America's Gun Violence

mrussel1

It's a lie about most of it coming from small donors.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

It's a lie about most of it coming from small donors.  

Slightly less than half. Not an insignificant amount of their overall budget. Don’t forget, they actively fundraise with letters to their present and past membership proclaiming Obama, Hillary, Chuck or Nancy, or whoever the liberal boogeyman of the hour is, is going to come and take away their guns. I’m sure they sell those email and mailing address lists to political campaigns they support as well. Don’t underestimate the collective power of small dollar, individual donations. It worked for both Obama and Bernie.

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

It's a lie about most of it coming from small donors.  

Slightly less than half. Not an insignificant amount of their overall budget. Don’t forget, they actively fundraise with letters to their present and past membership proclaiming Obama, Hillary, Chuck or Nancy, or whoever the liberal boogeyman of the hour is, is going to come and take away their guns. I’m sure they sell those email and mailing address lists to political campaigns they support as well. Don’t underestimate the collective power of small dollar, individual donations. It worked for both Obama and Bernie.

I'm a little confused.  The numbers you are quoting, they are self reported right?  Because of their tax exempt status, I don't think they have to announce membership numbers, origin of the money or anything.  

my2hands

I wonder if they chose Ollie because of his experience with massive national/international scandals?

Halifax2TheMax

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its wide-ranging influence is back in the spotlight after the massacre in Las Vegas, with Democrats renewing their push for gun control measures that the gun rights group has long opposed.

The group is among the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, with clout that extends far beyond campaign contributions.

Here are some key figures to keep in mind.

$336.7 million

The amount of revenue that the NRA took in during 2015, the most recent year for which tax forms are available. Of that total, $165.7 million came from membership dues. 

A one-year membership to the NRA costs $40. A lifetime membership costs $1,500.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/354317-the-nras-power-by-the-numbers

5 million 

The number of members the NRA has, according to the group. A Pew Research Center report in June pinned the number far higher, at 14 million, but the NRA said it’s typical for nonmembers to express support in polling. 

“We have millions more Americans who support us and will tell pollsters they are members, even when they are not,” the NRA Institute for Legislative Action said in a blog post after the numbers dropped earlier this summer. 

“For some, it could be that their membership has lapsed and for others, they might consider a family member’s membership part of their own,” the group said. “Even more to the point, the simple fact is that our support runs much deeper than among our members alone. Gun control advocates know this to be true, and that’s why the NRA remains the most powerful political force in America.” 

More than $54 million

The amount the NRA and its affiliates spent on independent expenditures (IEs) in the 2016 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

Independent expenditures go toward supporting and opposing candidates and causes, with the money spent on political television and digital ads, yard signs, NRA booths and mailers, among other things.

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action helped primarily Republican candidates by spending $33 million on IEs, while its traditional PAC spent an additional $19.2 million on IEs, according to FEC records.

The PAC also gave $1 million to federal candidates and party committees in the 2016 election cycle. Its members contributed an additional $67,700, including $10,550 to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). (The group itself donates almost exclusively to Republicans.)

$31.194 million

The amount the NRA’s outside groups spent helping to elect President Trump in 2016.

Trump was the biggest beneficiary of NRA cash in the 2016 election. Here’s the top 10: 

Donald Trump — $31,194,646
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) — $6,297,551
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — $3,298,405
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) — $3,105,294
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) — $2,888,132
Former Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) — $2,529,305
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)— $2,319,755
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)—$650,745
Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.)—$215,786
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)—$167,411

These numbers, compiled by CRP and calculated by The Hill, include only the NRA’s outside spending. It encompasses the money spent to help get the candidates elected and defeat their opponents. For example, included in Trump’s total is the $19.8 million the NRA used on ads and other IEs to oppose Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

More than $66 million

The amount the NRA spent electing 249 members of Congress and 54 senators as well as defeating their opponents, according to a spreadsheet compiled by CRP.

The totals represent the amount spent over the lawmakers’ career, with the data going as far back as 1989. The total includes donations and IEs from the NRA’s PAC, its super PAC, and directly from NRA members.

Tax forms show that the group also gives to state-level causes, including $192,650 to the Republican Governors Association in 2015, the most recent data available publicly. The NRA also contributed $145,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee and $103,860 to the Republican Attorneys General Association.

$3 million

The amount the NRA has spent, roughly, on lobbying each year since 2011. 

But the NRA will vastly exceed that amount in 2017. During the first half of 2017, it spent $3.2 million.

It successfully lobbied for a resolution overturning an Obama-era Interior Department rule restricting sport hunting on national wildlife refuges in Alaska, including banning hunting from planes and killing predators like bears and wolves while near their dens or their cubs. President Trump approved it in April.

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

It's a lie about most of it coming from small donors.  

Slightly less than half. Not an insignificant amount of their overall budget. Don’t forget, they actively fundraise with letters to their present and past membership proclaiming Obama, Hillary, Chuck or Nancy, or whoever the liberal boogeyman of the hour is, is going to come and take away their guns. I’m sure they sell those email and mailing address lists to political campaigns they support as well. Don’t underestimate the collective power of small dollar, individual donations. It worked for both Obama and Bernie.

I'm a little confused.  The numbers you are quoting, they are self reported right?  Because of their tax exempt status, I don't think they have to announce membership numbers, origin of the money or anything.  

501c3s are required to file tax returns listing their donors and dollar amounts. Just like the Clinton Foundation. And the best part? Its a tax deduction charitable contribution.

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Absolutely. And let's remember ALL gun owners actually support the NRA one way or another, whether they go out of their way to do it or not, and whether they want to or not. Really, every gun sale in America and every comment against more gun regulation is another point for the NRA. Just because our actions aren't direct ones, it doesn't mean they don't have in impact elsewhere.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Absolutely. And let's remember ALL gun owners actually support the NRA one way or another, whether they go out of their way to do it or not, and whether they want to or not. Really, every gun sale in America and every comment against more gun regulation is another point for the NRA. Just because our actions aren't direct ones, it doesn't mean they don't have in impact elsewhere.

I think that's too broad of a brush.  I am a gun owner but completely despise the NRA and any absolutist on the issue.  

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Absolutely. And let's remember ALL gun owners actually support the NRA one way or another, whether they go out of their way to do it or not, and whether they want to or not. Really, every gun sale in America and every comment against more gun regulation is another point for the NRA. Just because our actions aren't direct ones, it doesn't mean they don't have in impact elsewhere.

I think that's too broad of a brush.  I am a gun owner but completely despise the NRA and any absolutist on the issue.  

Yes, but unfortunately, despite how you feel about the NRA, simply buying guns in America bolsters the NRA's position. That's what I'm saying. Hate them all you want, but all gun owners further the NRA's cause one way or another, even if the idea makes you sick to your stomach. It's kinda like if I were a peace-loving person who is against organized crime/drug gangs, but picked up a gram of coke at a bar just because I like to party. It doesn't mean I like the criminals any more than I did, but I still just contributed to what they do by buying my party powder. Hey, same goes for buying bootlegged vinyl a lot of the time. Plenty of that comes out of larger organized crime rings. Yet plenty of people don't blink when they spend their money on something attached to them.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Absolutely. And let's remember ALL gun owners actually support the NRA one way or another, whether they go out of their way to do it or not, and whether they want to or not. Really, every gun sale in America and every comment against more gun regulation is another point for the NRA. Just because our actions aren't direct ones, it doesn't mean they don't have in impact elsewhere.

I think that's too broad of a brush.  I am a gun owner but completely despise the NRA and any absolutist on the issue.  

Yes, but unfortunately, despite how you feel about the NRA, simply buying guns in America bolsters the NRA's position. That's what I'm saying. Hate them all you want, but all gun owners further the NRA's cause one way or another, even if the idea makes you sick to your stomach. It's kinda like if I were a peace-loving person who is against organized crime/drug gangs, but picked up a gram of coke at a bar just because I like to party. It doesn't mean I like the criminals any more than I did, but I still just contributed to what they do by buying my party powder. Hey, same goes for buying bootlegged vinyl a lot of the time. Plenty of that comes out of larger organized crime rings. Yet plenty of people don't blink when they spend their money on something attached to them.

I understand the analogy, and it's interesting but I don't agree.  The act of purchasing a weapon yet voting in the opposite direction (along with advocating) doesn't further the NRA's agenda directly.  Perhaps it add $3 to Colt's bottom line, of which a nickel goes to lobbying. 

But that's the same argument as saying that if I'm on a statin, made by Merck, and they lobby against opioid controls in this country, that I'm supporting the addiction epidemic by taking my statin every night.  I think that's a little too far. 

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

Absolutely. And let's remember ALL gun owners actually support the NRA one way or another, whether they go out of their way to do it or not, and whether they want to or not. Really, every gun sale in America and every comment against more gun regulation is another point for the NRA. Just because our actions aren't direct ones, it doesn't mean they don't have in impact elsewhere.

I think that's too broad of a brush.  I am a gun owner but completely despise the NRA and any absolutist on the issue.  

Yes, but unfortunately, despite how you feel about the NRA, simply buying guns in America bolsters the NRA's position. That's what I'm saying. Hate them all you want, but all gun owners further the NRA's cause one way or another, even if the idea makes you sick to your stomach. It's kinda like if I were a peace-loving person who is against organized crime/drug gangs, but picked up a gram of coke at a bar just because I like to party. It doesn't mean I like the criminals any more than I did, but I still just contributed to what they do by buying my party powder. Hey, same goes for buying bootlegged vinyl a lot of the time. Plenty of that comes out of larger organized crime rings. Yet plenty of people don't blink when they spend their money on something attached to them.

I understand the analogy, and it's interesting but I don't agree.  The act of purchasing a weapon yet voting in the opposite direction (along with advocating) doesn't further the NRA's agenda directly.  Perhaps it add $3 to Colt's bottom line, of which a nickel goes to lobbying. 

But that's the same argument as saying that if I'm on a statin, made by Merck, and they lobby against opioid controls in this country, that I'm supporting the addiction epidemic by taking my statin every night.  I think that's a little too far. 

Well, that is a bad example because the statin is something you need to maintain your health and possibly your life, therefore removing a lot of the power of choice. That power of choice is at 100% when it comes to buying drugs and guns though.
And I think simply buying a gun and adding to the statistic of guns purchased and owned furthers the NRA's agenda... and yes, as you mention, the financial contribution that ends up as lobbying loot too, not to mention whatever comes from the distributor and the seller, when applicable. And don't forget about the ammo, which I gather rakes in way more than gun sales do. I don't think it being a small amount is really relevant. I mean, an actual NRA membership only costs $40/year.

HughFreakingDillon

I think that's taking it too far. by that end, every single purchase I make supports the agenda of those I'm purchasing from, which simply is not the case. I'm supporting their ability to make their own choices about which agenda(s) they support, not WHICH choice. 

mrussel1

I never rarely shoot any weapons.  I hate cleaning them after.  And to be completely fair, I've never purchased one.  All of mine were inherited from my father at his death.  So I'm a gun owner, but not technically a purchaser.  But you did bucket me with the rest of them. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think that's taking it too far. by that end, every single purchase I make supports the agenda of those I'm purchasing from, which simply is not the case. I'm supporting their ability to make their own choices about which agenda(s) they support, not WHICH choice. 

But that is the case.... Yes, every single purchase you make supports the agenda of those you're purchasing from. And where you're purchasing it from, too. That is 100% true. That doesn't mean you support the agenda intellectually, but you're supporting it financially. There's no way around that fact. That's also what boycotts are all about.
And as far as it goes for gun purchases and the NRA, well, there is only one choice being made by the NRA, isn't there, so that takes away any mystery in that particular case.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think that's taking it too far. by that end, every single purchase I make supports the agenda of those I'm purchasing from, which simply is not the case. I'm supporting their ability to make their own choices about which agenda(s) they support, not WHICH choice. 

But that is the case.... Yes, every single purchase you make supports the agenda of those you're purchasing from. And where you're purchasing it from, too. That is 100% true. That doesn't mean you support the agenda intellectually, but you're supporting it financially. There's no way around that fact. That's also what boycotts are all about.
And as far as it goes for gun purchases and the NRA, well, there is only one choice being made by the NRA, isn't there, so that takes away any mystery in that particular case.

well supporting it financially is a little different than how you were presenting it earlier. I think it's important to make that distinction. But also, they aren't buying from the NRA. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think that's taking it too far. by that end, every single purchase I make supports the agenda of those I'm purchasing from, which simply is not the case. I'm supporting their ability to make their own choices about which agenda(s) they support, not WHICH choice. 

But that is the case.... Yes, every single purchase you make supports the agenda of those you're purchasing from. And where you're purchasing it from, too. That is 100% true. That doesn't mean you support the agenda intellectually, but you're supporting it financially. There's no way around that fact. That's also what boycotts are all about.
And as far as it goes for gun purchases and the NRA, well, there is only one choice being made by the NRA, isn't there, so that takes away any mystery in that particular case.

well supporting it financially is a little different than how you were presenting it earlier. I think it's important to make that distinction. But also, they aren't buying from the NRA. 

I think I've been pretty clear... no? It supports the NRA both financially and in terms of statistics that they use to bolster their position. And no, I've been clear about how the purchase leads to supporting the NRA even though the NRA isn't the retailer or producer of the product.
Obviously the scenario with the NRA doesn't fit exactly with the purchase of any good. Guns are in a league of their own. I'm making philosophical comparisons, not exact literal ones.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think that's taking it too far. by that end, every single purchase I make supports the agenda of those I'm purchasing from, which simply is not the case. I'm supporting their ability to make their own choices about which agenda(s) they support, not WHICH choice. 

But that is the case.... Yes, every single purchase you make supports the agenda of those you're purchasing from. And where you're purchasing it from, too. That is 100% true. That doesn't mean you support the agenda intellectually, but you're supporting it financially. There's no way around that fact. That's also what boycotts are all about.
And as far as it goes for gun purchases and the NRA, well, there is only one choice being made by the NRA, isn't there, so that takes away any mystery in that particular case.

well supporting it financially is a little different than how you were presenting it earlier. I think it's important to make that distinction. But also, they aren't buying from the NRA. 

I think I've been pretty clear... no? It supports the NRA both financially and in terms of statistics that they use to bolster their position. And no, I've been clear about how the purchase leads to supporting the NRA even though the NRA isn't the retailer or producer of the product.
Obviously the scenario with the NRA doesn't fit exactly with the purchase of any good. Guns are in a league of their own. I'm making philosophical comparisons, not exact literal ones.

to my knowledge, you only said "supporter" without specifying. either way, I find this kind of a pointless exercise anyway, because honestly, that means since I pay to watch UFC, and Dana White is/was part owner and is a Trump supporter, and if he has made campaign contributions, that makes me a de facto Trump supporter. 

that is a stretch at best. 

dudeman

mrussel1 said:

I never rarely shoot any weapons.  I hate cleaning them after.  And to be completely fair, I've never purchased one.  All of mine were inherited from my father at his death.  So I'm a gun owner, but not technically a purchaser.  But you did bucket me with the rest of them. 

That makes you a "responsible" gun owner until you're not.

Welcome to the criminals in waiting club.

Gotta love AMT.

Halifax2TheMax

dudeman said:

mrussel1 said:

I never rarely shoot any weapons.  I hate cleaning them after.  And to be completely fair, I've never purchased one.  All of mine were inherited from my father at his death.  So I'm a gun owner, but not technically a purchaser.  But you did bucket me with the rest of them. 

That makes you a "responsible" gun owner until you're not.

Welcome to the criminals in waiting club.

Gotta love AMT.

You don't have to wait long, its in todays headlines. But you know, don't let facts sway you.

On average, there are 276 gun homicides a week in America. There are 439 gun suicides. All told, there are, on average, nearly 1,200 incidents involving gun violence, every week, in America.

This landscape of gun violence — suicides, homicides, mass shootings, accidents — is not evenly distributed. Instead, it plays out over geographic and political dividing lines — and these may help explain why individual Americans see the issue so differently.

To better understand how the geography of gun violence may affect how Americans think about the issue, The Washington Post analyzed data on gun deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for every county from 2007 and 2016 and the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive from 2016 to present. (Our full methodology is explained at the bottom of this post.)

A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death. In regions of the country won by Republican, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/31/the-surprising-way-gun-violence-is-dividing-america/?utm_term=.dd04912bc19b

Nah, guns aint the problem.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think that's taking it too far. by that end, every single purchase I make supports the agenda of those I'm purchasing from, which simply is not the case. I'm supporting their ability to make their own choices about which agenda(s) they support, not WHICH choice. 

But that is the case.... Yes, every single purchase you make supports the agenda of those you're purchasing from. And where you're purchasing it from, too. That is 100% true. That doesn't mean you support the agenda intellectually, but you're supporting it financially. There's no way around that fact. That's also what boycotts are all about.
And as far as it goes for gun purchases and the NRA, well, there is only one choice being made by the NRA, isn't there, so that takes away any mystery in that particular case.

well supporting it financially is a little different than how you were presenting it earlier. I think it's important to make that distinction. But also, they aren't buying from the NRA. 

I think I've been pretty clear... no? It supports the NRA both financially and in terms of statistics that they use to bolster their position. And no, I've been clear about how the purchase leads to supporting the NRA even though the NRA isn't the retailer or producer of the product.
Obviously the scenario with the NRA doesn't fit exactly with the purchase of any good. Guns are in a league of their own. I'm making philosophical comparisons, not exact literal ones.

to my knowledge, you only said "supporter" without specifying. either way, I find this kind of a pointless exercise anyway, because honestly, that means since I pay to watch UFC, and Dana White is/was part owner and is a Trump supporter, and if he has made campaign contributions, that makes me a de facto Trump supporter. 

that is a stretch at best. 

Well, it makes you a supporter of a Trump supporters, so if you take the long view, yes, you're also supporting Trump (but no, you're not a Trump supporter - this happens even if you despise Trump obviously) ... We're all culpable in these ways. I know we all don't want to be... but at the end of the day we are. And unless someone's gone off the grid, nobody is innocent - we're all a part of the shitty system one way or another... that is pretty much the entire reason it is next to impossible to change things for the better. Me for example... I shop at Walmart for some stuff, even though I despise Walmart for several reasons - I feel like I'm contributing to their hard line against unions, while I'm a big supporter of unions. Yes, I feel like an asshole when I spend my money there, yet my excuse is that I simply can't afford NOT to shop there for certain products. And that is true. I don't consider my being poor a good excuse though. I'm still guilty of supporting something I'm against. I'm a part of the problem. Anyone who claims not to be a part of "the problem" (any and all) is in denial IMO. But at least people can be more than that. We can be a part of the problem, and be solving problems at the same time. That's something I guess.

But anyway, I guess what I'm still saying is, essentially, that all gun owners are a part of the gun problem one way or the other. And if you didn't buy the gun, then you're still a part of the gun problem by contributing America's gun culture. Sorry, I don't mean it to shit on anyone... I'm just saying that's how it is.