Let's get political. Gun Debate!

Quote
heymagic

Quote
Wannabe
I have read through just a few of the posts on this thread.

When I heard the news it saddened me. I didn't think of gun control, or of the mental illness issues that face so many. I thought of the children all so innocent how short their lives were and why this happened, not how or what if. There are no answers to my questions but there were a lot of young lives lost and if there is a God and he let this happen I think he surely wanted to send us a message or make us think about something other than gun control.

There are also many, many lives lost through accidents which begs the question of responsibility.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/daughter-washington-police-officer-dies-shot-sibling-reports-article-1.1037383

I'm sure all of us were sickened. No normal person would do such a thing. As the details came out it was obvious the kid had issues beyond what we can relate to. Too many people aren't responsible for their actions or inactions. Keeping firearms away from small kids, teaching kids what guns are about and shut the f'n tv off once in a while. Problem with gun control is after a point it punishes all of us, and we aren't the problem.

Quote
RWD4ME

Quote
Jens

I stopped my NRA membership in the mid or late 90's, because they did not represent me. I am thinking of rejoining (temporarily possibly) to stop this rabid media anti-gun agenda, but I will have to hold my nose to do it.

This provokes an interesting thought:

How many of you writing on this thread is an NRA Member?

Quote

Gun owners vs. the NRA: What the polling shows

Posted by John Sides on December 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Poli-Sci Perspective is a weekly Wonkblog feature in which Georgetown University’s Dan Hopkins and George Washington University’s Danny Hayes and John Sides offer an empirical perspective on the issues dominating Washington. In this edition, Sides examines research showing that the strongly anti-gun control views embraced by the National Rifle Association are not only at odds with those of most Americans who do not own guns, but differ from those of many gun owners themselves.

After the Newtown shooting, Senator and National Rifle Association member Joe Manchin said that NRA would “offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.” It sounded as if the NRA might be softening its staunch opposition to gun control. But at a press conference on Friday, NRA president Wayne LaPierre did nothing of the sort—blaming gun-free school zones, violent video games and films, and the media for rewarding killers with “wall-to-wall attention.” LaPierre ultimately proposed the “National School Shield Emergency Response Program,” which would put armed security in every single school.

Perhaps LaPierre’s comments weren’t much of surprise. They were consistent with what the NRA has been arguing for years: to fight gun violence, make sure that people can fight back with guns of their own. But what might be surprising is how much the NRA is out of step not just with many Americans, but with many gun owners themselves.

Opinions on gun control are more varied even among gun owners than you might think. (Thomas Cooper/Getty Images)

In December, 2011, the survey firm YouGov interviewed 45,000 Americans and asked whether they or someone in their household owned a gun and whether they were members of the NRA. About 22 percent of the sample reported owning a gun, 13 percent said that someone else in their household owned a gun, and 59 percent reported not owning a gun. The remaining 6 percent were not sure. Thus, about 35 percent of Americans had a gun in their house—a number, incidentally, much lower than in an October, 2011 Gallup poll but more in line with data from the General Social Survey.

About 7 percent of this sample reported being an NRA member. Among gun owners, the number was 24 percent. Among those who lived in a household with a gun, it was 4 percent. Among those without a gun, it was 1 pecent. Ultimately, you can classify 93 percent of respondents into one of four groups: gun owners who were NRA members (5 percent of the sample), gun owners who were not NRA members (17 percent), people who lived with someone who owned a gun and were not NRA members (13 percent), people who did not own a gun or belong to the NRA (58 percent). Almost all the rest were not NRA members but were also not sure whether there was a gun in their house.

Why distinguish between people living with someone who owns a gun, people who own a gun, and people who both own a gun and belong to the NRA? Aren’t they all just “pro-gun” in some sense? In fact, there are important differences. For one, in this sample, gun owners were mostly men. So naturally, people who lived with someone who owns a gun were mostly women.

NRA members were also different politically even from gun owners who weren’t in the NRA. For example, 70 percent of gun owners who were NRA members called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative.” Only 44 percent of gun owners who weren’t NRA members said that. And while gun ownership has become increasingly confined to Republicans, there are still big differences in terms of party identification even among gun owners. The vast majority of NRA members (73 percent) identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party. But among gun owners who weren’t in the NRA, only 49 percent were Republicans; more than a third (35 percent) were actually Democrats.

Quote
john vanlandingham

Well Morten I think at least you might find this interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/
.....

Quote
Dazed_Driver
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/23/5072877/sacramento-resident-kills-would.html


*whistle*

Quote
john vanlandingham


Three others, including the homeowner, were shot during the exchange of gunfire and suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

.

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Glad to see that even in your old age your eyes still work and you, too, can read.

Quote
Dazed_Driver

I'm 23 and occasionally need to wear glasses...

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
john vanlandingham


Three others, including the homeowner, were shot during the exchange of gunfire and suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

.

Glad to see that even in your old age your eyes still work and you, too, can read.

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
john vanlandingham


Three others, including the homeowner, were shot during the exchange of gunfire and suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

.

Glad to see that even in your old age your eyes still work and you, too, can read.

Yes Timmy everything still works, and in contradistinction to you, I can also comprehend things...
and understand nuance..

Its such a shame that in your immature efforts to pretend to be experienced, you so frequently miss --or purposely leave out critical things like the homeowner was shot...

It is relevant ( big word there, you ought to learn it somebody---that means it applies to what were discussing. I know you can read simpler things but you seem to have arrested development in understanding what things mean---)

It suggests what I have understood talking to combat veterans from REAL wars, and that's he who shoots first ie has the gun out and aimed and finger on the trigger usually prevails--barring gross incompetence..

Or put simply guns don't work too well in defence particularly if the other guy has already drilled you and you're dead...

So logically the only sure fire way to make sure nobody gets the jump on you is to carefully shoot everybody you encounter first, just in case..
best defence is a vigorous offense.

So at 23, still living with Mommy and Daddy?

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
john vanlandingham


Three others, including the homeowner, were shot during the exchange of gunfire and suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

.

Glad to see that even in your old age your eyes still work and you, too, can read.

Yes Timmy everything still works, and in contradistinction to you, I can also comprehend things...
and understand nuance..

Its such a shame that in your immature efforts to pretend to be experienced, you so frequently miss --or purposely leave out critical things like the homeowner was shot...

It is relevant ( big word there, you ought to learn it somebody---that means it applies to what were discussing. I know you can read simpler things but you seem to have arrested development in understanding what things mean---)

It suggests what I have understood talking to combat veterans from REAL wars, and that's he who shoots first ie has the gun out and aimed and finger on the trigger usually prevails--barring gross incompetence..

Or put simply guns don't work too well in defence particularly if the other guy has already drilled you and you're dead...

So logically the only sure fire way to make sure nobody gets the jump on you is to carefully shoot everybody you encounter first, just in case..
best defence is a vigorous offense.

So at 23, still living with Mommy and Daddy?

Nice deductions Sherlock. Must be proud you figured out that if you're shot first, you're usually dead first. Your powers of observation astound me.

Now why don't you stop stating the obvious and wasting bandwidth with your novel length posts most people skip anyway...