America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
I have never seen a handgun in person. just a hunting rifle.PJ_Soul said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
What are the laws in Canada? I assume it is very difficult to get one (legally)? What do you have to do?PJ_Soul said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.0 -
mace1229 said:
What are the laws in Canada? I assume it is very difficult to get one (legally)? What do you have to do?PJ_Soul said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.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]
Restricted firearms are:[44]
- 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
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.0
-
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.bbiggs said: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.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.bbiggs said: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.
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. ~ Desiderata0 -
What kind of things did you cover? Would you say that the training was worthwhile?my2hands said:bbiggs said: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 themIf hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
Run - hide - fight. All you need to knowdudeman said:
What kind of things did you cover? Would you say that the training was worthwhile?my2hands said:bbiggs said: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 themhippiemom = goodness0 -
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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).Halifax2TheMax said:
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
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. ~ Desiderata0 -
I’m not sure what the purpose of this post was. I never said “hey it’s only 5%.”Halifax2TheMax said:
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
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.0 -
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%.PJ_Soul said:
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).Halifax2TheMax said:
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
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??0 -
Your post minimized the potential for change because your belief thatmace1229 said:
I’m not sure what the purpose of this post was. I never said “hey it’s only 5%.”Halifax2TheMax said:
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
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.”
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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.mace1229 said:
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%.PJ_Soul said:
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).Halifax2TheMax said:
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
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??0 -
mace1229 said:
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%.PJ_Soul said:
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).Halifax2TheMax said:
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%.mace1229 said:
Very few gun owners are NRA members, something around 5% I believe.PJ_Soul said:
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.dignin said:
If so many gun owners want more restrictions then why aren't there more restrictions?mace1229 said:
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.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.
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.
So if every single NRA member was against more regulations, that does very little compared to the majority who do.
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??
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 shelf0 -
$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 $1,500.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Halts maul, leave your waste elsewhere.Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/20140
-
The NRA doesn't need members. That's just walking around money. Their real money is coming from the gun manufacturers.0
-
Business Insider has this to say:
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.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help