By popular demand, here is the Return on Investment chart from last night's show, revealing that the support of the NRA is not as powerful as the politicians in its thrall seem to think. The source for the data can be found on this page from the Sunlight Foundation. The information on the NRA specifically is here and paints an interesting picture. The organization did support 27 candidates who won, and opposed 6 candidates who lost, but less than 1% of their spending went to those races, indicating they were sure bets that didn't actually require an political influence from the NRA. In the races where they did try to throw their weight around, particularly the presidential race, their record is abysmal.
I notice they spent $472,909.58 opposing Sherrod Brown for Senate in Ohio but also spent $10,713.48 in his support. I'm not sure what the deal is there. Just covering bases?
Leave a Comment:
I hear some shooting ranges only allow NRA members to use them. Is this true?
If so, perhaps it's time for gun owners to start a rival organization, that ranges can recognize.
Sign this petition on https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/enact-legislation-will-provide-mental-health-assessments-people-currently-owning-guns/ZDmYD9M1
Enact legislation that will provide mental health assessments for people currently owning guns. While background checks need to be mandatory for all purchasers we need a mechanism o address the problem of current gun owners or people residing with them who may have slipped into mental illness. There should be a way for family, law enforcement, neighbors, and other concerned citizens to request an evaluation. If the person is found to be mentally ill by a competent mental health professional, a legal hearing should commence to adjudicate the removal of the guns and that name be placed on the registry to prevent further purchases.
Just, a lot of ranges are owned by the NRA. Most of them are related to their gun safety training courses.
I really wish the left would build a pro-gun organization, but I think I would be the only member, lol.
really great show.
So how many "ban all guns, confiscate all guns, have you heard from the left? NONE. Explain to us what use an asault weapon is. Explain to us what it's made to do. Why do you think you need a 30, 60 or 100 round clip? Lousy shot maybe?????
Those 100-round drums will be needed when the Obama-brainwashed ATF and FBI troops come banging at your door, demanding you give up your guns, of course...
How else can you defend your right to kill people, against the military might of the USA?
Yup, a semi-automatic against drones, apache helicopters, and automatic weapons. My money is on the government.
Alva, I imagine not every NRA gun safety trainer is happy with LaPierre's recent speech.
So some of them might be available for hire by a new organization.
@David Johnson – That's just fantasy thinking you're engaging in. Do you actually think you and your assault weapon could stop the US military? If they wanted to kill you, it would be no problem. One 2-second burst from an A10 would level your house as well as the rest of the houses in a 100 meter radius, and all they would find left of you is some twisted metal shards (your assault weapon) and little meat chunks about the size of dog kibble (you). Just plain fantasy thinking on your your part, friend.
:Yup, a semi-automatic against drones, Apache helicopters, and automatic weapons. My money is on the government.:
reminds me of that poster.
The Last Great Act of Defiance
AlvaGoldbook,
Still lobbying for the gun totin crowd, I see. You must be so proud.
You disgust me more than you'll ever know.
Scotland: 20 dead...... USA over 11,000 DEAD. (twenty children in one Massacre.) And you have the gall to advocate for less gun safety laws?
The reason other civilized countries have so few gun related deaths?
Answer: Gun control.
Cut the BS.
@India LeCarre Where was Alva advocating that?
Some people don't know the differance between gun regultation and gun ban. Alva is one that believe we want a tottle ban on all guns. She doen't know how to read or listen with intelligence. You notice she/he hasn't answered any od my questions. Don't expect it. But it would be nice.
@larry74 Which thread were you responding to? Your reply here didn't seen to have anything to do with Alva's post here, so I have to assume you're talking about another post entirely.
Selective reading skills on display as well as a complete lack of word comprehension, I smell paid schooling or at home schooling at play.
My wife and I would join you. Along with many of my relatives. We are all pro-union, pro-choice, and very pro-gun ownership. If I had not had my concealed carry permit and my handgun on me when I needed it I would not be here to type this message now. The only equalizer women have to men who are trying to hurt them is a firearm. My wife is a strong advocate for women to learn the facts about firearms and getting instruction in their use.
Now we get the typical right wing personal disaster made good by the gun post. The truth about guns, the truth is guns serve no other purpose then to kill with. Can't use a gun for a hammer now can you. Can't cut fire wood with a gun now can you.
I am not a right wing individual. When you assume is make an ... you should know the rest. I am a pro-union, pro-abortion right, pro-women's rights independent who voted for Obama and against every Republican in the last election. And yes guns are used to kill, duh. When someone is trying to kill me I want the most effective killing tool I can get my hands on to kill them first. Man has been killing man since day one and it will never stop. I prefered not to be a victim. FYI I hold my degree in Psychology.So, no I'm not an ignorant redneck like people assume all gun owners are. My wife and I just believe in protecting ourselves and our family rather than just covering our heads and hoping nothing ever happens.
@whomitmay Oh, come on. Shooting inanimate @!$%# is FUN. I recommend, from my personal experience, shooting old CRT-type TVs and monitors.
I don't own a gun, but I understand it's not all about shooting people, or even critters.
I'm not along in this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/rachel-maddow-at-the-westside-pistol-rifle-range-20120627
But I believe in strong regulations.
Larry, you crack me up...
Now, "it would be nice" would seem to imply that, yes, you do want a "tottle" ban on all guns. So, it would appear that Alva is right on at least that point. Good job!
Nobody is or ever has talked about banning all guns. I'm going to guess you've never been on a battle field. Try it. It might change your perspective on guns.
India, can we at least be civil without throwing insults at each other?
Is gun control the answer? Well, let's consider how different states compare. If gun control limits the number of people who are killed by guns, then there should be evidence for it.
The #1 state in firearm homicides is....Louisiana. Louisiana is a pro-gun state. So much for the claim that more guns keep you safer from gun violence.
The #2 state in firearm homicides is....Maryland. Maryland is a gun control state. So much for the claim that more gun control will keep you safer from gun violence.
California has one of the most strict gun laws in the country. They have strict controls on "assault" weapons, they limit magazine capacity, both regulations being pushed hard right now on the federal level.
So what does this do for California? California ranks 4th in the nation in firearm homicides. And yes, I'm counting this per capita, so California isn't up there because of their large population. They're up there because they have the 4th highest rate of gun violence in the country.
The state that has the most strict gun laws in the country would have to be Illinois. And what do these incredibly strict gun laws do for Illinois? They have the 7th highest rates of gun violence in the country.
So what has gun control really done for this country? It's gotten you the #2, #4, and #7 states with the most firearm homicides. Gee, sounds effective, doesn't it?
Israel has a gun in every home. They have low rates of firearm homicides. Switzerland has a gun in every home. They have low rates of firearm homicides. Canada has about as many guns per household as the USA does, and they have very low rates of firearm homicides. Most Europeans countries have very strict gun laws and they also have almost no gun homicides. Curiouser and curiouser, eh?
On the other hand, Louisiana ranks #1 in firearm homicides. Arizona, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, ranks #6 in firearm homicides. South Carolina, which also has lax gun laws, ranks #9 in firearm homicides.
So, in other words, the states with the most strict gun control laws rank in the top 10 states of firearm homicides. And the states that have the most lax gun laws also rank in the top 10 states of firearm homicides.
Curiouser and curiouser, no?
So here we see a dilemma, India. What conclusion can you reach based upon all this contradictory evidence?
You know what conclusion I came to? Gun control laws as well as the presence of guns, are both ineffective in stopping gun violence.
This means that the premise that the NRA takes, that more guns makes you more safe is completely and totally false.
This also means that more gun control laws makes you more safe is completely and totally false.
It means that if you really want to save lives, then you get off your high horse, you let the evidence and data make your conclusions for you, and you find an EFFECTIVE way to save lives.
How else is Germany, Scotland, Japan, Australia, Israel, Switzerland and Canada different from the USA? Well those countries, with the super rare occasion, doesn't execute prisoners. They don't have a massive prison population. They tax their rich at very high levels. They have better social safety nets. They provide free college education to all their citizens. They have free universal health care. They have quality infrastructures and public transportation systems. They have higher rates of unionization.
As a result those nations have lower obesity rates than the USA. They have higher life expectancy rates. They have lower infant mortality rates. They have lower rates of stress and heart disease. They have more trust amongst neighbors. They don't feel like they have to lock their doors at night. They have a lower teenage pregnancy rates. They have better math and literacy scores. They have higher rates of class mobility.
Could all these differences be the result of gun control laws? Of course not.
These countries are simply more functional. Why are they more functional? Here's why:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
India, focus on the problem and solve it. Let the evidence take you where it leads you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
When left with nothing always good to repeat talking points that have been debunked thoroughly on this blog. Good job.
As for Rob Don's "tottle" comment- I think he was just teasing you there Larry. I don't think he was saying liberals want a total ban, I think he was teasing the spelling error "tottle."
Alva #2.20, The evidence tells me you are mixing apples and oranges.
The evidence tells me you are a gun nut in a country full of gun nuts; a violent country with too many guns. A racist country with too much hate and bigotry. A plutocratic country with a failing middle class (which is the GOP agenda). A country which is bought and sold by congress and the corporations. An ill educated country which believes it is exceptionally smart. The richest country in the world whose children go to bed hungry.
I am unimpressed by both you and American exceptionalism.
Frankly, it is people like you who make me want to live in the Isle of Man. If I could, I would. Now. Today. My passport is in order.
This is nothing like the country I grew up in.
And I grew up here.
India, I've long thought that I would prefer to live in another country myself. Maybe Germany, or Sweden. Or maybe Canada. It is vile that we live in a country where 1 in 5 children go to bed hungry. Our representatives have ceased to represent us because they are openly bribed by the rich. I think enacting a form of direct democracy is the only way to fix this. The only violence that should exist in this country should be directed towards the white collar criminals on Wall Street. They have untold gallons of blood on their hands.
But the problems we're seeing goes deeper than guns. These are problems that come with wide spread systemic failure of an entire nation. We are seeing the symptoms of wholesale societal collapse. Fixing this problem will take more than band-aids.
Personally, I don't think we will ever fix this mess. I expect that the United States as we know it will one day crumble. Empires rarely turn themselves around once they begin to collapse. At which point there will be a bunch of lunatics with guns and a bunch of civilized decent human beings who are completely and totally unarmed. Things won't look good for them if that happens.
I'm not just protecting myself from criminals with my firearms. I'm protecting myself from right wing gun nuts.
Well, thank you for the nice response, but I see you as one of the problems, I'm afraid, not the solution. Why on earth would you ever own, for example, a Tommy Gun?! Good Lord.
You must live in a very dangerous place in Virginia, or you are quite paranoid. I've been through Virginia when we first moved here, and it looked quite peaceful, green and verdant. I expected to hear strains of Beethoven's 6th symphony emanating from the rolling green hills.
PS, No one shot at our car as we traveled through that lovely state.
Steve...
You really do have a problem recognizing sarcasm, don't you?...
Real data on gun-related crime is not available - thanks to lobbying by the gun lobby. Here is one stat that is of interest, it's from "State Health Facts" derived from reportable information from hospitals:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
To James Yeager, Tactical Response
My nieces & little sister just got threatened by your video, you didn’t specify who are targeted victims of your killing spree. Can you see if a .338 Lapua ULR is pointed at you?
The sad truth is people who vote “guns & god” and want exaggerated gun arsenals are usually the ones who are too crazy to have the guns in the first place. Conservative wacko, NRA guns & god enthusiasts. BLAME THEM! In ALL of these school shootings, how did so-called responsible gun owners allow their mentally unstable sons get a hold of their guns and ammo?
Conservative wackos aren't concerned with consequences of their actions, they'll give a weapon to any degenerate who has the cash. Lest we forget these degenerate, ignorant neanderthals voted to hand the nation's nuclear arsenal to George W. Bush... (the horror, the horror) You right-wingers really are hopelessly insane, right? As published on spoact.blogspot.com
FYI
http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=846351#.UO92oW88B8E
"NW Ohio school district approves armed teachers, staff
In the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut last month, schools across the nation are re-evaluating their stances on authorized guns in schools.
One NW Ohio school has approved a resolution that will allow some staff members to have guns on school property.
At a board of education meeting last night, the Montpelier Exempted Village Schools passed a measure "authorizing certain individuals to carry concealed firearms on school premises pursuant to O.R.C. 2923.122".
Ohio Revised Code prohibits any and all guns on school property unless the individual has a concealed carry license and "has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons".
According to the documents posted on the district's website, the resolution was not part of the board's agenda going into the meeting.
Who proposed the resolution, and how board members voted, was not readily available."
That's just plain idiotic! Any teacher who would have a gun in their class, and who would presumably keep it in a safe place where the kids couldn't get to it, would more likely than not, NOT be able to get to it in time for it to do any good. Having teachers carrying guns is only going to increase the chances of more people getting hurt or killed.
And I really have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is a good idea has considered the insurance implications of teachers having guns in school? It all sounds like a huge nightmare waiting to happen.
Ummm, it is called concealed carry and the gun is in a in-the-waistband holster and therefore accessible at all times and secured because it never leaves their person.
Until a angry kid grabs it while tussling with the teacher or because of laziness said gun falls out of the holster. Yeah because guns belong in the classroom just in case of an event that might never happen.
When you take on the heavy responsiblity of carrying a concealed firearm you hope you never have an even that you need it. However, those events do sometimes happen. I would be dead right now if in the one time in my 42 years I had not had my legally carried concealed handgun. Please take the time to learn facts not spout off about something you know nothing about. If you took the time to go to a gun range instructor for some lessons you might not hate and fear firearms anymore. They are an inanimate tool that can be used for good or evil just like any other tool.
And if you carry it, you are assuming you'll need and use it. If that were not the case, you wouldn't have it.
But again, nobody is denying anybody the right to own a fire arm. There are those weapons that have one use. Too kill many people very fast. Nobody needs them and sorry to inform people, the SC ruling on the second ammendment does give Gov't the right to regulate. I wish the sencond ammendment huggers would actually read the ruling of the court.
I wish you would google the history of British gun laws and how by one "reasonable" law at a time they managed to ban ALL firearms. That is why gun owners hold the line at any new legislation. That and the fact that it won't stop massacres from happening it will only change the method used and give a placebo to make some people feel they are doing something. While you are at it check the UN statistics on crime and violence in the UK. Per capita Britain has a higher rate of violence and crime than the US, but true the violence is not usually gun violence. They just use different weapons.
Hate to tell you this, but this is not Britten and we have a constitution that people mistakenly thinks give them the right to own as many and any kind of gun the want. That's not what the Supreme Court ruling said. Maybe you should read it.
Guess he also forgets that the first gun restriction laws were started during prohibition by the GOP who wanted to get machine guns out of the hands of gangsters and bank robbers.
I totally agree this is a bad idea. I was just sharing this article to shine a spot light on this story. This is happening in a small town near where I grew up. I think its a mistake. Armed guards didn't help at many of the school shootings in the past. I don't think allowing school staff to carry a concealed gun will do any good in fact I think it may just get someone hurt.
Argh!
Who told you that ALL firearms are banned in the UK?
People spouting nonsense like this is what makes the rest of the world think Americans are crazy.
I live in Scotland, my husbands hobby is deer-stalking, we have 2 rifles and a shotgun in a locked gun safe in our house.
In order to get a firearms licience, my husband was interviewed by the police, the police interviewed his family. He went on a training course. The firearms officer also came to the house to inspect the safe.
I think this is entirely appropriate, none of it was onerous, it all went through quickly and my husband can enjoy his hobby.
We do have gun violence in the UK, but we do not have the massacres that seem to be all to common in the US. Ours have been Hungerford 1987, Dunblane 1996 and Cumbria 2010. 3 mass shootings in 30 years.
The loss of childrens lives in Sanyhook is too high a price to pay for your current level of gun violence. If you don't accept there needs to be change, I assume you think the price of those lives being lost is worth paying.
Also, according to WHO and OAS.
Firearm death rate in UK per 100000 population 0.25
in USA 10.2
I am so sick of gun wing-nuts trying to say the UK is some hellhole of gun violence due to gun regulation. It's just patently false.
I know NO-ONE who has been a victim of gun crime, NO-ONE, either in my personal life or amongst my patients (I am a doctor in a deprived area.)
Can you say the same.
My comment above 4.10 should read 'interviewed his family doctor'
Apologies.
Tweed girl,
Thank you for the clear and accurate comment. I am sick to death of the gun nuts it, as well.
Anyone who has ever had a loved one gunned down in the street would agree
with me, I believe. That changes ones perspective rather quickly.
Food For Thought:
http://observinghermann.com/2012/12/26/germany-needs-more-rigorous-jackknife-control-legislation/
Well, let's see...
GE (part owner of MSNBC) dontated 286,000 to Romney's campaign and 130,000 to Obama's. Microsoft (part owner of MSNBC) dontated 190,000 to Romney's campaign and 764,000 to Obama's.
Just covering bases?
Yes...the practice is not unique to the NRA as the article wants to assume it is, it is common practice...even by MSNBC's owners.
Well color me surprised MSNBC republican owners donated to both sides . Or in other words just more inane republican babble post.
You consider Microsoft a "republican" owner? Really? Did you look at their donations to Obama? And did you know that GE's CEO is the head of Obama's Job's Council? You certainly are informed, huh?
That's former CEO. He can't hold that position while in public service. But I'll bet not one Republican President ever had a CEO in their cabinet.
No, larry, it is not "former CEO" and he is not in Obama's cabinet, I never said he was..and, yes, GWB (that's George W Bush) had a CEO in his cabinet, Carlos Gutierrez was the Secretary of Commerce and "former" of a little company called Kellogg.
For such a little post, you sure got a lot of things wrong.
--> http://observinghermann.com/2012/12/26/germany-needs-more-rigorous-jackknife-control-legislation/
Please stop with the anti-gun tirade. I like the Maddow show but I'm finding myself fast forwarding through the DVR recording to see if there is anything of interest. Keep it up and I'll have to turn the show off for good and I really don't want to.
Guess what? It isn't all about you. Watch something else if you don't like what's on the show.
Is the NRA backed by the criminal elements in society. They do not want back ground checks, they do not want to reduce the magazines that hold more than 20 bullets. Do they think the people in America would have to defend their homes with these types of weapons in case of an invasion of other countries? We do not want to turn from a free society to a communistic one. But what Ideals did the NRA put forth at the meeting with Joe Biden. Did they suggest to have volunteers with weapons cover the schools? If they did say the schools need people with weapons do they know how many people can wear a weapon and still would not use it. Has the NRA thought about the children who see men/women with weapons making the children living in fear while they are in school. People with weapons must have background checks to insure they will not force a child into a situation and make sure if they shoot someone it is justifiable. We don't want a 100 Trevon Martin cases in our children's school, would the NRA take responsibility for that or would they blame it on the second amendment rights? Yes people have a right to own a weapon, but its the type of weapon ownership is the question here. Then why would we need policemen or the military if the citizens want to uses these type of weapons. We can not pick and choose who is going to go insane, so we choose to select the type of weapons citizens can own and at the same time try hard to prevent homicidal maniacs from getting there hands on them. Hoorah
I'm no fan of the NRA, but doesn't everyone get tired of the way Rachel and her website lords twist raw statistics? I do.
I'm getting tired of the anti-gun tirade on all of the MSNBC shows. I used to enjoy watching them, but enough. This is why the Democrats will lose the next Presidential election and probably the next round of House elections. They just can't leave guns alone. I am an independent who voted for Obama and against every Tea Party member I could but I'll be switching back to Republican if they keep it up.
Right in other news republicans have lost their minds and predict things that never happen then whine that they never happened to people that could care less about republicans and their goals.
Mike, all statistics are easily twisted...meaning the statistic is true but misleading. Here are more statistics from the Sunlight's web page regarding NRA spending:
1. For instance, not counting the Presidential election (or the Brown race where the NRA opposed and supported the candidate via dollars) the NRA "invested" in 37 winning campaigns (their candidate won or the one they opposed lost) and "invested" in 25 losing campaigns...about a 60% winning rate...nothing to write home about.
2. The NRA (again excluding Presidential race and Brown) invested in losing campaigns by dollars about 3 to 1 in LOSING campaigns. Rounded raw numbers, they invested about 1.3 million in campaigns where the NRA was on the losing side and aobut 350,000 in winning campaigns. Not great, actually poor, but no where near the number in the article above would lead you to believe.
The reason for not including the Presidential campaign is because it really skews the numbers because 80% of the money was invested on the losing side. They had much better success in the local campaigns. Looking at the article above you'd think they lost 1 out 100 races. That's far from the truth regardless if you are an NRA support or not.
Argh. Nobody is forcing you to watch things you don't like. My TV has over 200 channels. A remote lets me change with out leaving my chair. Or I can just leave the room, turn it off, read a book, any number of things. I don't watch what I don't like. Bye, Bye
You might try it some time, you might learn something (see post #6.4).
(As an aside, I never said I didn't like the Maddow show. Wasn't even commenting on the show, but the blog.)
And my reply wasn't to you. But hell, you seam to like going after me so have fun.
Larry, I'm not going "after" you. You first attempted to correct me (see post 6.3), then I responded. Then you replied here after my comment. So, if anyone is going "after" someone, you posted after my comments first. I just look at it as dialog.
Nonetheless, your first point here is well taken. Since you did not address the post I WRONGLY assumed it was direct response to my last post. Clearly my error.
Anyone wondering why gun owners are paranoid about giving even and inch on gun legislation please google history of Britain gun laws. Step by step instruction on how to ban and confiscate all firearms by "reasonable" new laws one at a time.
Argh. In case you haven't heard, this isn't Brittan.
Exactly, we have the 2nd amendment and former gun owners in Britain sure wish they had.
They do and just who are these former gun owners why they don't exist because Briton banned guns from the public long before the US was a colony. Briton never had a 2nd amendment, so we get the typical I'm not a republican I just use republican psycho babble post.
Please see my posts above, I'm british, my husband owns three guns and deer stalking is his hobby. This is a lie, and a pretty stupid one, who fed it to you?
Hey argh, if you're going to be talking about guns in the UK, you might want to take a look at this: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/england-and-wales
I don't see where the US wanting to skate through without keeping records on gun ownership and sales equals "confiscating all firearms."
Civilian Gun Registration
England & Wales: the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register
United States: does not require
Sounds like keeping track of the guns is a smart idea to me...
Heres a clue English police don't carry sidearms.
Dear Ms Madow,
This is a simple little Email
concerning a simple little thought that I had the other day.
I am a 69 year old retired guy who was
spending a few days in the hospital earlier this week undergoing a
simple procedure, I was bored and using my IPad to search for an
interesting App to pass time with and I stumbled upon one called TED.
TED is an App that makes it easy to
view the interesting TED lectures. I installed it on my computer and
began watching one interesting lecture after another---what fun!!! I
ended my TED session by watching a moving and uplifting lecture by a
Young Israeli who described how he had started a powerful dialogue
between Israelis and Iranians by simply posting a graphic design
poster of his family (he himself is a Graphic Designer) on his
facebook page which read “IRANIANS we will never bomb your country
WE Love You. The man who did this is named Ronny and his Poster has
gone viral and has inspired thousands of people in both Israel and
Iran, as well as almost every other country in the world to post
similar posters and express similar thoughts.
Ronny inspired me to write to you
concerning a thought that has been floating around in my head for the
past few days. My Idea concerns Gun Violence!
I was a young man during the Vietnam
War, I was luckily discharged from the 101st Airborne
Division in late 1064 and was safe at home when they were deployed to
Vietnam in early 1965. My Brother was not as lucky and was badly
wounded there in 1966 or 1967.
When the Vietnam war first started I
was like most Americans of the time, very supportive of the
Conflict---I was also like most Americans slowly dissuaded from a
position of support for the war to a position of opposition. I read
every book I could find on the Vietnam War, especially the great
books by historian Bernard B Fall who wrote about the French
Involvement as well as the American and who was eventually Killed by
a Land Mine while covering the war as an Historian in the Late
1960's.
I always contribute my conversion from
support to opposition to the Daily reporting of the Number of
Americans Killed and Wounded at the End of Each days Major Network
Newscasts. Over time this simple daily reporting had an undeniable
effect on myself and the public in general.
I now submit my idea to you:
What if----at the end of your show each
day you closed with a Simple Graphic which said something like this
Total Number of
Americans Killed or wounded by Guns since Sandy Hook xxxx
Total Number of people
in the entire rest of the Civilized World Killed or Wounded by Guns
since
Sandy Hook xxxx
Sometimes
simple thoughts and Natural Leaders can make Grand Changes
Cheers
and with all good thoughts for a better tomorrow
Dorn
Cranert
#12 Dorn Cranert,
How interesting. I was going to ask her the same thing! Not just to ask her to post the number of gun related deaths here in the US, but other civilized countries on the same day, for comparison.
I like that idea. It wouldn't hurt to hear, daily, of the Afghan war casualties, either, dead and injured.
This website is a very interesting resource:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/
Did you not see the people in Syria that were killed by gunfire 1800, we are concerned with the USA, Gun Control right now. We want the NRA to survive, however we want them to start thinking outside the box for a change. Criminal elements exist, they will rob, still, and are definitely part of the drug cartel in America. If the NRA cares who they allow guns of such magnitude to be sold to they will loose millions of dollars in support. So who do they support, if we prob into the background of the NRA we might find out why they oppose background checks for gun owners.
The word above is steal
Banning guns based on their appearance is just wasted time and effort to make yourselves feel good without doing anything of real substance. It will not stop the massacres only the method of destruction. Google mass killings and you will find that if guns are not available the insane and the evil will use bombs (worst massacre of school children in US history), homemade flamethrowers (Germany in the 60's), or knifes, axes, and vehicles (Japan and China over the last couple of years). All the new push for gun laws is about is the fact that some people hate and fear guns out of their ignorance. Learn about them. Go to an instructor and learn facts.
Right in other news more factless whines from the right not even worth a reply.
Except I'm not from the right. I voted for President Obama, and against every Republican I could in the last elections. I am a pro-union, pro-choice, independent who would not be here today if I had not had my legally concealed gun on me when I needed it. Instead I would be six feet under and another statistic.
Nobody gives a damn what the gun looks like. We care about what it is capable of. So tell us all the reason ou or anybody needs a semi-auto, that can be made full auto in about 15 min, or 30, 60 or 100 round clips. If you can't drop a deer, person or other animals with one shot, I don't want you owning any guns.
Wow, that reply was so ignorant in it's lack of facts it is astounding. So according to you we should get rid of all guns but single shot. Lets all go back to the 1800's technology for our defense and our hunting. Why don't you stop with the pretending that all you want is a few "reasonable" laws and admit that you want all guns (and probably knifes) banned because you fear them. Have you ever shot a gun or taken a gun safety class? If you have not then you do not have the facts to carry on an intelligent discussion about them.
I love the arrogant assumption here. A lot of the people who blog here are former military and/or police. Some of us are even current active duty. You make the slippery slope argument that one regulation will lead to another (without evidence to support the conclusion, I might add) and then you make the accusation that someone responding to you in equivalent hyperbole is therefore justifying the removal of all weapons. You openly admit that you're opposed to gun regulation because you're paranoid and you openly admit that you do not need a gun to defend yourself or commit murder. So by your very own logic you've already stated that you have no personal business for wanting to own a gun. You don't need it to defend yourself (your argument about other weapons replacing the gun violence) and you are apparently the mentally ill person you continue to bash.
Additionally it is irrelevant to say that some other nation has higher non-gun related crime than the US. We aren't talking about non-gun related crime we are talking about gun related crime and specifically whether or not banning assault rifles and/or high capacity magazines will contribute to lowering the death toll in association with guns. No one is arguing the absolute- that the number will get to zero- but people are arguing that 32 a day is unacceptable. This may surprise you, but you can address multiple areas of crime at the same time. It isn't an either/or. It's not "if we pass a law dealing with gun crime we won't pass laws dealing with knife crime." It's not "passing a law dealing with guns invariably means we'll become lax on laws dealing with knives." That's not the way it works. I can care about multiple areas of crime or all crime and still talk about specifics about each area. Your entire framing of the conversation is intellectually dishonest.
History of gun control in the United Kingdom: Pistols Act 1903, 1920 Firearms Act, 1937Firearms Act, 1968 Firearms Act, 1997 Firearms Act. One “reasonable” law at a time , and now gun ownership is a thing of the past in Britain. Surprisingly enough violence is not. Google the UN statistics for the numbers.
Once again for the reading impared, this is NOT the UK.
And once again, my husband, here in the UK, owns 2 rifles and one shotgun for deer stalking. Plenty of sporting gun owners here in the UK. This is all lies.
Death by firearms in Uk per 100,000 0.25
Death by firearms in USA per 100.000 10.2
WHO and OAS numbers - where are you getting yours from?
Here is a list of the rules around firearm ownership in the uk, provided by a gun dealer
http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm
Here is the London Met's page to help you apply for your gun licence.
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/firearmslicensing
Google, gun licence uk or firearm licence Uk and you will get multiple sites for the different counties, telling you how to apply.
You're confusing the fact that laws need to update to address new developments, unforeseen problems, etc. with the idea of "one 'reasonable' law at a time." Laws have to change constantly to reflect our society which is also changing constantly. I don't know why the hell you'd assume that once a law was passed one time that would somehow be set in stone and that would forever remain relevant without any problems.
I don't know where you're getting that UK is ahead of the US in gun violence or that guns or banned in Britain. But I do have to say that it's rather obnoxious when people say "Google it." The burden of proof is on the person MAKING the assertion. It is NOT on the person debunking the assertion. If you want people to know what sources you are referencing for information then you have to source that information. Even if you cannot link articles- which for some reason new posters have a problem with, but I never have- you can always remove the hyperlink and just include the address so that people can copy and paste the link. OR you could follow more proper academic procedure and give the name of the article in question (or study or blog post or what have you), the website name/company name, the name of the author, and the date the article was posted. It's not as if these things are impossible to find out, difficult to source, or take a huge amount of effort.
It's literally: Gabrielle Gabrielle, Who Wrote What About What?, New York Times, 12/12/12, NewYorkTimes.com
See how simple that was?
USA LAws are used to help control the violence. We will not be able to stop it but we can certainly slow it down. No spitting laws were enacted because of diphtheria, the law helped, the death penalty was imposed in some states for certain crimes, it slowed the type of crime down although it did not stop it. If we do not Ban certain assault weapons now, we will not slow down the massacres. Haven't you heard about an ounce of prevention? People fear change, they do not know how to except it and some will find it hard, but without change in America we will diminish our right to life, I own a weapon but it is not assault and I do have it registered, and I do have a conceal licenses. But if we don't do something, nothing will happen but more death and destruction. Suggestions are fine and so many of the people have valid points on pro and con, but can we get together and make some suggestions. Mine is Background checks for all gun owners, what do you have to hide.
Who pays for the background checks,and who controls what constitutes a reason to refuse someone a firearm. Officials everyday use "reasonable" laws to deny honest citizens the ability to defend themselves. Their are many places in the US right now that have concealed carry permits, but through control of the "rules' deny them to everyday citizens.
You don't pay attention do you Argh? Just more gun lover talking points with nothing to say.
I have yet to see one actual fact from you. Just more of the usual tirade against something about which you know nothing and do not understand.
The person purchasing the firearm unless the company selling the gun agrees to cover the fee. That's the way it works now. If you're a gun owner then you know that this isn't a hypothetical.
We the public. We are making the decision through our policy (hence why public policy and government exist) as to what constitutes a person who is eligible to carry a gun and why. This is politics 101. Stating you do not know this means you literally do not understand why policy is passed in the first place.
...such as?
...and this matters because....?
Such as:
To get a concealed-carry permit in New York, a gun owner must show “proper
cause,” defined as “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that
of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”
In 2010, five New York State residents sued the city of Westchester, which
had barred them from obtaining concealed-carry permits because they failed to
show a special need for self protection. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/11/27/appeals-court-upholds-n-y-concealed-carry-law/
And this matters because people should not have the right to defend themselves taken away by politicians manipulating rules to fit their agenda.
Last I checked , the democratic elected officials in any state have a right to pass any law they want
Since you r into hyperbole of the bad things happening to people who can not buy guns , if the assault rifle ban were still in place , the shooter of the sandy hook victims would not have had access to one , he would not have been able to get through their locked front door so easy , and the people who died trying to protect those children might have actually been able to disarm him
suck on that hypothetical
You're making so many assumptions here and you just got finished chastising someone else about how making assumptions makes an ass out of you and me.
You aren't demonstrating that the right of a citizen to protect themselves has been denied. What you're demonstrating is that a person can't get a permit to carry their weapon concealed within that particular city. You do realize that this person still has the option to carry the weapon, but without it being concealed, that the person can still own a weapon, but keep it at home, and that a person could simply just re-file why it is they believe they need the permit until they come up with an answer the local government finds acceptable. I think it's perfectly fine for a local government to ask that in order for you to have a concealed carry permit you have to demonstrate a need. By your own admission and by the information you've presented you are also showing that such individuals have an appeals process to go through. So it's not as though said individuals are completely helpless in this particular instance. The way you worded it this was politicians using their position of power to take guns away from citizens who have legitimate reasons for wanting to keep their guns. That is NOT what the article you linked to says or provides evidence for.
So I am still left asking: what's an example of honest (why the hell does honesty even matter in this case?) every day citizens being denied the right to defend themselves? What evidence is there that this is being done to suit a politicians agenda? And why does it matter if a particular city, county, or state denies a person (singular) the right to carry a concealed weapon when they otherwise allow people (plural) to carry concealed weapons?
For the record it should be noted that no politician denied the individuals in your article their permit. So that kind've debunks your whole story from the get-go.
Sunlight Foundation...author of the graph...they've been around for a grand total of about 6 years as a liberal voice.....take their data for what it is worth and think for yourself.
Or you could be like mike and get all your thoughts from Fox news.
Major tea-party groups have been around for less than 6 years ... so I guess we shouldn't bother listening to them, either. Being around for a short time should not matter. Content, facts and substantive research is what makes the Sunlight Foundation valid.
Once again seems someone doesn't know the make up of the tea bagged nation, here is a clue they are 90% of the people who blindly followed Reagan so in reality the tea bagged nation is not 6 years old they just renamed themselves 6 years ago and found new leaders to follow.
Rachel - another big example of the NRA not having the power that beltway media common wisdom thinks they do, is from Gov. Ed Rendell defeating the NRA in his races, at least, two times. As I've seen Rendell point out on Now with Alex Wagner, his state of Pennsylvania holds the second most NRA membership behind Texas, and still they lost badly when putting big bucks toward trying to defeat Rendell. He's appropriately calls them a "paper tiger". He also works for your network ... so you might consider having him on. :)
2nd Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
***
THE NATIONAL GUARD IS THE MODERN MILITIA RESERVED TO THE STATES BY ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 15 & 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION. (FN8) IT HAS ONLY BEEN IN RECENT YEARS THAT THE NATIONAL GUARD HAS BEEN AN ORGANIZED FORCE, CAPABLE OF BEING ASSIMILATED WITH EASE INTO THE REGULAR MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. FROM THE DAYS OF THE MINUTEMEN OF
LEXINGTON AND CONCORD UNTIL JUST BEFORE WORLD WAR I, THE VARIOUS MILITIAS EMBODIED THE CONCEPT OF A CITIZEN ARMY, BUT LACKED THE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING NECESSARY FOR THEIR USE AS AN ITEGRAL PART OF THE RESERVE FORCE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (FN9) THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT OF 1916 (FN10) MATERIALLY ALTERED THE STATUS OF THE MILITIAS BY CONSTITUTING THEM AS THE NATIONAL GUARD. PURSUANT TO THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION (SEE N.8), THE GUARD WAS TO BE UNIFORMED, EQUIPPED, AND
TRAINED IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THE REGULAR ARMY, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS AND CAPABLE OF BEING “FEDERALIZED” BY UNITS, RATHER THAN BY DRAFTING INDIVIDUALSOLDIERS. (FN 11) IN RETURN, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL EQUIPMENT TO THE GUARD, AND PROVIDED FEDERAL COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE GUARD, SUPPLEMENTING ANY STATE EMOLUMENTS. THE GOVERNOR, HOWEVER, REMAINED IN CHARGE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN EACH STATE EXCEPT WHEN THE GUARD WAS CALLED INTO ACTIVE FEDERAL SERVICE; IN MOST INSTANCES THE GOVERNOR ADMINITERED THE GUARD THROUGH THE STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL, (FN 12) WHO WAS REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO REPORT PERIODICALLY TO THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, A FEDERAL ORGANIZATION, ON THE GUARD’S RESERVE STATUS. (FN 13) THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE 1916 ACT HAS BEEN PRESERVED TO THE PRESENT DAY.
Maryland, for the use of Levin v. United States 381 U.S. 41, #345
Argued March 15, 1965 Decided May 3, 1965---AFFIRMED
***
In the wake of the Arizona and Aurora mass murders, and the Sandy Hook mass murders, the gun debate has been rightly re-ignited. I have been sickened by the NRA’s and the GOA’s jingoistic and fanatical reasoning and non-solutions they have proposed by their respective leaders, Wayne “Whack-job” LaPierre, and Alex “Psycho” Stone. Their sheer obliviousness and intellectual dishonesty are blood-curdling. If we’re going to have a debate about guns and gun control, at least we can now have a re-framed and honest debate on the issue. I own guns and have enjoyed shooting for
many years, and believe there should not be unfettered access to, and purchases
of, guns. No one, in my opinion, should be allowed to own and purchase military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines…they’re not practical for hunting or home protection. The implications of the NDA of 1916, clearly and unequivocally define and interpret the 2nd Amendment as applicable to our National Guard units…NOT individual citizens. Individual citizens do not have the right to “bear arms” as of the passage of the NDA of 1916. The original intent of the founders is quite clear: “A well-regulated militia…” is our present-day National Guard. Individual citizens are not “well-regulated”. The responsibility of securing our liberty and freedom is vested in individual states’ National Guard units, not in individual citizens. Thus, we are left with this looming question: do individual citizens have a legal right to “keep and bear arms”? Discuss…
You should read andd print the SC ruling on the 2nd ammendment. It was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Aftrer toay's meeting with the VP, it's abundently clear that the NRA's only motive for not wanting to curb gun viiolence, gun control that is, is purely greed. They only want money, and how have they achieved this, thru NRA memberrs dues and donations, and the unseen kickbacks from the gun manufacturers and lobbiests. Their intent is to flood the country with as many guns, clips, drums, and as much and as many kinds of ammunition, etc. as they can posssibly get the gun nuts to buy, the nuts they've created with their doomsday hysteria and fear mongering about the government taking away their guns. Look at their proposal to put more guns in schools; over the top asanine, don't you think? I wonder what thier position would be had one of their grandkids been riddled with bullets. The NRA memebers need to wake up to the scam the NRA is perpetrating on them, and disassociate. If the NRA members cannot see what is being done to them by the NRA, maybe they deserve to be had and made fools of. I quit the NRA years ago after they began being focused on getting money sent to them. As I posted in a different blog, I wonder what they have as their Mission and Vision statements and their operating Values in their Strategic Plan, and if they're being followed. Would be interesting to find out....
NRA could be a valuable asset to this o@!$%#ry from the standpoint of pursuing gun safety, etc. as they used to once upon a time vice this money hungry self interest in furthering their own financial gains.
What's even more disturbing, is the Republicans who have perpetuated the agenda of the NRA and its leaders, to the detriment of the citizens of this country for whom you'd think they'd want to protect. Now, if the electorate who put these cowards in office would wake up and throw these bums out, maybe we'd have chance to do something meaningful for the greater society. I'm hopeful, but not all that upbeat....
I don't think they ever were the "once upon a time" NRA the difference now is that they are drunk with power and we are smarter about their real purpose.
Sign this petition on https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/enact-legislation-will-provide-mental-health-assessments-people-currently-owning-guns/ZDmYD9M1
Enact legislation that will provide mental health assessments for people currently owning guns. While background checks need to be mandatory for all purchasers we need a mechanism o address the problem of current gun owners or people residing with them who may have slipped into mental illness. There should be a way for family, law enforcement, neighbors, and other concerned citizens to request an evaluation. If the person is found to be mentally ill by a competent mental health professional, a legal hearing should commence to adjudicate the removal of the guns and that name be placed on the registry to prevent further purchases.
Liberals, WHY are you laughing, the genie is out of the bottle. We do need our guns to defend ourselves/ families, these “guns & god” nuts are going to strike out… ONE right-wing crazy killer at a time.
as posted on spoact.blogspot.com
I feel like a nutter with all the posting I have done on this thread, but it enrages me when people try to use false statements about countries they clearly know nothing about to bolster their ridiculous arguements.
The Uk has well regulated firearm use. The background checks are thorough, more for a firearm licence (for rifles) than shotguns but still good. You can even have more extreme weapons for shooting on ranges only.
All ammunition you purchase is documented on your license, so it would show if you were stock-piling, and high capacity still is a no-no, because who needs a semi-automatic to kill a red deer?
My deer stalking husband thinks the gun lobby in the USA is demented. He's a paid up member of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, who would be considered radiacally left-wing by the NRA.
http://www.basc.org.uk/
I apologise for my spelling, typing too fast!
Don't apologize: you have a right to be pissed when you perceive people as bad mouthing your country without any evidence to support the accusation.
Thanks! It's such an easily disproved lie too, 'no guns in the UK.' I'll tell my hubby to cancel his BASC membership and cancel his subscriptions to Shooting Times and The Field.
http://www.basc.org.uk/
http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/
http://www.thefield.co.uk/
Has he no idea of the sport shooting heritage in this country from the aristocracy (now thankfully becoming less of an elite sport)? Not to mention the huge farming and rural comunities.
I thought the best policy would be to post on each thread he had told his silly lie on but it does make me look like a bit of a stalker...
Tweed girl, I really enjoy your comments. Your spelling is fine and your logic is impeccable.
But, please tell your husband to stop shooting Bambi. :) I live in a wooded area and deer graze by our back fence. They are so beautiful. They care for their fawn in such an endearing way. I hate to hear the sounds of gunfire during hunting season. I cringe every time.
I know hunting is popular in Britain, as it is here, but .....well...call me a softie, I suppose. I love the deer.
Tweed Girl, In America, pissed means angry. Cartoon didn't mean to imply that you were drunk. LOL
India,
It means angry here too but only when paired with off as in 'pissed off!'
As far as the deer go, the UK is a small island where all natural predators have been erradicated. Deer populations are robust and too large in a lot of places where they are damaging habitats and ecosystems, adversely affecting other vital species. You have to remember we don't have your open spaces, and have no lynxes or bears or wolves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/ecology/3463388/500000-deer-must-be-culled-to-protect-countryside-from-damage-by-herds.html
Other suggestions other than culling are contraceptives but it is not that practical. My husband has shot exactly 2 deer in the last 12 months, so we are not talking genocide here.
If you are a vegetarian, I respect your opinion to disapprove of all meat eating, but as a non-vegetarian I view the humane shooting of an over populated animal to be eaten as more ethical than a lot of the farming that goes on. It's exactly the same as fishing. (Assuming your fish is one of the well-stocked varieties.)
Tweed Girl, Thanks for clearing that up.
Actually, I am of Scottish ancestry, and my father was a hunter. We did eat the wild game, and as a child, I even helped him dress the animals. I came to dislike the deer being killed when we moved here and I started to observe them. Not to anthropomorphise them, but they seemed so intelligent and caring and gentle. I hated that they were being killed. I mind it less if the game is eaten, as it should be. I know there are places in Appalachia where wild game is all people have for their meat supply. I do understand that. I also understand what you mean about the deer population. My husband works on Fire Island, NY, and the deer have literally taken over the place and people are so aggravated with them. They refer to them as large rodents with antlers.
I am not a vegetarian, but my husband is. He would not approve of any killing of any animal except for necessity (food). He began to feel this way after reading a book called, I think, Diet For A New America by a man named Robbins. I read it and wept, but did not become a vegetarian. I have a passion for cheeseburgers and Shepherd's Pie.
I am glad your husband is humane and makes a clean kill. May I suggest you read the book I mentioned?
Again, I enjoy your comments!
As a gun owner who owns several “assault weapons” am
appalled at the media in regards to this issue. I am tired of my culture being
persecuted in the eyes of the media, and our rights attacked. The fact is that
WE THE PEOPLE have a right to own these things. I have just as much of a right
to own 10 AR-15s as you have to not own a gun.
The facts of the matter do not point to banning firearms as
being an effective deterrent against crime. The Department of Justice issued a
report saying that AT BEST the 94 assault weapons ban resulted in a .6%
decrease in violent crime, but could not be truly substantiated because the
margin was so small, and there were other measures taken to reduce crime during
this time. Furthermore Columbine and The West Hollywood Shoot Out happened
during this ban. Criminals by definition do not obey laws, and as we see those
who wish to do harm will not be deterred. It was illegal for Lanza to kill his
mother, and he obtained his weapons illegally.
The US is first in the world in firearms ownership, and 28th
in the world for violent crime. We as a nation have many issues that must be
addressed, but we do not need “gun control”. We have many laws on the books
that are not enforced many times. We need to focus on our current laws and
enforcing them. We need to educate people in our country about guns. There is
too much ignorance regarding this issue and YOU, YOUR SHOW, and YOUR NETWORK
personify and proliferate this ignorance. You make your claims and your
arguments from a place of ignorance. You argue that gays should have the right
to marry and marijuana should be legal, but yet my constitutional right to own
firearms should be infringed? That is utterly hypocritical, ignorant and unfair
to those of us who enjoy firearms and the shooting sports.
Finally, you often state that “the people want gun reform”,
or that “overwhelmingly Americans support tighter gun restrictions”. Well I am
here to tell you that you are wrong. WE THE PEOPLE overwhelmingly support the
second. The NRA is the most powerful lobby in this country, because WE THE
PEOPLE support them, and in turn they defend our rights.
Gun owners are not stupid. Quite to the contrary actually,
many of us are well educated. How do you think we can afford guns that cost
several thousands of dollars? We know when someone says “I support the second amendment
BUT…” they don’t really support the second amendment. We also know there is no “but”
in the second amendment.
I am appalled how much the media jumps all over a tragic
incident like this. You act like carrion birds. You use
these tragic events to try to drum up support for your “cause”, and it is appalling.
It's not all the media -- it's a large number of the population who has had it with the number of people that can be killed in one sitting with you beloved AR-15s. We are tired of all your excuses, and we're not dumb, either!
There is no need for guns or ammunition that can pick off so many people without reloading -- they aren't useful for hunting, they are more than a bit "overkill" (no pun intended) for home and personal protection.
http://media.salon.com/2012/12/man_card.jpg
Many of us out here are not at all opposed to sensible and practical gun ownership by responsible people. You may be a responsible person; the guy who steals your AR-15 and uses it to kill a bunch of people in a theater or a classroom isn't.
Those guns are for showing off how tough someone is, or for target practice, at best -- there is no reason on earth not to restrict their ownership to shooting ranges where they can be carefully controlled and not let out into the public to do more damage than just about any other gun the average nut can get their hands on.
The NRA keeps showing itself to be a shameless and greedy organization that seems to think that gun owners' rights are more important than everybody else's rights It's obvious that they work very hard to cause fear and paranoia in gun owners, and no doubt they end up inspiring a good amount of gun ownership and use that is unwise, to say the least.
The rest of us have had enough of all this BS. We have just as much right to speak our minds about this issue and to stand up for our own safety and freedom from fear.