BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 04:34 PM

""So the minority who make sure that the NRA is extreme are more powerful than the majority who don't? How does it come about the tail wags the dog?""

Because the tail has all the mon-n-n-ney, and the dog isn't in any position to watch how it's spent, facing in the wrong direction.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 12:31 PM

So if most gun owners would like moderate restrictions, why don't they make the NRA represent their wishes?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 10:58 AM

More 'reasons' why " ...a majority of citizens, and even of gun owners who don't like the NRA lobby..." can't get something done.

1)That majority is only about being unhappy with the NRA. Many of those are also majorities in various conservative causes, and can't bring themselves to vote for candidates they dislike on other issues.

2)Many of those who dislike the NRA at the moment are also gun owners who don't want any restrictions on their own guns.... they just favor 'moderate' restrictions, while the NRA is trying to avoid any restrictions.

3)As Stim indicates, money, in the form of advertising and campaign contributions, flows to candidates who support the wider range of conservative causes. Religion, abortion, 'states rights', etc., are often linked with gun laws in much propaganda.... the NRA knows how to piggy-back their agenda on other causes.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 10:55 AM

Presumably the money which is wielded by the gun lobby comes from people who spend a lot on guns. The gun firms then proceed to spend a fraction of the profit they make from gun sales on finncing lobbying against gun laws. Since there are more people who don't spend a lot of guns, that means that in principle there should be a lot more money available to outspend the gun lobby.

Presumably the people who see preventing sensible gun laws as their priority (I mean the kind of things that gnu favours) must be a great deal more dedicated to their cause than the ones who see preventing school massacres as a higher priority.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 10:00 AM

"any more"? Did we ever. Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 09:37 AM

McG,

We don't have a representative form of government any more... We have an oligarchy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 24 Mar 13 - 09:23 AM

Money and power are in the hands of the minority, McGrath. For the time being, there is neither money or politcal power for the other side. There is always a rise in public sentiment when something terrible occurs, but no one has succeeded in mobilizing those sentiments into the kind of action that you think is needed, though people continue to try.

As for you, Gnu--talk is cheap, and Mudcat is mostly talk. Change isn't either easy or certain...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 06:26 PM

Well, gosh. "I still don't get it, if there really is a majority of citizens, and even of gun owners who don't like the NRA lobby, why do they lie down and let an embarrassing minority walk all over them?"

Ya kinda would wonder. I have said on a LOT of gun threads that Mudcat has the people with the brains and the resources to get the job done. Seriously... NO prpb! That was met with, "Ya can't fight em."

Wish I was a Yank for a while and I could muster what is required to get the job done if I could rely on the human resources within Mudcat... except, of course, for those that ween about poor gun laws and then excuse themselves that standing up to be counted is useless and sit back down on their asses.

Odd... I get shit upon for my defense of responsible gun oownership and also for my endorsement of good gun laws. No wonder I seldom open gun threads any more. The gun nuts and the anti gun nuts are fuckin nuts. Seriously... none of you nuts can figure out such a simple problem and get the job done because yer nuts. I have PROOF... people are being shoy in the streets! What's so hard to understand?

Have fun with it. I'll check back someday if I hear a shot ring out near one of you. Hope you don't make the headlines as an innocent bystander while being a guilty bystander in the war on the illegal use of guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 04:34 PM

I still don't get it, if there really is a majority of citizens, and even of gun owners who don't like the NRA lobby, why do they lie down and let an embarrassing minority walk all over them?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 04:24 PM

Well, I said "gun owners" not NRA members. Most gun owners are not NRA members. Even so, I have read that a lot of NRA members don't like the direction the organization has taken.

And, actually, a lot of membership associations, both professional and amateur, end up being dominated by corporate and business interests. Associations typically try to attract support for their objectives from corporations and other enterprises that provide goods and services for their members. Support being another word for money. They give their "sponsors" access to their leadership (including their lobbyists), they give them seats on their plenaries, the give them space at their conferences and meetings, and they even give memberships to their employees. It isn't long before the "sponsors" start calling the shots. It's the famous Golden Rule--"he who has the gold makes the rules."

And, just in case you didn't realize it, when people talk about Washington being dominated by "special interest groups", they mean the associations.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 02:02 PM

So the minority who make sure that the NRA is extreme are more powerful than the majority who don't? How does it come about the tail wags the dog? It doesn't seem to happen with other hobby enthusiasts. You don't get CAMRA campaigning for the right to drink and drive, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 01:33 PM

I've seen pictures since the Sandy Hook of gun shops where the only thing left on the shelves is the dust... Not one gun left... Not one bullet left...

The NRA and gun shop owners love murder... And if it's kids getting murdered, it's even better for them...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 12:08 PM

I like the picture of Wayne LaPierre in the Guardian a lot, McGrath.

The thing that you probably don't understand, and most people don't, is that the NRA lobbying is purely and simply about money.

Most Americans don't either have or want guns. Most of the ones who have them don't have problems with gun control legislation(though you wouldn't know it). However, the gun manufacturers makes a ton of money marketing assault rifles, and even more on the ammo.
They are the ones behind the NRA efforts, not the NRA membership. They pump millions of dollars into to organization to support it's efforts.

The gun manufacturers look at the large percentage of Americans who don't have guns as an untapped market, and they recognize that fear sells guns. To draw a fairly tasteless parallel, every time there's a killing, they make a killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 10:04 AM

There are two major problems with having a saner Congress, Bill...

The worst gerrymandering since maybe forever by the Republicans to hold the House of Representatives no matter how badly they are beaten by the popular vote as they were in the last election...

The Senate rules that give more power to the minority than the majority...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 09:41 AM

Our only real hope is to someday elect a congress with enough members who are more dedicated to principle and reason than to the financial support of the NRA and related groups.

I'm not holding my breath, as I don't look good in blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 13 - 09:24 AM

Gun control fight enters round two after NRA victory on assault weapons

Very strange people. Maybe a very strange people?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 06:43 PM

Indeed. But not about gun control for me. I don't care to explin. It'll just get shit upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 05:12 PM

Yes Stim, the photo of John Lennon's blood stained eyeglasses do make a powerful statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 04:09 PM

I was not prepared to see that photo, bobad. A very, very, powerful image.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 10:59 AM

Population of USA in 1980-    227,224,681
Population of USA in Jul 2012-313,914,040         

wow... they're gaining anyway! Maybe we need more guns with large magazines!

(he said with tongue firmly buried in cheek, lest anyone take it seriously)

A more important statistic would be the many more millions whose lives have been affected by the losses embedded in that 1,057,000... and counting.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 09:39 AM

Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the U.S.A. since John Lennon was shot and killed on December8, 1980.

Yoko Ono

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 09:42 PM

Yup... talkin' blues would work jes' fine... (as Pogo would say)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 07:22 PM

Thank you Bill and gnu. I'll give it a shot--heh heh. Talkin' blues. Need a day or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 05:53 PM

NRA's "enemy list"

Almost makes ya nostalgic for old tricky Dick Nixon, don't it??

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 05:51 PM

From: GUEST,999 - PM
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM

I love it! Man... you got a song there... flesh it out. Brings a bunch of images and idea's into my head. No shit... if you don't work on it, I'll be sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 04:41 PM

The stats ain't quite that pure, Bobert. I think there might be more than a bit of equine effluence mixed in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 04:08 PM

Hey, I know a big name to put with it...

..Bruce "The Badman" Murdock!!!

As for the NRA and this round... They'll probably win the round but will take some shots and we'll more than likely get tighter background checks and the gun show loophole plugged up but equally important funding restored to the CDC for it study on the effects of gun violence...

I know the NRA loves to brag about _____________ (pick any ridiculously high number) are saved by all these guns and, of course, they have a shit load of highly paid bloggers that do nothing 40 hours a week but clog up every search engine extolling those stats as if they are real but...

... those stats are pure USDA 100% Choice Bullshit...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

Catchy, 9... needs a chorus and a big name to put it on Yooooo-Tooob

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM

I'm writing to the NRA
For the work they've done to keep us free
They'll stand behind us any day
When automatics start to spray
But there's one thing I'd like to see
And that's them standing in front of me

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 02:56 PM

Dear NRA...

And you brag about list all those prominent, exemplary citizens and organizations as problems and enemies to be watched with concern and fought against?
Where is your list of sane, reasonable people whose advice and counsel we should be following?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 10:14 AM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 10:13 AM

It may provide a hit list but half the fuckers can't read. Evens up the odds.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 09:58 AM

Also provides a 'hit list' for pro-gun extremists.

You gotta problem wid dat???

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 09:32 AM

Also provides a 'hit list' for pro-gun extremists. Is there a comparable list of organisations, corporation and prominent individuals who take an anti gun control standpoint?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 08:53 AM

bobad, the NRA put a helluva lotta work into compiling that list. Lets us know who out friends are. I think I'll send them a thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 03 Feb 13 - 07:32 AM

The NRA's "enemy list" Mudcat didn't make it.....c'mon guys, we gotta do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 11:41 PM

Since you make up a lot of stuff, Donuel, I was a bit dubious about your shooting deaths/traffic fatalities claim--However Bloomberg had an article in December that said that the two would converge in 2013.

It is true that traffic fatalities have taken a huge drop over the past few years-from around 43,000 in 2005 to 32,000--and, as we have discussed before, shooting related deaths have stayed constant.

However, most of the "shooting deaths" are suicides, and by most, I mean by about 2 to 1, and, given that murder and suicide are very,very different, it is a bit deceptive to lump them together. For almost every purpose other than "the gun debate" they are dealt with as separate issues.

At any rate, the decline in traffic deaths is most likely related to the shrinking economy, because, what with the price of gas being what it is, most of us drive a lot less theses days. If the economy perks up, we're likely to hit the roads again, and those numbers will pop back up, because if there is anything we Americans love more than guns, it's cars.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 05:27 PM

"The NRA is arguing (among many, many other things) that the decline in gun homicides over the years proves that no new measures are needed"
Sorry       but that nra premise is false, untrue and a lie.
This year we have more shooting deaths than auto accident fatalities.
The rates are up, in case you haven't noticed.

a republican congressman who carries water for the nra has made it illegal for our national institutes of health to copile and research gun death data that could ever be used to encourage gun control.
This law is not water tight but it discourages scientists from doing work in the gun area since it would mean the grant money would be challenged right off the bat.

The DAT&firearms is likewise bound by similar barbed haywire laws that prevents even basic knowledge and meaningful statistics to be gathered, sice it could be used to encourage gun control.

machavellian ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 04:26 PM

According to the NRA, a half million new dues-paying members have signed up since Newtown.

True or false? Sane or mad?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 02:32 PM

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 02:02 PM

""So we've got to ditch the First Admendment, the Second, and so maybe we ought to take a look a the Third, if anybody can remember what it is...""

The NRA have already abolished the first and completely misinterpreted the 2nd. Still when they've made real the largely mythical Wild West and turned the USA into a place of equal danger for all, they can always plead the 5th.

They don't need to know any of the others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 12:12 PM

"cold comfort" Yes indeed! Succinctly put.

And "The Media" can't seem to just report that X-Y-Z events happened.... they have to milk the details, interview the victims families and ask them "how they **feel**"....as if that will help.

Certain events are big enough and iconic enough to need follow-ups in order to remind us what the situation is,... like Sandy Hook.. but my local news has the policy: "If it bleeds, it leads", and any local shooting or car crash requires a reporter and camera crew and interviews with the neighbors...etc.

I don't know how I would balance the need for relevant news coverage of significant events with the tendency to run manic, overblown hype designed to feed the morbid curiosity of the drooling public. I do know it would be toned down if I were in charge.
Ah well, god gave me 100 channels and a remote control.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 12:46 AM

As to the "copycat" factor--that pretty much implicates the media, doesn't it? Without the elaborate media coverage, they wouldn't know what to copy, would they?

So we've got to ditch the First Admendment, the Second, and so maybe we ought to take a look a the Third, if anybody can remember what it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 01 Feb 13 - 12:25 AM

An interesting article, BillD. I think it is important to note that the dramatic decline in murders since 1993 (or whatever year the peak was), came after an equally dramatic increase in murders leading up to 1993-there was a "crack epidemic", and of course, we were at the at the end of the Reagan-Bush era, so you can sort the causes out however you want. Now, murder rates have fallen to where they were in the early 1960's, which is about where they had been for decades.

Actually, it appears that when the regular murders spiked, the "mass murders" remained at the normal rate, which is where they are now. The regular murders are back at their normal level now--wo when you look back twenty years, there's been a sharp decline, but if you look farther back, they are about the same as they've been for a long time.

That's what is called "cold comfort'...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jan 13 - 10:30 PM

"... confiscated guns should be replaced by musical instruments.."

Not bassoons... looks too muck like bazookas. Maybe harmonicas...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Jan 13 - 05:34 PM

I've previously published info from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which demonstrated a greatly reduced murder rate after the gun buy-backs in Australia. Here is a recent article on the impact of gun buy backs in Australia.

Shooters in Australia are becoming politicised and we now have a Shooters and Fishers party in NSW which holds the balance of power. They have negotiated with government that licensed shooters can hunt in national parks, putting at risk the lives of bushwalkers and native animals.

Here is an article about the head of the NSW Game Council,who was suspended last week for trespass and illegal and cruel hunting practises

All confiscated guns should be replaced by musical instruments, and ten free lessons.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 13 - 05:22 PM

So, it seems that the NRA is using the "There are already __________ (pick your own number) gun laws on the books" defense...

That's no defesnse... If all these laws are on the books then they are junk laws 'cause they ain't doin' squat...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 31 Jan 13 - 04:59 PM

I tend to agree with Ebbie and Bill, but the influence on society may be far more subtle and not directly related to violent behavior.

Consider: Japanese "graphic novels" (i.e., expensive comic books with more pictures and less talk than when they cost 1/10 the price) are relentlessly, horrendously violent in comparison with ours - and incredibly popular. Yet the Japanese murder rate is minuscule (they don't have guns, but they could find other ways to kill one other if they really wanted to.)

There have been numerous studies carried out since the '60s. Kids and grownups are shown violent films, etc., then their behavior is monitored in various ways. One experiment staged a fistfight a minute or two after exposure. In that one, it was discovered that people who'd watched the violent videos were actually more passive in a sense than those who hadn't: those who hadn't tried more often to stop the fight, while those whose brains were filled with violent images tended just to watch.

Tests with kids showed that watching violent cartoons seemed to have no overt effect. Watching violent actors made them more aggressive - but aggression is often defined as yelling or pushing, not getting truly violent like punching or kicking or even fighting.

If I recall correctly, there was a '70s study of men who preferred sadistic pornography over the other kind. Turns out they weren't notably more violent or aggressive than anybody else. IIRC.

I don't know about long-term studies. You'd think that watching 20,000 acts of murder and violence on TV alone by the time you're 18 (as was estimated in the '70s - it's probably more now) would have *some* kind of effect. But what? And on whom?

...if on anyone at all. Somebody must know more about this topic than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jan 13 - 04:21 PM

Violent games DO give kids a different perspective on what is fun, fair and 'normal'. It is hard to believe that blasting away dozens of 'pretend' enemies doesn't nudge the consciousness of someone who already has issues with adjustment to society.
Of course, it is VERY hard to assert any direct, causal link..."after all, people have free will, and ought to know you just can't do that stuff in real life!".... right...

Yes, 'Dungeons and Dragons' is a lot calmer in general... my son played it a lot, but his group never even tried to inject violent aspects into it.

My view is that the creators of those 'games' have a lot to answer for. I really doubt that anyone ever called or wrote the early video game designers and said: "Hey, why don't you make a game where people get shot and chopped up with lots of blood & body parts!"...same with movie/TV program writers. They learned that a 'little' mayhem soon gets bland, and each tried to offer more mayhem in order to compete.... much like nudity grew gradually from those fairly tame early Playboys. There's no easy way to 'draw a line' on any form of entertainment, just as there's no easy way to pin down when guns crossed the line... but it's easy to see that they ARE way over the line of sanity now!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Jan 13 - 03:43 PM

I am not all certain that video games and violent movies are without blame. We believe in advertising and rely on it, don't we?

Do you remember 'Dungeons and Dragons'? I don't know if it is still around, although I would guess that its graphics are mild compared with today's games.

More than 20 years ago I had a co-worker who spent hours in its bowels. We would see him practicing his moves, silent and absorbed in them.

Two years or so after that, he told a couple of friends of his how to get into his grandfather's apartment, that his grandfather had money stashed there.

The 'friends' shot and killed the old man. To this day I believe that my co-worker had lost contact with reality. This young man was Native Alaskan and allowing or causing harm to an elder was totally against his beliefs.