• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

TX GOP Lawmaker Brags About Not Doing Anything Useful to Stop Gun Violence

Aurelius

Contemplating Living
Hmmmm, I am an NRA member, and I know nothing about any push you allege is occurring.

You're telling me that the NRA doesn't have money involved in political operations? That is clearly not true. They're one of the biggest lobbies in recent history.

"the gun lobby," you say that as if being a lobby is nefarious.

A lobby can be nefarious.

Obviously then you are including the abortion lobby, the illegal alien lobby, the homosexual lobby, and all the other causes that legally lobby on your blacklist.

I didn't say lobbies necessarily are nefarious.

The NRA membership in general does not profit from sales, nor do those who hold the various volunteer offices in the association. If the paid employees are profiting, we members know nothing about it.

You know nothing about it? Because the information isn't there- or you don't look for it?

The NRA is under fire like never before—over its finances, political activity, and long ties with Russian agents.

Because the NRA focuses on preserving every citizens rights under the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, and you and others want to erode or eliminate those rights, then we become the big bad bogeyman.

The broad interpretation of the second is a modern one. See former justices of the Supreme Court opinions. Even Antonin Scalia didn't think the second is open-ended.

However, you don´t really care why millions of us are members. We are all just crazy gun nutś, right ? Just a heartbeat away from mass murder.

When did I say that?


I wonder how many of these mass murderers are NRA members, or murderers in general ? Care to speculate ?

No because I wasn't trying to start a witch hunt with my statements.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
In 2015, NRA contributions totaled $95 million. In that year, LaPierre received a $3.7 million deferred compensation distribution from his "employee funded deferred compensation plan", which was required by federal law, and according to the NRA raised his total annual compensation to $5,110,985.

IOW in 2015 5% of all the contributions to the NRA went to one person, the chief executive and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre.
OK. If the membership as a whole approves of this salary, what does it prove ? We believe his salary is worth paying.

This is no different than other organizations, who pay their executives salaries, like the Red Cross.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In 2015, NRA contributions totaled $95 million. In that year, LaPierre received a $3.7 million deferred compensation distribution from his "employee funded deferred compensation plan", which was required by federal law, and according to the NRA raised his total annual compensation to $5,110,985.

IOW in 2015 5% of all the contributions to the NRA went to one person, the chief executive and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre.
Frankly, I don't care how much someone may make, but what I do care about is when a person or organization is so irresponsible and self-centered that they are willing to oppose even the most agreed-upon sane changes that could be made to help make us a safer society. We have between 300-400,000,000 guns in circulation here in the States, and anyone would be delusional to believe that this is somehow making us a safer society.

Seems that some here (not you) don't seem to understand the words "arguments" and "tempers" and "anger" and "being depressed". The NRA's and their supporter's statements that these mass murders are mostly caused by those whom are mentally ill is simply a dishonest canard, according to the stats and law enforcement in general.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
OK. If the membership as a whole approves of this salary, what does it prove ? We believe his salary is worth paying.

This is no different than other organizations, who pay their executives salaries, like the Red Cross.

I'm just pointing out 1 person gets 5% of the NRA contributions. The NRA has something like 615-700 employees so one has to wonder what % is paid to the rest.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You're telling me that the NRA doesn't have money involved in political operations? That is clearly not true. They're one of the biggest lobbies in recent history.



A lobby can be nefarious.



I didn't say lobbies necessarily are nefarious.



You know nothing about it? Because the information isn't there- or you don't look for it?

The NRA is under fire like never before—over its finances, political activity, and long ties with Russian agents.



The broad interpretation of the second is a modern one. See former chief justices of the Supreme Court opinions. Even Antonin Scalia didn't think the second is open-ended.



When did I say that?




No because I wasn't trying to start a witch hunt with my statements.
Of course the NRA is involved in political activities, just as the Wounded Warriors organization is.

When did I say the second amendment is open ended. Every right has restrictions on it. Unreasonable, ineffective. or illegal restrictions are the issue.

I have not completed an exhaustive investigation regarding what are essentially payoffs.

I have heard the accusation for years, but, of course, no supporting evidence.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Frankly, I don't care how much someone may make, but what I do care about is when a person or organization is so irresponsible and self-centered that they are willing to oppose even the most agreed-upon sane changes that could be made to help make us a safer society. We have between 300-400,000,000 guns in circulation here in the States, and anyone would be delusional to believe that this is somehow making us a safer society.

Seems that some here (not you) don't seem to understand the words "arguments" and "tempers" and "anger" and "being depressed". The NRA's and their supporter's statements that these mass murders are mostly caused by those whom are mentally ill is simply a dishonest canard, according to the stats and law enforcement in general.

U.S. population= 327 million
Guns owned by civilians=383 million.
Guns clearly out number people.

1983 to present there have been 114 mass shootings in the U.S.

114 mass shootings/383 million guns= 0.0000297% of guns used for mass shootings.

If 200 million civilians own guns(it may be higher/lower)...
114 mass shootings/200 million guns owners= 0.000057% of gun owners use guns for mass shootings.

As for mental illness and mass shootings, IMO there is a correlation. These 10 were random picked, researched and the results are...

Las Vegas Shooter 2017. 58 killed. Shooter Stephen Paddock suffered anxiety and depression.

Aurora, Colorado shooting 2012. 12 killed. Shooter James Holmes suffered depression, halucinations among other things.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012. 26 killed. Shooter Adam Lanza suffered anxiety, OCD, asperger's, and schizophrenia.

Living Church of God shooting 2005. 7 killed. Shooter Terry Ratzmann suffered from depression.

Red Lake, Minnesota 2005. 10 killed. Shooter Jeff Weise suffered depression, abuse, multiple suicide attemps.

Binghamton shootings 2009. 13 killed. The shooter Jiverly Antares Wong suffered depression.

Sandy Hook 2012. 26 killed. The shooter Adam Lanza suffered asperger's, depression, anxiety and OCD.

Washington Navy Yard 2013. 12 killed. The shooter Aaron Alexis suffered depression and hearing voices.

Charleston church 2015. 9 killed. The shooter Dylann Roof suffered depression and OCD.

Stoneman Douglas High School 2018. 17 killed. The shooter Nikolas Jacob Cruz suffered depression, autism, and ADHD
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Frankly, I don't care how much someone may make, but what I do care about is when a person or organization is so irresponsible and self-centered that they are willing to oppose even the most agreed-upon sane changes that could be made to help make us a safer society. We have between 300-400,000,000 guns in circulation here in the States, and anyone would be delusional to believe that this is somehow making us a safer society.

Seems that some here (not you) don't seem to understand the words "arguments" and "tempers" and "anger" and "being depressed". The NRA's and their supporter's statements that these mass murders are mostly caused by those whom are mentally ill is simply a dishonest canard, according to the stats and law enforcement in general.
I have never used the argument made that the primary cause of these deaths are that the shooter is mentally ill. Though, I believe anyone just seeking out people to kill them is mentally ill, or said another way, totally consumed by evil. Mental illness is one factor. However you will never convince me that a firearm has some inherent power to cause someone to turn into a mass shooter. There are societal causes, and pretending to eliminate the means does not address the motive,

Is a safer society the goal of say, owning a toaster oven, or a set of golf clubs ? I have no illusion that my firearms make safer society. I do know for a fact that they make my home a safer place, and when I carry one concealed in public, I am safer, and possibly others.

When I carried one as a LEO, society was safer, because that was my duty.

Agreed upon ideas of the majority of the public are not the arbiters of a Constitutional right. That is the tyranny of the majority in a democracy, it doesn´t have a place in a Constitutional Republic. It has occurred, sadly.

Black folk were denied their Constitutional rights by the tyranny of the majority. Some have been denied their rights to free speech by the same.

The solution is not to just do something to just be doing something.

I support strong background checks, but the devil is in the details. Congressional bills are tremendous trojan horses bringing tacked on restrictions only related in general to the stated purpose of the bill.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
U.S. population= 327 million
Guns owned by civilians=383 million.
Guns clearly out number people.

1983 to present there have been 114 mass shootings in the U.S.

114 mass shootings/383 million guns= 0.0000297% of guns used for mass shootings.

If 200 million civilians own guns(it may be higher/lower)...
114 mass shootings/200 million guns owners= 0.000057% of gun owners use guns for mass shootings.

As for mental illness and mass shootings, IMO there is a correlation. These 10 were random picked, researched and the results are...

Las Vegas Shooter 2017. 58 killed. Shooter Stephen Paddock suffered anxiety and depression.

Aurora, Colorado shooting 2012. 12 killed. Shooter James Holmes suffered depression, halucinations among other things.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012. 26 killed. Shooter Adam Lanza suffered anxiety, OCD, asperger's, and schizophrenia.

Living Church of God shooting 2005. 7 killed. Shooter Terry Ratzmann suffered from depression.

Red Lake, Minnesota 2005. 10 killed. Shooter Jeff Weise suffered depression, abuse, multiple suicide attemps.

Binghamton shootings 2009. 13 killed. The shooter Jiverly Antares Wong suffered depression.

Sandy Hook 2012. 26 killed. The shooter Adam Lanza suffered asperger's depression, anxiety and OCD.

Washington Navy Yard 2013. 12 killed. The shooter Aaron Alexis suffered depression and hearing voices.

Charleston church 2015. 9 killed. The shooter Dylann Roof suffered depression and OCD.

Stoneman Douglas High School 2018. 17 killed. The shooter Nikolas Jacob Cruz suffered depression, autism, and ADHD
Great post.

One wonders how many of these purchased the firearms used legally and how many obtained them in an illegal fashion, or by allegedly borrowing.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
And why did your father get so mad about a gun show ? Had he never attended one before ? You are implying that his anger was because of the so called gun show loophole, was it ? If he was a member, he should have known about this before he attended the show.

How many mass shootings are committed by guns bought at a gun show ?

A subversive organization, like planned parenthood you mean ?

The NRA is itś millions of members. I get no money and no power, by being a member, I wonder who does.

You are very factually wrong. The NRA tests firearms for safety and performance, and numbers of them have failed the testing, they weren´t liked.

The Republican party has been bought by the NRA ? Really ? So concurrent goals mean somebody has been bought. OK, by that standard we know the democrat party has been bought by planned parenthood, labor unions, the NAACP, all of the billionaire democrat donors, and the no borders, no immigration law enforcement lobby.

WHY does the NRA have problems with parts of some of the background check proposals ? Do you even know ?

You seem to be saying that the NRA just wants bad guys to get guns, that is asinine.
WHY THE NRA OPPOSES "UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS¨.

www.nraila.org/articles/20190222/what-lurks-behind-universal-background-checks
 

esmith

Veteran Member
When the NRA stymies what 93% of American citizens have said they want to have, namely universal background checks, then I have to conclude that they are a subversive organization that puts $ and power ahead the country as a whole.

My own father, who belonged to the NRA for decades, got so mad after going to a gun-show near Miami that he took has NRA membership card, cut it into pieces, and then mailed it to the NRA and told them where they can stuff it-- literally.

The fact of the matter is that today's Republican Party has been bought and paid for by the NRA, the latter of which hasn't seen a gun that they don't adore.
Universal background checks are not going to solve anything other than making some feel good that something was done even though nothing was done.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
U.S. population= 327 million
Guns owned by civilians=383 million.
Guns clearly out number people.

1983 to present there have been 114 mass shootings in the U.S.

114 mass shootings/383 million guns= 0.0000297% of guns used for mass shootings.

If 200 million civilians own guns(it may be higher/lower)...
114 mass shootings/200 million guns owners= 0.000057% of gun owners use guns for mass shootings.

As for mental illness and mass shootings, IMO there is a correlation. These 10 were random picked, researched and the results are...

Las Vegas Shooter 2017. 58 killed. Shooter Stephen Paddock suffered anxiety and depression.

Aurora, Colorado shooting 2012. 12 killed. Shooter James Holmes suffered depression, halucinations among other things.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012. 26 killed. Shooter Adam Lanza suffered anxiety, OCD, asperger's, and schizophrenia.

Living Church of God shooting 2005. 7 killed. Shooter Terry Ratzmann suffered from depression.

Red Lake, Minnesota 2005. 10 killed. Shooter Jeff Weise suffered depression, abuse, multiple suicide attemps.

Binghamton shootings 2009. 13 killed. The shooter Jiverly Antares Wong suffered depression.

Sandy Hook 2012. 26 killed. The shooter Adam Lanza suffered asperger's, depression, anxiety and OCD.

Washington Navy Yard 2013. 12 killed. The shooter Aaron Alexis suffered depression and hearing voices.

Charleston church 2015. 9 killed. The shooter Dylann Roof suffered depression and OCD.

Stoneman Douglas High School 2018. 17 killed. The shooter Nikolas Jacob Cruz suffered depression, autism, and ADHD
Source(s) please?

The reason I have to ask this is because one news report that I ran across shortly after the El Paso shooting said that only one of the mass killers since Sandy Hook had a medical record of mental illness. Without a medical record of such, one cannot be denied a gun on that basis. Even proposed "red flag laws" may not be constitutional.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Universal background checks are not going to solve anything other than making some feel good that something was done even though nothing was done.
Correct. The associated laws in both democrat universal background check bills determine who in your family you may sell a gun to etc., etc. they are trojan horses as a foundations for further restrictions.

When ¨universal background checks" fail to have any effect on crime, the next step is a universal registry of all legal firearms owners.

All then is in place for confiscation, the ultimate goal.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Universal background checks are not going to solve anything other than making some feel good that something was done even though nothing was done.
False, as even some of the state checks have turned up people who were then arrested, plus some others who were denied purchasing.

Universal checks are important because some people move out of state and some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon.

For example, according to the chief of the CPD, most guns purchased by gang members in Chicago purchased their guns in Indiana, and I think you know why.

There simply is no reason whatsoever to not have universal background checks, except for "The black helicopters are coming!" element.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Source(s) please?

The reason I have to ask this is because one news report that I ran across shortly after the El Paso shooting said that only one of the mass killers since Sandy Hook had a medical record of mental illness. Without a medical record of such, one cannot be denied a gun on that basis. Even proposed "red flag laws" may not be constitutional.

Google each one, I did. Then you can read about them. I've supplied the names. Wiki has the most in depth information with sources on them all.

Here's one for free. Adam Lanza. Scroll down and read about the perpetrator.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
False, as even some of the state checks have turned up people who were then arrested, plus some others who were denied purchasing.

Universal checks are important because some people move out of state and some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon.

For example, according to the chief of the CPD, most guns purchased by gang members in Chicago purchased their guns in Indiana, and I think you know why.

There simply is no reason whatsoever to not have universal background checks, except for "The black helicopters are coming!" element.
NO.

Under the NFA and Federal regulations, you can purchase a Long Gun - shotgun or rifle - in any State so long as the sale mirrors the policy of your State of residence. For example, let say I had a FFL in Idaho and I had a Florida resident come and buy an AR at my place of business, they would have to have a background check and I would have to hold the gun for 3 days. If a New Yorker came and tried to buy an AR, I'd tell them no, those are illegal in your home State. If a Californian came in, I couldn't sell them anything since California law specifically prohibits Californians from buying outside their State.

As for handguns, you can purchase them out of your State, BUT you have to take possession of the handgun in your State of residence through a FFL dealer. And you STILL have to follow your States laws, meaning it's against the law to, for example, buy a Glock 19 in Vegas that has standard capacity magazines , and ship it to a dealer in CA to circumvent magazine capacity restrictions ban in CA. CA says only 10 round magazines and a Glock 19 has a 15 round standard magazine.

So, pleas tell me how gang members in Chicago can go to Indiana and purchase a handgun through a FFL dealer legally. I have asked you this question before but you don't seem to have an answer.

Now to you statement "some people move out of state and some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon"
1. If you move to another state and become a legal resident you still have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm through a FFL dealer.
2. To your inaccurate statement "some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon" Not through a FFL dealer legally.

More:
“Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.”

So since I have debunked the majority of your above statements. How about giving a real answer to "universal background checks"
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
False, as even some of the state checks have turned up people who were then arrested, plus some others who were denied purchasing.

Universal checks are important because some people move out of state and some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon.

For example, according to the chief of the CPD, most guns purchased by gang members in Chicago purchased their guns in Indiana, and I think you know why.

There simply is no reason whatsoever to not have universal background checks, except for "The black helicopters are coming!" element.
NO.

Under the NFA and Federal regulations, you can purchase a Long Gun - shotgun or rifle - in any State so long as the sale mirrors the policy of your State of residence. For example, let say I had a FFL in Idaho and I had a Florida resident come and buy an AR at my place of business, they would have to have a background check and I would have to hold the gun for 3 days. If a New Yorker came and tried to buy an AR, I'd tell them no, those are illegal in your home State. If a Californian came in, I couldn't sell them anything since California law specifically prohibits Californians from buying outside their State.

As for handguns, you can purchase them out of your State, BUT you have to take possession of the handgun in your State of residence through a FFL dealer. And you STILL have to follow your States laws, meaning it's against the law to, for example, buy a Glock 19 in Vegas that has standard capacity magazines , and ship it to a dealer in CA to circumvent magazine capacity restrictions ban in CA. CA says only 10 round magazines and a Glock 19 has a 15 round standard magazine.

So, pleas tell me how gang members in Chicago can go to Indiana and purchase a handgun through a FFL dealer legally. I have asked you this question before but you don't seem to have an answer.

Now to you statement "some people move out of state and some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon"
1. If you move to another state and become a legal resident you still have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm through a FFL dealer.
2. To your inaccurate statement "some other may just go to an easier state to purchase a weapon" Not through a FFL dealer legally.

More:
“Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.”

So since I have debunked the majority of your above statements. How about giving a real answer to "universal background checks"
A background check is to identify past behavior that prohibits one from legally buying a firearm. It cannot predict the behavior of one who is legally qualified to own a firearm.

Every legal firearm dealer already does a background check.

Thank you for pointing out the myth about going to another state to legally buy a firearm.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
And why do you think that's better?


Your own source completely blows that claim out of the water:
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

From the source, total number of homicides by firearm in 2016: 11,004.

So where does your 331 justifiable homicides stack up against that, exactly? By your logic, this means you are more than 33 times more likely to be killed by guns than you are to use them to kill someone in self-defense.

How did you overlook this?

"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC...e-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

Guns are nearly twice as likely to prevent violent crimes than be used to perpetrate crimes.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC...e-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

Guns are nearly twice as likely to prevent violent crimes than be used to perpetrate crimes.
Wow, look at all this important stuff you missed:

"On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings. Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry— may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."
It's also worth noting that one of the main sources in this article is Gary Kleck, whose research has been widely questioned, and has been denounced by the National Institute of Justice as being totally inconsistent with actual crime rates in America:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Contradictions of Kleck
Meanwhile, more recent and wide-ranging surveys estimate that defensive gun use occurs in less that 1% of contact crimes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188

And further, broad gun ownership has a significant, positive correlation on the amount of robbery, violent crime and suicide:
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
 
Top