Another school shooting

[Spracne]

It has to be decided by a court, which is of course hairy because it will strip a possibly law abiding citizen of a constitutional right.

The cops can't just seize a teen's guns on suspicion of mental defect.

Yes, there needs to be due process. Could be an Article I court, though. Those can operate more efficiently.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

I'm more concerned that these toters will be surrounded all day by completely unpredictable children.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think that a teacher having a desire to bring a concealed gun into the classroom would be a pretty decent sign that they aren't mentally stable enough to be doing that.

[Spracne]

I'm more concerned the these toters will be surrounded all day by completely unpredictable children.

Last year, Campus Carry went into effect here in Texas. Campus Carry allows persons 21 years or older who have a CCH license to bring their concealed weapons onto college campuses in the state. Last week, there were two incidents of pack'rs forgetting their pieces in restrooms on campus.

There are real problems with a nationwide policy like this. It would be a nightmare.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm more concerned the these toters will be surrounded all day by completely unpredictable children.

Last year, Campus Carry went into effect here in Texas. Campus Carry allows persons 21 years or older who have a CCH license to bring their concealed weapons onto college campuses in the state. Last week, there were two incidents of pack'rs forgetting their pieces in restrooms on campus.

There are real problems with a nationwide policy like this. It would be a nightmare.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I think leaving your gun in a bathroom should be treated as a crime, but most of the pro-gun people don't seem to have much interest in personal accountability.

[Spracne]

Crime or not, it's an unintentional act with potentially horrible consequences, and it can be prevented by not opening Pandora's Box to begin with. Multiply that by tens of thousands of school campuses, and it's not a pretty picture.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Could have gotten a warrant based on multiple reports that he is going to commit a murder, tap his phone, hack into his computer, follow him to see what he's doing, get a restraining order when they find out he is threatening to shoot people at the school, take his guns because of restraining order.

[catastrophe]

the nra doesn't want to sell more guns? arming 20% of teachers with guns wouldn't sell more guns? also how does having a democrat in office have anything to do with either of those two things. i'm completely lost. I fell like you have a point to make and it's probably a valid one but i'm not sure what it has to do with mine.

They don't sell guns. Nor do they sell guns "for a living." Their funds come from membership dues. While gun manufacturers may be big contributors, they are not the main stakeholders in the organization. The NRA was founded as an organization to teach youth about gun safety. No doubt they are a massive lobbying force, but their interests could easily be explained by the interests of their members.

My point is that if they were in the business of selling guns, the logical move for them would be to seek to put democrats in office, because empirical evidence shows unequivocally that that is a real boon for arms sellers. See Remington bankruptcy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Seems like an unnecessarily fine distinction to make here.  NRA membership is undoubtedly influenced by the number of people who own and use guns.  The more people with guns, the more prospective members.  People with more guns also seem more likely to be NRA members since they probably have a more vested interest in protecting gun rights.

And I don't understand what the premise of your and sys's argument is regarding putting democrats in office.  Let's assume the NRA's #1 concern IS selling more guns to bolster their big donors and increase their prospective members.  Why do you think their top priority would be trying to keep getting a democrat elected?  The system is so predictably cyclical there is only so much effect you can have.  The most rational thing to do would be to ensure that--regardless of who is in power--no one is able to pass legislation that restricts usage or sales of guns.  That includes lobbying democrats and republicans alike (which I'm sure the NRA does).  Just so happens republicans are much easier for them to buy.

[puniraptor]

Could have gotten a warrant based on multiple reports that he is going to commit a murder, tap his phone, hack into his computer, follow him to see what he's doing, get a restraining order when they find out he is threatening to shoot people at the school, take his guns because of restraining order.

Nope, just arm teachers.

[puniraptor]

Could have gotten a warrant based on multiple reports that he is going to commit a murder, tap his phone, hack into his computer, follow him to see what he's doing, get a restraining order when they find out he is threatening to shoot people at the school, take his guns because of restraining order.

Nope, just arm teachers.

Yes, they could have and should have. But I thought guns weren't the problem? Aren't EVIL people always going to be able to find a way to commit horrible acts?

[puniraptor]

Cops can't seize every stone, hammer, knife, or club.

[Spracne]

the nra doesn't want to sell more guns? arming 20% of teachers with guns wouldn't sell more guns? also how does having a democrat in office have anything to do with either of those two things. i'm completely lost. I fell like you have a point to make and it's probably a valid one but i'm not sure what it has to do with mine.

They don't sell guns. Nor do they sell guns "for a living." Their funds come from membership dues. While gun manufacturers may be big contributors, they are not the main stakeholders in the organization. The NRA was founded as an organization to teach youth about gun safety. No doubt they are a massive lobbying force, but their interests could easily be explained by the interests of their members.

My point is that if they were in the business of selling guns, the logical move for them would be to seek to put democrats in office, because empirical evidence shows unequivocally that that is a real boon for arms sellers. See Remington bankruptcy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Seems like an unnecessarily fine distinction to make here.  NRA membership is undoubtedly influenced by the number of people who own and use guns.  The more people with guns, the more prospective members.  People with more guns also seem more likely to be NRA members since they probably have a more vested interest in protecting gun rights.

And I don't understand what the premise of your and sys's argument is regarding putting democrats in office.  Let's assume the NRA's #1 concern IS selling more guns to bolster their big donors and increase their prospective members.  Why do you think their top priority would be trying to keep getting a democrat elected?  The system is so predictably cyclical there is only so much effect you can have.  The most rational thing to do would be to ensure that--regardless of who is in power--no one is able to pass legislation that restricts usage or sales of guns.  That includes lobbying democrats and republicans alike (which I'm sure the NRA does).  Just so happens republicans are much easier for them to buy.

I stand by my comment that democrats in power = more gun sales. Regardless of the cyclical nature of politics, the Second Amendment (and it's recent interpretation, esp. Heller) stands as a bulwark against disarmament, so why not just stir up gun-grabbing hysteria if gun sales are your primary motivation?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[catastrophe]

Second Amendment didn't stop the assault weapons ban, which I think probably no longer exists today because of the NRA rather than the Supreme Court.  There is tons of gun-limiting legislation that could threaten NRA's subscriber and donor base for good if they don't stay active.

[sys]

'stroph, you can invert your statement to prove the counterpoint (wasn't it you that posted this same logic in the facebook thread?) - they do not try to put dems in office, ergo they are not interested in driving gun sales.  they're interested in defending the interests of their members


and btw, the nra does not lobby both dems and pubs alike, they focus the vast majority of attention on pubs.  their influence is in maintaining gun rights as a central tenet of being a pub. 

[michigancat]

I imagine the NRA is as interested as justifying its existence as much if not more as selling guns.  And they tell their donors what is important as much as their donors tell them. There's kind of a weird feedback loop at play.

Note this wasn't a fully formed thought, but I want to get it out there. I imagine most lobbying organizations are similar.

[catastrophe]

'stroph, you can invert your statement to prove the counterpoint (wasn't it you that posted this same logic in the facebook thread?) - they do not try to put dems in office, ergo they are not interested in driving gun sales.  they're interested in defending the interests of their members


and btw, the nra does not lobby both dems and pubs alike, they focus the vast majority of attention on pubs.  their influence is in maintaining gun rights as a central tenet of being a pub.

I think you're thinking of spracne.  And my point is that if you care about gun sales it is completely rational for your #1 priority to be avoiding legislation that could restrict the circulation of guns rather than seeking to create short-term buying sprees.  Of course ideally you want both, but you're not gonna risk putting a bunch of dems in office if it could mean gun control legislation (the fear of which presumably is exactly what causes those sales bumps).

I actually have no information about who NRA lobbies.  My assumption is they would try to buy anyone who would listen but it's just tough for them to find fertile ground with democrats.  Kind of like KSU with 5-star recruits, you're not gonna spend a ton of time trying to land someone (even if it would be awesome) if the odds are like 1 in 1000.

[sys]

I think you're thinking of spracne. 

what a moment for spracne.  first he's walking with chingon and now i can't stop thinking about him.

[wetwillie]

Yea my comment about spreading it around evenly between parties was a known false statement meant to spur debate and no one challenged it so I just kept rolling.

[Spracne]

I think you're thinking of spracne. 

what a moment for spracne.  first he's walking with chingon and now i can't stop thinking about him.

If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

[Institutional Control]

Their funds come from membership dues.

Whoa, Spracne just got the Delorean up to 88 mph.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr Rick Daris]

the nra doesn't want to sell more guns? arming 20% of teachers with guns wouldn't sell more guns? also how does having a democrat in office have anything to do with either of those two things. i'm completely lost. I fell like you have a point to make and it's probably a valid one but i'm not sure what it has to do with mine.

They don't sell guns. Nor do they sell guns "for a living." Their funds come from membership dues. While gun manufacturers may be big contributors, they are not the main stakeholders in the organization. The NRA was founded as an organization to teach youth about gun safety. No doubt they are a massive lobbying force, but their interests could easily be explained by the interests of their members.

My point is that if they were in the business of selling guns, the logical move for them would be to seek to put democrats in office, because empirical evidence shows unequivocally that that is a real boon for arms sellers. See Remington bankruptcy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I understand everything you just said. However, membership dues only account for roughly 50% of annual NRA revenue though and like a lot of people have already said, memberships are commonly purchased by and given out for free by gun manufacturers when you buy their guns. Exactly numbers are impossible to get but you can estimate that somewhere around 30 percent or so of money that the NRA gets every year comes directly from companies that deal in the sale of guns and gun related products and that number continues to get larger every year. So yes, the NRA is in the business to sell as many guns as they can. I also get that gun ownership spiked a little when everyone thought that Obama was gunna take their guns. That has nothing to do with the current president and people suggesting that the way to fix school shootings is to have 20% of all teachers strapped. That suggestion is coming straight from the NRA and the people that give them 30ish percent of their annual revenue.

[steve dave]

https://twitter.com/theonion/status/967248737994203136


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chum1]

 

[steve dave]

about a year ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221