Actually, there are many, such as myself that don't see the NRA as effectively defending the right to keep and bear arms at all. They support politicians with less than favorable treatment of the right, they have "compromised" far too much with the anti-gun rights groups, and many serious supporters of the 2nd Amendment have another nickname for the NRA: Negotiating Rights Away.
There is, by the way, nothing wrong with owning a business to make money (that's why businesses exist) and supporting organizations that help protect your business from being screwed up by ineffective laws.
Little else to find is my guess. A stance with some stats behind it is too much to ask for. Why not try and ensnare the stupid into thinking reposts of the same old crap are new.
Jadegold's right, it's not about any of those things. I simply that you guys like guns. That's it. You have your varying reasons, but there's no need to trump it up with talk of "unalienable rights" and "protecting the family" and whatever else you say.
Mikeb, I could say that I simply think you guys hate guns. That's it. You have your varying reasons, but there's no need to talk it up with talk of "public safety" and "reducing crime" and whatever else you say. You hate guns, period.
Now I don't really believe that as a blanket statement, but I do have a hard time imagining any other reason why someone would support anti-gun rights laws that don't work. Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong?
I, myself, value my freedom more than the guns themselves. I rarely actually talk about guns themselves, and I don't get out shooting as often as I should.
99% of my thoughts related to guns are about gun control - discussing it and researching the facts about it.
So yeah, I DO like guns, but my beliefs about the futility of gun control aren't based on that, they're based on the fact that I've never seen proof that gun control works, and the negative side effects are worse than the "cure."
Orygunner keeps talking about the futility of gun control laws and how they never work. But can he explain why developed nations that have gun control also have far less gun crime?
I can look at the firearm related crime rates in the years BEFORE and AFTER the gun control was introduced and see there's no consistent or significant change.
If you take a country (like England) with low firearm-related violent crime, then introduce gun control and it STILL has just as low firearm-related violent crime as it did before, how is that evidence that gun control did anything at all?
All I'm asking for is some proof of causation between gun control and public safety y'all keep talking about. SURELY if gun control has any effect at all, you can prove it, right?
Tell you what I'll take, I'll take a correlation. Show me any region (city, state, or country) that has any gun control "strength" you choose. Show me where in the years afterwards there is a correlation between a drop in violent firearm-related crime, and when the gun control was introduced OR strictly enforced.
A "snapshot" claiming that "look at this country with gun control and how low their crime rate is" doesn't prove anything because there's nothing showing that gun control actually CHANGED anything to get them to that point.
I've left a pretty broad allowance here for you to simply show where there is a DROP in violent firearm-related crime that CORRELATES to introduction or enforcement of gun control laws.
Actually, there are many, such as myself that don't see the NRA as effectively defending the right to keep and bear arms at all. They support politicians with less than favorable treatment of the right, they have "compromised" far too much with the anti-gun rights groups, and many serious supporters of the 2nd Amendment have another nickname for the NRA: Negotiating Rights Away.
ReplyDeleteThere is, by the way, nothing wrong with owning a business to make money (that's why businesses exist) and supporting organizations that help protect your business from being screwed up by ineffective laws.
...Orygunner...
Why do you keep coming back for more on this?
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/01/midways-nra-roundup.html
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/01/follow-money.html
Jade: “It's about the Benjamins.”
If that were true, Bloomberg could get whatever gun control he wanted.
"Why do you keep coming back for more on this?"
ReplyDeleteLittle else to find is my guess. A stance with some stats behind it is too much to ask for. Why not try and ensnare the stupid into thinking reposts of the same old crap are new.
Jadegold's right, it's not about any of those things. I simply that you guys like guns. That's it. You have your varying reasons, but there's no need to trump it up with talk of "unalienable rights" and "protecting the family" and whatever else you say.
ReplyDeleteYou like guns, period.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI don't think I ever tried to make a secret out of the fact that I like guns. Always have. Probably always will.
Mikeb, I could say that I simply think you guys hate guns. That's it. You have your varying reasons, but there's no need to talk it up with talk of "public safety" and "reducing crime" and whatever else you say. You hate guns, period.
ReplyDeleteNow I don't really believe that as a blanket statement, but I do have a hard time imagining any other reason why someone would support anti-gun rights laws that don't work. Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong?
I, myself, value my freedom more than the guns themselves. I rarely actually talk about guns themselves, and I don't get out shooting as often as I should.
99% of my thoughts related to guns are about gun control - discussing it and researching the facts about it.
So yeah, I DO like guns, but my beliefs about the futility of gun control aren't based on that, they're based on the fact that I've never seen proof that gun control works, and the negative side effects are worse than the "cure."
...Orygunner...
Orygunner keeps talking about the futility of gun control laws and how they never work. But can he explain why developed nations that have gun control also have far less gun crime?
ReplyDelete@Jadegold:
ReplyDeleteI can look at the firearm related crime rates in the years BEFORE and AFTER the gun control was introduced and see there's no consistent or significant change.
If you take a country (like England) with low firearm-related violent crime, then introduce gun control and it STILL has just as low firearm-related violent crime as it did before, how is that evidence that gun control did anything at all?
All I'm asking for is some proof of causation between gun control and public safety y'all keep talking about. SURELY if gun control has any effect at all, you can prove it, right?
...Orygunner...
Proof of causation, that's what Orygunner needs. Short of that, no dice.
ReplyDelete@Mikeb, So in other words, you have no proof.
ReplyDeleteTell you what I'll take, I'll take a correlation. Show me any region (city, state, or country) that has any gun control "strength" you choose. Show me where in the years afterwards there is a correlation between a drop in violent firearm-related crime, and when the gun control was introduced OR strictly enforced.
A "snapshot" claiming that "look at this country with gun control and how low their crime rate is" doesn't prove anything because there's nothing showing that gun control actually CHANGED anything to get them to that point.
I've left a pretty broad allowance here for you to simply show where there is a DROP in violent firearm-related crime that CORRELATES to introduction or enforcement of gun control laws.
Ball's in your court.
...Orygunner...
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/07/someone-should-tell-joe-huffman.html
ReplyDeleteI know that's a city.
Here's a whole continent.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/australias-gun-control-works-just-fine.html