What armed self defense really looks like.

All 28 individual lobbyists are listed, and their spending is enumerated. By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce has 167. What about the NRA's lobby is 'deceptive'?

That is exactly what ALL lobbyist groups do. What is different about the NRA's? Do you believe the Chamber of Commerce lobbies for the best interest of the people?

So, I ask again; Since a lobby's power is measured by the money they spend, how do you believe the NRA leverages their $3.6M to make them 'the most powerful lobby'?

Or, since it's obvious to any OBJECTIVE observer that the NRA's lobby is not anywhere close to the largest, or the most powerful, you can just admit you were wrong (no shame in that) and endeavor to learn more about the topic so you don't trip up so badly next time.

 

wait for it......there's a quick left turn coming up

 

The idea that they are supported by the majority of Americans is debateable considering the majority of Americans supported the UBC that was killed by the NRA.
I totally agree that people who decide to own firearms should be trained in their use (in order to minimize accidental/negligent shootings as well as ensure they hit what they're aiming for rather than catching neighbors in crossfire), but this doesn't mean I see them as more ethical than the tobacco lobby was during the 80s-90s.

 

The notion that the NRA is the only voice speaking out against UBC's is incorrect. I myself, as well as gun loving family and friends, all called our representatives and told them under no circumstances should our 2A rights be whittled away. That's hundreds of thousands of citizens calling, if not millions.

Did you call yours?

 

Interesting. Can you elaborate on how passing a background check violates your 2A rights?

 

By giving authority to the very entity that the 2A was designed to protect against to determine whether or not one can own a gun.

 

Show proof that the NRA lobby is responsible for the failure of the firearm legislation that was defeated in congress. Not some biased opinion piece.
Our legislators most powerful motivation are their constituents votes. Meet the press had lawmakers on TV, and they stated that they received more phone calls, letters, and faxes requesting them to vote against the bill, than any other issue ever.
I dispute that the majority of Americans supported the legislation, the president and the liberal media kept jamming that bs down the throats everyone to garner support. Do you know how I know? For the second time in recent years, most of those who supported anti gun legislation have been voted out of office.
The innocent people being caught in the crossfire of bullets flying are from gang warfare. There are not many stories about legitimate defensive gun uses and innocents are being hit by the legal carrier. I agree with training, everyone can benefit, but the training must be regular, shooting is a perishable skill, especially under stress.

- - - Updated - - -

You know the answer to this. Gun registration.

 

I see, so you believe that the original intent of the 2A was to protect against the government...?

 

One of. Stop being obtuse.

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible. "
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789 at 2 col. 1

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. – L. Neil Smith (from The Probability Broach)

Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them. – Walter Mondale

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry

 

You might remember Bob Welch, who was a registered lobbyist for Wi-FORCE (Wisconsin Firearm Owners, Ranges, Clubs & Educators, Inc.). The Wi-FORCE website is emblazoned with the words "An NRA Chartered State Association" as well as a newsfeed from the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, the group's lobbying arm. Wi-FORCE ties itself to the NRA in official literature. In a section titled "Who is Wisconsin FORCE and why you should join?" as part of an application to the group, the organization claims to have won "Association of the Year" from the NRA in 2011.

Bob Welch is quoted as bragging about the NRA having politicians in their pocket and no firearm legislation being passed unless the NRA agrees with it... Specifically, he said:
"We have a strong agenda coming up for next year, but of course a lot of that’s going to be delayed as the “Connecticut effect” has to go through the process. What’s even more telling is the people who don’t like guns pretty much realize that they can’t do a thing unless they talk to us. After Connecticut I had one of the leading Democrats in the legislature—he was with us most of the time, not all the time—he came to me and said, “Bob, I got all these people in my caucus that really want to ban guns and do all this bad stuff, we gotta give them something. How about we close this gun show loophole? Wouldn’t that be good?” And I said, “no, we’re not going to do that.” And so far, nothing’s happened on that."

Of course, this level of honesty is bad for business, so the wagons were quickly circled.

It seems like you're claiming that gun control was the only issue at hand, that the president has control over the results of polling by non-government agencies, and that any news that challenges your viewpoints is "liberal media" and therefore invalid (that's confirmation bias, a logical fallacy).

As many stories on here have demonstrated, it is rare that a firearm is actually fired during a "self defense use" - and legitimate self defense uses are already rare. That doesn't mean that the rounds from an untrained person firing a weapon in a residential area will magically miss bystanders if the shooter doesn't belong to a gang.

Agreed.

Registration in and of itself does not prevent you from owning, only confiscation does. Claiming that registration necessarily leads to confiscation is a slippery slope fallacy.

 

Just because Bob Welch had an over inflated ego and did a lot of bragging means nothing.

For every poll that showed most Americans supported UBCs, there were polls that showed the opposite. Are you saying the main stream media are not this administrations cheerleaders?

I can tell that you don't understand the passion of millions and millions of gun owners. For them it was a one issue election. Hence the unprecedented number of letters, faxes, and phone calls to legislators offices, and the subsequent outcome of the election. Better than lobbying, the NRA is great at getting voters to voice their opinions to legislators. The NRA membership is made up of voters that actually vote. Even millions of non NRA member gun owners are one issue voters. Most Non gun owners will never understand this and that's why their agenda goes nowhere.

Second amendment supporters are not about to trust the government that they won't confiscate at some point in the future, depending on events, and the administration at that time. Some types of firearms have already been outlawed in some states. Interestingly enough, those states require registration. That allowed notifications to surrender the guns.

 

So, let's recap...

- any media that contradicts your preconceived notions should be dismissed as "liberal media",
- any polls (from a broad range of sources) that contradict your preconceived notions should be dismissed in favor of the couple that are sponsored by the firearms industry.
- the "millions and millions" of gun owners voted based solely on a single issue - and no other segment of the population can match that passion... because you say so and anyone who disagrees simply "doesn't understand".​

You have heard of "confirmation bias", right?

I get that you believe a politician (who clearly has the support of the people in order to get voted in) has something to gain by suddenly going to war against the very people that put him in power... which would require the support of other politicians doing the same thing at the same time...

I just think you're being delusional.

 

Wrong.

Defensive use of a firearm does not require a bullet to be fired, the simple display and threat of the firearm is enough to stop the criminal. In fact, a laser site on a firearm makes the actual firing of the weapon almost never necessary - that little red dot on a big bad criminals chest makes him very compliant.

The NRA tracks defensive uses and provides a dozen or so examples (with references) in its monthly magazine. Many do not involve the firing of a firearm but clearly deter one or more criminals.

Self-defense uses are not rare. Even the CDC in their first report resulting from obama's executive action concluded defensive firearm use is not rare, ranging from 500,000 to 3 million per year.
“Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” found here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

Extremist gun banners put the number of defensive uses the range of 150,000-200,000 a year, still a large number.

Firearms are the great equalizer and allow the weak and disadvantaged to defend themselves. Such as this 11 year old girl who last Friday stopped burglar in her home:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/11-year-old-michigan-girl-scares-off-burglar-with-shotgun/

NORTH BRANCH TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- Authorities say an 11-year-old girl pointed a shotgun to scare off a man invading her home in the rural Michigan Thumb area.

Lapeer County sheriff's Detective Sgt. Jason Parks calls her a "very brave girl" who "held her composure" and helped investigators catch the 53-year-old intruder.

She was alone in the North Branch Township home Friday afternoon when the break-in occurred and hid inside a bathroom closet.

The suspect opened the door but fled when the girl pointed the shotgun at him. Authorities arrested him and a 31-year-old companion soon after in Imlay City.

James Wasson of Detroit was arraigned Sunday in Lapeer District Court on home invasion, burglary and firearms charges. Rhonda Stewart, also of Detroit, is charged with home invasion.
.
AP ​

 

Attacking me does not undo the resolve of the millions gun owners to preserve their rights. It's not because I say so, The proof is in the puddin.

 

It's funny when people say "wrong" and then immediately post something that agrees with you...

Asking the NRA to maintain statistics on this is like asking Phillip Morris to track smoking-related cancer. Just sayin'.

Correction: it indicates some previous estimates have ranged from 500,000 to 3 million per year... without taking into consideration the fact that that exceeds the number of gunshot wounds at medical facilities and gunshot fatalities combined.

Between 2007 and 2011, only 0.8 percent of violent crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. During the same five year period, only 0.1 percent of attempted or completed property crimes involved the intended victim using a firearm in self-defense. Given that between 40-45% of American households own a gun, and less than 0.1 percent of victims of property crime end up using a gun to stop a crime, it’s impossible to suggest that guns are being effectively used in self-defense. Rather than guns serving as a useful deterrent, they instead helped to directly facilitate crime: 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households between 2005 and 2010.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Anyone can throw a number around and claim it's "large", but when you identify what that number means in the context of population... not so much.

Yeah, the great equalizer works wonders... how many times have we seen toddlers "equalized" to their older siblings or parents because they got access to a firearm? How many times have we seen 13 year old punks suddenly "equalized" to healthy adult cashiers because they got access to a firearm?

 

Seems like you would be correct except one fact: Every story reported by the NRA can be verified by the local new stories. It's real simple, even you can do it.
No source would be good enough for you, not even when our govt agencies like the CDC report how often DGU's are used after an executive order to investigate them.

 

You still hold onto a fundamental flaw in your logic - you think that a firearm must be fired to be counted as a self-defense use, which also implies that you think a firearm has not value or threat potential unless it is fired. Imagine if someone points a firearm at you, are you threatened, do you modify your actions?

"Toddlers" very rarely gain access to a firearm, much less shoot anyone. Find how many toddlers shoot people, but don't give me some source like VPC (your rejection of the NRA as a source means you should also reject sources such as VPC).

 

Really?....how exactly can you know that,for sure....after all,it's happened other places before,why not here?

 

Every smoker that died of cancer could be verified. Didn't stop Phillip Morris from spinning it.
A source that simply lists other sources - some of which have been debunked - certainly isn't viable.

 

LOL, and yet you use one of the most unreliable sources possible - the Violence Policy Center. VPC is a 2 person show (Josh Sugarman & Kristen Rand, gun banner and PR hack), 81% of its funding comes from the secretive Joyce Foundation.

 

I never said that, but I do believe that the firearm should play some definitive role in the "self-defense".
For example, if someone scares off a burglar - the fact that they were carrying a firearm makes no difference if the burglar never saw it or if the burglar would have run off upon being discovered anyway.

The fact that you are unaware of these incidents is unfortunate, but doesn't mean they don't occur... So much for "liberal media" eh?
Here's a handful of examples:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1811373/to...3-year-old-finds-gun-shoots-mom-accidentally/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-02/us-toddler-shoots-parents-with-handgun/6062114
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/22/florida-toddler-fatally-shoots-himself-father-gun
http://www.ibtimes.com/toddler-shoo...aho-walmart-store-responds-gun-policy-1770366
http://www.wbal.com/article/110736/...-shot-by-other-toddler-in-southwest-baltimore

 

So you now agree that biased sources shouldn't be used?

How about this one?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

That pretty clearly spells out that in 2011, there were less than 4,673 victims of nonfatal crimes who defended themselves with a firearm... Of course, the victims of fatal crimes were (by definition) killed, so - if any of them attempted to use firearms - they were unsuccessful.

In relation to protecting from property crime, the same link provides some additional interesting information:

I guess that most people who buy a gun to defend against burglars will be disappointed to find the burglar came and stole their gun when they weren't home... and they've now enabled an armed criminal.

 

Certainly some criminals would run away when discovered, others would not.

Studies show criminals avoid areas of high gun ownership. This study "Guns, Privacy, and Crime" by Alessandro Acquisti and Catherine Tucker, MIT Sloan School of Business, studied crime rates after a Tennessee newspaper published an online searchable database of gun ownership by zip code. They found that certain types of crimes (generally premeditated property crimes such as burglary) decreased significantly (18%) in areas of high gun ownership. The study also references a survey of felons, most felons avoid houses with firearms.

Firearms not only stop a crime in progress, but act to reduce crime.

.

I'm aware these accidents happen, the subject has been in a couple of other threads. Listing a handful of incidents does not mean it is a problem requiring national attention, or that it is even a significant problem.

Accidental shootings such as a toddler shooting someone, are not tracked. The crime and accident databases collect data on the victim but do not collect data on the shooter in these cases. Unless someone is going through media and trying to compile the data, the number of cass in which a toddler shoots someone is unknown.

However, from the CDC, in 2013, 30 children 4 years old and under were killed by a firearm. That's a very small number, and since it includes shooters of all ages and self-inflicted deaths, it is probably greater than the number of deaths due to a toddler shooting someone.

 

Unless the homeowners aren't home, or the gun is seen as "loot" - as would be the case for most burglars.

So you simultaneously want to claim that it's not a major issue while saying that it's not tracked (so there's no way of you knowing how frequent it is)...?
At the same time, you want to claim that the number of defensive uses (which is also an unknown) is significant enough to forumulate policy...?
In addition, you want to claim that listing a handful of examples isn't valid, but feel that listing one defensive gun use by an 11 year old is valid...?

How is this rational?