRA's activity, just as a witness to continued sexual harassment becomes complicit if they ignore it. We don't need a lawyer or a court, as you aren't doing anything illegal. I am quite sure you can sleep just fine at night knowing you have your gun to protect you, but there are those who are sleeping alone now because their spouses were murdered at a concert. This is a moral choice we each make, not just a legal one. I choose to stand with victims, and you choose to stand with the NRA. We both have that right as Americans, and I respect that.

One more thing... a Jedi I respect very much here has brought it to my attention that the way I am delivering my message isn't coming across very respectfully, and I can see why he thinks that way. I have been allowing frustration to color my words in ways that I wouldn't normally deliver them and, quite frankly, it has been unbecoming of me and the Jedi I try to be. Thank you, MadHatter, for pointing this out to me in a way that was neither rude nor accusatory, but a firm nudge from a friend.

To everyone in this conversation, but particularly those who have served in the military or have more practical knowledge than I do, I apologize for letting my frustration get in the way of what has been an informative and mostly respectful conversation. Despite my argumentative nature in this thread, I have learned a lot. I don't mean to belittle anyone's personal experiences just as I have to learn how my own experiences inform my point of view. I'll try harder to be objective while still standing by my convictions. Please know that I never expected anyone here to change what you believe in either. I just want to have the conversation so that perhaps together we can find an idea that might make us all feel safer without infringing on rights that are also important.

So, how do we lessen the opportunity for a-holes or the mentally ill to misuse weapons while still respecting the right of responsible gun owners to have and use those same weapons safely? If we left outright gun bans and all encompassing 2nd Amendment rights out of the conversation for a moment, is there something small in the middle we could start with?

Senan wrote:

jag1993 wrote: You argue that the NRA spends such a massive amount but how is that any different from any other organization (Besides that fact you support their platform verses another.).

The NRA spent $50.6 million on campaign contributions in the last federal election cycle. That is 96% of their outside spending. That was just in 2016. The organization only has 14 million members. This ranks the NRA in the top spenders in this election, and nearly every election in the last 20 years, despite the fact that their membership is barely 5% of the U.S. population. The spending vastly outreaches the actual influence that population should have over legislation. It is different from other organizations because the money isn't being spent to support legislation. They are literally buying votes the same way the pharmaceutical industry does, and doing it on behalf of gun manufacturers. I don't argue this as my personal opinion. I just looked up the numbers.

jag1993 wrote: The NRA and its members are not silent, they grieve as well (Caring differently is not the same as not caring at all) but they also do not simply jump on a wagon in the face of emotional tragedy. The NRA does support studies done, HENCE THE HARVARD STUDY WHICH I CONTINUE TO TRY TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS. EVEN THE CDC UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID A STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE AND FOUND INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. I HAVE TO PUT THIS IN BOLD SO YOU FIND THIS. Why would the Food and Drug Administration do a study on guns at all? They should be focused on Food and Drugs hence the name.

I didn't say they were silent, but they make up 5% of the U.S. population. It's not a bandwagon issue when other Americans believe that an organization consisting of 5% of the population shouldn't have the financial influence to persuade 51 Senators who are beholden to them. I didn't say NRA members don't care. I simply believe that if you represent yourself as a responsible gun owner, you should support responsible gun legislation. If you genuinely need a semi-automatic rifle to defend your home, fine, but why then wouldn't you all publicly condemn a man who used them irresponsibly to murder 58 people? Nobody is coming after your guns. We're simply wondering why it is so easy for one (possibly) crazy person to get 50 guns legally and then legally modify them to make them function similar to an illegal automatic weapon, and why the NRA wouldn't want to also stop this kind of person from giving responsible gun owners a bad name. Instead, the NRA remains silent about mass shootings. while continuing to push for legislation lifting restrictions on silencers and suppressors. What do you need those for? To quietly defend your house? To kill a deer without it hearing the shot? To make sure a paper target can't see where you are shooting from? This isn't responsible gun legislation, but it is lobbied for in the name of NRA members.

If you want to SCREAM AT ME about one piece of research I've already read, allow me to quietly counter with a link of my own explaining the facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

This part seems particularly relevant to me:
“Dr. Mark Rosenberg was the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC at the time that the Dickey Amendment was passed and funding for gun research was taken away. He told ABC News that without comprehensive firearm-injury research, public health officials cannot give research-based advice for reducing deaths and injuries associated with firearms use.

“There are basic questions ... How do you get people to buy gun safes? How do you get people to store guns unloaded?” Rosenberg told ABC News. “Can firearms instructors who teach shooting also teach safe storage? Will that work? We don’t know.

”We’re trying to do two things at the same time with interventions,” Rosenberg said of both reducing harm from firearms and complying with the Second Amendment. “It’s like treating a cancer patient with chemotherapy and you can treat them with chemotherapy and stop the tumor but at a certain point you kill the patient’s vital organs. The only way you can find the answer to what is a better chemotherapy is to do research ... You can’t figure it out in your head.”

The CDC collected gun violence STATISTICS under Obama after Newtown, but is not allowed to study the EFFECTS OF GUN VIOLENCE. It is literally ILLEGAL for them to do so, and all funding related to said research has been taken away. They are allowed to collect data, but not study it. Congress has also consistently cut funding to the CDC that would be used for study of gun violence, but continues to fund it for other studies. In fact, in 2012 the law was expanded to include the entire Department of Health and Human Services. An entire department of the executive branch is forbidden from studying the effects of gun violence. The American Medical Association and the CDC have been trying to link mass shootings to mental illness as so many NRA members are quick to point to as a cause, but the Dickey Amendment prohibits them from doing so. The NRA has literally blocked these scientists from proving what would be their best argument for mental health screening and against gun control. My point is that we don't make it illegal for the FDA to study the effects of drugs, so why is it illegal for the CDC to study the effects of gun violence? Is the NRA afraid of what the CDC would conclude?

jag1993 wrote: If you are so convinced that blood is on my hands (Or on the hands of others who only crime is owning an object or supporting an organization they align with) then get a lawyer and bring me to court.

I'm not convinced that there is any blood on your hands, unless you've killed someone. I clearly went to far with my language there, and I apologize. I was trying to express that when the next mass shooting happens (and it will, sadly), there will be those calling again for ways to prevent them, and those who continue to support an organization actively trying to prevent those changes. When one is consistently on the side of the NRA, you become complicit in the NRA's activity, just as a witness to continued sexual harassment becomes complicit if they ignore it. We don't need a lawyer or a court, as you aren't doing anything illegal. I am quite sure you can sleep just fine at night knowing you have your gun to protect you, but there are those who are sleeping alone now because their spouses were murdered at a concert. This is a moral choice we each make, not just a legal one. I choose to stand with victims, and you choose to stand with the NRA. We both have that right as Americans, and I respect that.

NRA silent? Then you must have missed their statement Found here Where the NRA openly says they should regulate Bump stocks. It is a moral issue as you say. I Morally stand with the side of victims as well. Victims of crimes who chose to defend themselves to prevent crimes happening again. As I've said previously several pages back of people defending themselves with a variety of guns. You chose to ignore that because it did not satisfy your requirements of a "valid reason". I stand with them, Morally. (and so does the NRA). ( victims like her ) And you clearly haven't respected that because in the course of the conversation you have blamed it on the whole of the community (including lumping me in that context) and claiming a group is part of the problem for not whole-heartily agreeing with you, You've repeatedly ignored the sources I've presented and the reasoning behind much of the gun community and respond with statements of out right rejection, blame and one-sidedness. Its the same issue when I presented you countless reasons why people own and use firearms you don't approve of, you rejected all of them because you saw none as worth. So now you say the NRA and the Community is silent mainly because you didn't bother listening to them.

Whenever people discuss these proposed "common sense" regulations we always here "no one is going to take away your guns". "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urged Ryan to allow a vote on a Democratic bill to ban the devices. When asked whether the bill might represent a slippery slope toward other gun restrictions, Pelosi said, “So what? . . . I certainly hope so." It leads to mass confiscation and taking away people's guns. Pelosi Thus adding some validity to the fears. And Again from the video above a proponent of Gun control made it clear: Banning guns can only be effective in an All-or-nothing way. It won't solve problems, it merely changes them.

I am a responsible gun owner, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and I will support legislation that meets my merits...I'm still waiting...As stated by the Fordham professor from the video, we need to be convinced and we quite simply aren't because of the aforementioned reasons using the various sources that I have refereed all from credible locations such as Harvard. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge these studies and the agreement being made? Are you afraid of what could be concluded?

I am not screaming at you: Let me be clear. I am not screaming but when you asked for sources I gave you a list and a wide variety of logical reasoning to supply you with why people are acting/thinking the way they are in relation to their gun rights. You ignored all of them and you're responses were to the effect of:

"I don't accept that"

To quote Professor Johnson from the video above; "Blame the gun lobby"

"Those people are to blame because they won't listen or agree with our solution"

I have seen very little evidence from you other then Moral. Grand. Standing.

Too many times you have painted me as complicit and I will no longer stand for. I value rational reason and logic. I gave you my logic on behalf of a community I choose to represent. I can be a responsible owner, a rational person and still disagree with proposed legislation.