I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
It’s just 29%. No biggie. Why didn’t they mention the numbers in the higher death toll they acknowledged?
Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
Handguns and assault rifles.
Complete ban of assault rifles. Restricted ownership for handguns.
Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
It’s just 29%. No biggie. Why didn’t they mention the numbers in the higher death toll they acknowledged?
Don't know, the article ended. I was surprised at how often handguns are used.
Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
It’s just 29%. No biggie. Why didn’t they mention the numbers in the higher death toll they acknowledged?
Don't know, the article ended. I was surprised at how often handguns are used.
It's a very unfortunate situation that is a part of our current cycle for perpetual inaction after shootings. If anything other than an AR-15 style weapon is used, detractors will start spouting that a ban will do nothing and that we need to enforce the current laws on the books, but when the AR-15 style weapons are used then it becomes the statistical approach of how infrequent and how few of them are actually used in the overall national gun violence spectrum. Always forgotten though are those who already died and will continue to die without a change to laws, restrictions and ownership requirements for all types of guns.
I have also eaten plenty of red meat over the years. Not one ounce of it was from me shooting an animal myself to get it. Don’t have a clue where it comes from.
Outside of the ones on police hips, I've seen a gun in real life exactly once, about 15 years ago maybe. This is what happens to regular Canadians when they find out someone is packing heat.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have also eaten plenty of red meat over the years. Not one ounce of it was from me shooting an animal myself to get it. Don’t have a clue where it comes from.
Outside of the ones on police hips, I've seen a gun in real life exactly once, about 15 years ago maybe. This is what happens to regular Canadians when they find out someone is packing heat.
I have never seen a handgun in person. just a hunting rifle.
I have also eaten plenty of red meat over the years. Not one ounce of it was from me shooting an animal myself to get it. Don’t have a clue where it comes from.
Outside of the ones on police hips, I've seen a gun in real life exactly once, about 15 years ago maybe. This is what happens to regular Canadians when they find out someone is packing heat.
I have never seen a handgun in person. just a hunting rifle.
The person who had the one I saw was a lunatic, and he scared the living shit out of everyone around him. Even his own friends were horrified to discover what he'd brought camping with him, and they tried to get the gun away from him while he was asleep (didn't work - he woke up and got mad). It was one of the more bizarre instances in my life. The immediate reaction from every single person who knew he had a gun (and word spread from campsite to campsite immediately) was profound suspicion and concern, plus we all thought he was a fucking stupid, dangerous, mook douchebag. And that is the normal reaction to someone walking around with a gun - I think most Canadians would agree.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have also eaten plenty of red meat over the years. Not one ounce of it was from me shooting an animal myself to get it. Don’t have a clue where it comes from.
Outside of the ones on police hips, I've seen a gun in real life exactly once, about 15 years ago maybe. This is what happens to regular Canadians when they find out someone is packing heat.
What are the laws in Canada? I assume it is very difficult to get one (legally)? What do you have to do?
I have also eaten plenty of red meat over the years. Not one ounce of it was from me shooting an animal myself to get it. Don’t have a clue where it comes from.
Outside of the ones on police hips, I've seen a gun in real life exactly once, about 15 years ago maybe. This is what happens to regular Canadians when they find out someone is packing heat.
What are the laws in Canada? I assume it is very difficult to get one (legally)? What do you have to do?
Individuals who wish to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:
Safety training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course[24] (CFSC) for a non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course[25] (CRFSC) for a restricted licence; the non-restricted class is a prerequisite to the restricted licence. Each province/territory's chief firearms officer publishes information on the locations and availability of these courses.[26]
Applying for a licence: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). People can request a PAL by filling out Form CAFC 921.[27]
Security screening: Background checks and reference interviews are performed. All applicants are screened, and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants, but final approval time may be longer.[28]
Licences are typically valid for five years and must be renewed prior to expiry to maintain all classes. Once licensed, an individual can apply for a firearm transfer;[29] and an authorization to transport (ATT) for restricted firearms.[30] People may hunt with firearms in Canada only with non-restricted firearms, and this requires an additional "Hunting with Firearms" course.
Prohibited firearms include:
Handguns
with a barrel length less than to 105 millimetres (4.1 in), or;
that are designed to discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition;
exceptions are stated in the Regulations Prescribing Exclusions from Certain Definitions of the Criminal Code International Sporting Competition Handguns[43]
Rifles and shotguns that have been altered by sawing, cutting or any other means, so that:
the barrel length is inferior to 457 millimetres (18.0 in) (regardless of overall length), or;
the overall length is inferior to 660 millimetres (26 in)
Firearms which have fully automatic fire capability, or "converted automatics" (i.e.: firearms which were originally fully automatic, but have been modified to discharge ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion)
Firearms prescribed as prohibited by the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted (SOR/98-462):.[31] This includes all versions (even semi-automatic) versions of certain military weapons such as the AK-47 and the FN-FAL.
Firearm capable of discharging dart or other object carrying electric current or substance, including Taser Public Defender and any variant or modified version of it
Firearm known as SSS-1 Stinger and any similar firearm designed or of a size to fit in the palm of the hand
Hundreds of other firearms listed by name, including any variants or modified versions. The list includes shotguns, carbines, rifles, pistols, and submachine guns.[31]
Any handgun that is not prohibited (note: handguns are prohibited if the barrel length is inferior to 105 millimetres (4.1 in); handguns cannot be non-restricted)
Any firearm that is:
not prohibited
that has a barrel length inferior to 470 millimetres (18.5 in), and
is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner[45]
Any firearm that can be fired when the overall length has been reduced by folding, telescoping, or other means to less than 660 millimetres (26 in)
Firearms prescribed as restricted by the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted (SOR/98-462):[31]
The firearms of the designs commonly known as the High Standard Model 10, Series A shotgun and the High Standard Model 10, Series B shotgun, and any variants or modified versions of them.
The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, including the
Colt AR-15; Colt AR-15 SPI/Sporter/Collapsible Stock Model/A2/A2 Carbine/A2 Government Model Rifle/A2 Government Model Target Rifle/A2 Government Model Carbine/A2 Sporter II/A2 H-BAR/A2 Delta H-BAR/A2 Delta H-BAR Match/9mm Carbine; Armalite AR-15; AAI M15; AP74; EAC J-15; PWA Commando; SGW XM15A; SGW CAR-AR; SWD AR-15; and
any 22-calibre rimfire variant, including the
Mitchell M-16A-1/22, Mitchell M-16/22, Mitchell CAR-15/22, and AP74 Auto Rifle.
(Note: legally, restricted firearms can only be discharged at shooting ranges; so while one can use them in competitions, one cannot use them for hunting)
Non-restricted firearms are:
any other rifle or shotgun, other than those referred to above
I just got an email today from my employer for a mandatory safety training class that will prepare us for a shooter or active aggressor situation in the workplace. This is what it’s coming to. The new norm.
I just got an email today from my employer for a mandatory safety training class that will prepare us for a shooter or active aggressor situation in the workplace. This is what it’s coming to. The new norm.
Surprised it's taken so long. It's completely backwards and fucked up that our kids have been training for these situations at places of education long before we have as adults at our places of work. In the past, the only concern was pissing off the mail carrier.
I just got an email today from my employer for a mandatory safety training class that will prepare us for a shooter or active aggressor situation in the workplace. This is what it’s coming to. The new norm.
Even up here, universities have training days for security staff for active shooter situations on campus. The staff and students don't participate, but still .... We've had a few campus shooting incidents in Canada. One was, of course, the Montreal Massacre in 1989. 28 people shot and 14 women killed.... I guess "interestingly", it was indeed an anti-woman attack, just like that recent van attack that killed 10 in Toronto last month was. And then there was the Dawson College shooting, also in Montreal, in 2006. 1 dead, 19 injured. And finally the 1992 shooting at Concordia University, ALSO in Montreal (huh). 4 killed, 1 wounded. So we - or Montreal, more precisely - have had our share of college campus shooting sprees.... But interestingly, security teams at Canadian universities really only started doing these big active shooter training days after Virginia Tech happened. I guess 2007 was when people decided to finally really pay attention to these events.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I just got an email today from my employer for a mandatory safety training class that will prepare us for a shooter or active aggressor situation in the workplace. This is what it’s coming to. The new norm.
I just got an email today from my employer for a mandatory safety training class that will prepare us for a shooter or active aggressor situation in the workplace. This is what it’s coming to. The new norm.
I've had 10 of them
What kind of things did you cover? Would you say that the training was worthwhile?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I just got an email today from my employer for a mandatory safety training class that will prepare us for a shooter or active aggressor situation in the workplace. This is what it’s coming to. The new norm.
I've had 10 of them
What kind of things did you cover? Would you say that the training was worthwhile?
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I don't know where this 5% number comes from. True to its sinister ways, the NRA refuses to reveal how many members it has, but even 5 years ago it claimed to have 5 million members. Now that might have been true, and it might not have been true, but I think it's easy to assume that their membership has only increased since 2013. I also think it's just as likely that they gave a low number as it is that they gave a high number (and maybe they gave a real number). Now, why does the NRA keep how many members it has secret? And how is it even legal for them to do so? Wouldn't their tax records reveal their income from membership dues??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this post was. I never said “hey it’s only 5%.” i was just respbonding to a post that used the NRA as a spokesperson for all gun owners. I was simply saying they’re not.
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I don't know where this 5% number comes from. True to its sinister ways, the NRA refuses to reveal how many members it has, but even 5 years ago it claimed to have 5 million members. Now that might have been true, and it might not have been true, but I think it's easy to assume that their membership has only increased since 2013. I also think it's just as likely that they gave a low number as it is that they gave a high number (and maybe they gave a real number). Now, why does the NRA keep how many members it has secret? And how is it even legal for them to do so? Wouldn't their tax records reveal their income from membership dues??
I didn’t know they were secret about it. I’ve seen the 5 million reported a few times, never had a reason to doubt it was accurate. Maybe it is. My point still was the NRA and their unwillingness for change doesn’t represent the majority of gun owners, whether it’s 5, 10 or 15%.
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this post was. I never said “hey it’s only 5%.” i was just respbonding to a post that used the NRA as a spokesperson for all gun owners. I was simply saying they’re not.
Your post minimized the potential for change because your belief that that only 5% of gun owners are members of the NRA. Reread your full post and take in the full context of what you said. “It’s very few.”
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I don't know where this 5% number comes from. True to its sinister ways, the NRA refuses to reveal how many members it has, but even 5 years ago it claimed to have 5 million members. Now that might have been true, and it might not have been true, but I think it's easy to assume that their membership has only increased since 2013. I also think it's just as likely that they gave a low number as it is that they gave a high number (and maybe they gave a real number). Now, why does the NRA keep how many members it has secret? And how is it even legal for them to do so? Wouldn't their tax records reveal their income from membership dues??
I didn’t know they were secret about it. I’ve seen the 5 million reported a few times, never had a reason to doubt it was accurate. Maybe it is. My point still was the NRA and their unwillingness for change doesn’t represent the majority of gun owners, whether it’s 5, 10 or 15%.
Since the majority of gun owners are silent and don't push for any kind of gun reform then the NRA sure as shit represents the majority of gun owners. They just sit back and let the NRA do all the dirty work.
I was okay with gun ownership a couple years ago. I never would want to own one myself but understood the reasons people would want to own one.
But listening to you gun nuts not want to give a damn inch has made me 100% change my opinion and I say take all the guns. If you can't compromise just a little bit to try to save some kids' lives than I'm sorry, you blew it. Let's get some legislation to take all of your guns you self-absorbed, uncaring, and scared scared scared scared scared scared scared scared people.
I can think maybe 1 person who doesn’t want more gun restrictions here. Every source I’ve ever seen puts it at 85-90% of gun owners want change. so where are you getting this idea from? Are you basing this statement from one poster on a single forum and applying it to all gun owners? And I’ve also seen said many times “no one wants to take your guns”. But your about the 4th or 5th person this week to say so.
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?
Yes, if this 85% - 90% estimation is accurate, then you'd think that the NRA would have lost 85% - 90% of its millions of members. Instead, gun sales and NRA membership purchases increase after every mass shooting, and NRA members are not dropping out. There was 10% increase in NRA memberships after Newtown alone. And I figure that those members who refuse to acknowledge how complicit the NRA is when it comes to this crisis in America, then they are also complicit. Anyone who claims to support increasing gun restrictions and continues to be an NRA member actually doesn't support increasing gun restrictions at all.
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe. So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Approximately 2.3 million based on your belief of 5%. Maybe if they’d stop paying their NRA dues and contacted their elected representatives and advocated for meaningful gun control reform, things would change? But hey, it’s only 5%.
I don't know where this 5% number comes from. True to its sinister ways, the NRA refuses to reveal how many members it has, but even 5 years ago it claimed to have 5 million members. Now that might have been true, and it might not have been true, but I think it's easy to assume that their membership has only increased since 2013. I also think it's just as likely that they gave a low number as it is that they gave a high number (and maybe they gave a real number). Now, why does the NRA keep how many members it has secret? And how is it even legal for them to do so? Wouldn't their tax records reveal their income from membership dues??
I didn’t know they were secret about it. I’ve seen the 5 million reported a few times, never had a reason to doubt it was accurate. Maybe it is. My point still was the NRA and their unwillingness for change doesn’t represent the majority of gun owners, whether it’s 5, 10 or 15%.
It doesn't really matter which percentage of gun owners are in the NRA. They represent themselves, very strenuously, as the voice for American gun owners and they are seen that way. They have clout with politicians that far outweighs that of individual gun owners.
When there is a separate organization of gun owners that lobbies hard to have reasonable gun control measures enshrined into law, and are successful at that, then I'll believe that the NRA doesn't represent the majority of gun owners.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
$165 million in NRA dues in 2015. That’s an awful lot of bought and paid for politicians. A one year membership costs $40 while a lifetime membership is $1,500.
Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million.
Lets go with the highest number - 52 million over 12 years. That comes out to about 4 million per year.. for an operating budget of 230 million.
According to Wikipedia:
In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,[179] with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.[180][181]
Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.[159][180][182]
The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors. [183]
And lets not forget the Russian money this past election cycle where the NRA spent $30 million more than the previous.
Comments
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
Widespread use of handguns in mass shootings undercuts push to ban semiautomatic rifles
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/29/mass-shooting-handgun-usage-figures-undercut-rifle/Handguns are almost three times as likely to be used in mass shootings as rifles, according to a new report from a gun-safety group that appears to cut against gun-control advocates’ push to ban some semiautomatic rifles.
More than three quarters of mass shootings from 1996 to 2016 involved a handgun, while just 29 percent of shooters used a rifle, according to the New York-based Rockefeller Institute, part of a gun safety initiative convened by a handful of mostly Democratic governors.
Some shooters, such as the attack at a Texas school earlier this month, carried both a handgun and a long gun.
The relatively small percentage of mass shootings involving rifles busts one of the “myths” of the gun debate, the new study said.
“I think it would come as a surprise to a lot of people,” said Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland who is part of the research arm of the multi-state gun group though he didn’t write this new report.
He added, though, that the use of rifles is on the rise in high-profile mass shootings, and said they often account for a higher death toll in shootings.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Handguns and assault rifles.
Complete ban of assault rifles. Restricted ownership for handguns.
www.headstonesband.com
Individuals who wish to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:
Licences are typically valid for five years and must be renewed prior to expiry to maintain all classes. Once licensed, an individual can apply for a firearm transfer;[29] and an authorization to transport (ATT) for restricted firearms.[30] People may hunt with firearms in Canada only with non-restricted firearms, and this requires an additional "Hunting with Firearms" course.
Prohibited firearms include:
Restricted firearms are:[44]
(Note: legally, restricted firearms can only be discharged at shooting ranges; so while one can use them in competitions, one cannot use them for hunting)
Non-restricted firearms are:
www.headstonesband.com
And then there was the Dawson College shooting, also in Montreal, in 2006. 1 dead, 19 injured.
And finally the 1992 shooting at Concordia University, ALSO in Montreal (huh). 4 killed, 1 wounded.
So we - or Montreal, more precisely - have had our share of college campus shooting sprees.... But interestingly, security teams at Canadian universities really only started doing these big active shooter training days after Virginia Tech happened. I guess 2007 was when people decided to finally really pay attention to these events.
I've had 10 of them
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Now, why does the NRA keep how many members it has secret? And how is it even legal for them to do so? Wouldn't their tax records reveal their income from membership dues??
i was just respbonding to a post that used the NRA as a spokesperson for all gun owners. I was simply saying they’re not.
that only 5% of gun owners are members of the NRA. Reread your full post and take in the full context of what you said. “It’s very few.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It doesn't really matter which percentage of gun owners are in the NRA. They represent themselves, very strenuously, as the voice for American gun owners and they are seen that way. They have clout with politicians that far outweighs that of individual gun owners.
When there is a separate organization of gun owners that lobbies hard to have reasonable gun control measures enshrined into law, and are successful at that, then I'll believe that the NRA doesn't represent the majority of gun owners.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Business Insider has this to say:
Lets go with the highest number - 52 million over 12 years. That comes out to about 4 million per year.. for an operating budget of 230 million.
According to Wikipedia:
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©