5 Indefensible Tweets From The NRA Since The Oregon Gun Massacre

[villager]

<snip>

By Monday, the NRA twitter account was aggressively tweeting out information intended to head off any efforts to increase gun control in the wake of the massacre at Umpqua Community College. Much of this information, however, was wildly misleading or just plain inaccurate.

Here are five of the NRA’s most egregious recent tweets:

1. There is no gun show loophole.

There is a gun show loophole. At gun shows, unlicensed sellers can sell guns without any background check, waiting period, or paperwork. These are referred to as “private sales.” There are thousands of gun shows in the United States each year.
These unregulated “private sales” of guns also take place on the internet or other physical locations. The NRA disingenuously claims that these additional loopholes mean that there isn’t a specific gun show loophole.

2. The Australian gun buyback didn’t work.

After a gun massacre in Australia in 1996, the government “instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation.” At the same time, the government banned semi-automatic rifles and tightened licensing requirements.

A 2011 Harvard University study concluded that the buyback program was “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved.” There have been no gun massacres — defined as the killing of four or more people at once — in the 17 years since the buyback took place. There were 13 gun gun massacres in the 18 years piror to the program.

Additionally, the number of firearm suicides and homicides was reduced dramatically. This reduction was directly tied to the buyback program. The Harvard study found that “the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback” and “firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.”

The article cited by the NRA does not dispute the reduction in firearm deaths after the buyback program but simply asserts, without much analysis, that the drop was a coincidence. It relies almost exclusively on a deeply flawed study produced by the Australian gun lobby.

3. Gun free zones are magnets for murderers.

86 percent of mass shootings occur outside of gun-free zones. Studies have found no evidence that people purposely choose gun-free zones for mass shootings. Rather, there is usually another clear motive for the choice of location. In most school shootings, for example, “the killers had personal ties to the school they struck..."

<snip>

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/07/3709919/tweets-nra-oregon-shooting/

[spanone]

1. the merchants of death have to keep their phony baloney jobs

[villager]

2. The merchants of death seem to have quite a lot of support in that regard...

n/t

[Octafish]

8. Corporate McPravda and Flackadamia...

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

[Orrex]

3. I've read a few of those talking points on a certain progressive forum, as a matter of fact...

[villager]

5. Oh, the parrots are quite dutiful in their regurgitations...

No offense meant to actual parrots, of course...

[hack89]

4. The solution to gun shows is simple

require that all sales require a background check regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer or not. Eight states have that requirement.

[Orrex]

6. But guns!

And guns and guns and guns and guns!

GUNS!

[hack89]

7. If you shut down gun shows then you simply make policing gun sales harder

people like gun shows because of the selection. If you make background checks easy and affordable than that is a good thing, right? Don't you want more background checks?

[Orrex]

15. We've basically been over this already

Universal background checks, absolutely. Every gun sale, no exceptions. A seller who fails to perform a background check or who completes a sale in spite of a failed background check must forfeit all guns currently in his inventory and must be forever barred from conducting or facilitating firearm sales.

Complete registry of all gun vendors, easily accessible to the public on demand.

And you know that we disagree on the need for and propriety of a national gun registry. Absent such a registry, which in spite of the ACLU I consider reasonable and justifiable, a failed background check should also go on a public registry. The reason for the failure need not be given; it is sufficient to reveal that the person failed.

My home ownership is a matter of public record, as is the dollar amount that I paid for my home and the fact that I lost my previous home to foreclosure. Therefore I reject as inconsistent nonsense any claim that a registry of gun ownership is a violation of privacy.

[hack89]

16. So lets work together on UBCs

and deal with registration later.

[villager]

20. Yes, let's work together on UBCs

n/t

[hack89]

21. My state has had them for a while now

I can certain attest that they are not a burden to gun owners.

[villager]

25. Do you make this known publicly in forums *with* your fellow gun owners?

(by which I mean "gun forums" and not "DU.&quot

That might be a good first step.

[hack89]

26. DU is the only place I regularly post about guns

I post on a couple of military history and Navy sites but we never talk guns.

[villager]

27. Well, you need to start working on your fellow pro-gunners, I suspect

...if you intend to have any real impact in this regard...

[hack89]

28. All the gun owners I know well live in New England

all live in states with strict gun regulations. I don't need to convince anyone of anything.

[villager]

29. Well no, you can keep posting here on generally pro gun control sites

But if you actually fancy yourself a different sort of gun owner, it would certainly help to you have you and your New England brethren quite publicly on the side of reason and responsibility.

[hack89]

30. It is not that big a deal to us

It's not like our lives revolve around guns.

[villager]

31. It's a big deal to some of us -- and public gun owner support would have an an outsize impact

As for your lives not revolving around guns, I am thrilled at this public declaration you will find a new favorite topic forum here besides the gungeon.

[hack89]

32. That's nice nt

[Duckhunter935]

33. Favorite group

You mean like SecularMotion, check what group is his favorite.

[Orrex]

22. Ok.

I would have added this to my previous post, but I didn't want to sneak in an edit after you'd replied:

If a gun owner is found to have sold a firearm in a private sale without the required background check, or in spite of a failed check, then he and the buyer permanently forfeit the right to own, store or use firearms.


Honestly, our main area of difference seems to be the question of a registry. In addition, I favor very harsh penalties for violations, which IMO are appropriate consequence of firearm-related illegality.

[Duckhunter935]

9. yep since it is

intrastate that is how it should be handled. I also love how they say "internet" sales do not require a background check. I purchased 5 online and had to have them delivered to an FFL and complete a background check. Must have done it wrong?

Oh that's right same thing, intrastate sales are handled under state law and not federal law.

Put the lie out enough........

This passage also works for weapon sales

What is the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce?

If you perform trade, traffic, or transportation exclusively in your business’s domicile state, this is considered intrastate commerce. If your trade, traffic, or transportation is between a place in a state and a place outside of such state (including a place outside of the United States); between two places in a state through another state or a place outside of the United States; or between two places in a state as part of trade, traffic, or transportation originating or terminating outside the state or the United States, this is considered interstate commerce. Source: 49 CFR 390.5.

[sarisataka]

10. As we discussed in the gungeon

The NRA will cave in if there is wide support of a bill among gun owners. It has been done.

Some things I, and many other gun owners would support:

-Enforce the laws we have. Recently a person was sentenced to two years for making straw purchases with the intent to move seven guns over states lines. A single straw purchase can be a ten year sentence. The remarkable thing was that any jail time was involved. We can pass 100k laws but if they do not get enforced they are only words on paper.

-Pass UBC. Should have happened long ago. The issues with enforcement have been hashed over but in reality there is no downside.

-Safe storage laws. Also an enforcement issue but if keeping your kids safe isn't incentive enough, maybe the threat of jail time may make a few more act responsibly. Also, as in the first point, they must be enforced, not waived away in misplaced sympathy after a tragedy.

-Mandatory reporting of stolen/lost firearms. Goes well with the above point. Criminal culpability may be considered for extreme negligence.

-- Get DV laws passed to remove guns from those who are a high risk of violence. The MN law (which helped campaign for) is a good example. It removes guns to protect potential victims but also has due process provisions to protect the accused.

-Fix carry laws. All carry must be shall issue (to avoid racist enforcement) but can include refusal by LE "for good cause". If the person is known to LE as a trouble maker, multiple DUIs misdemeanors etc., then they can be denied. If the person wishes, they can appeal and LE can put their evidence before a judge. If found insufficient or frivolous then LE pays legal costs.
--Also to get a PTC, class time including laws on legal self defense should be required. A practical shooting test comparable to local LE would also be required.
---While I personally do not object to open carry, it typically causes undo alarm. Allow concealed with no more that a citation for inadvertent exposure. This would also solve the issue of idiots who carry rifles everywhere.

-Fix SYG. While the theory that a person should have no civil liability for legitimate self defense is good, in practice the issue is murky. I do not have the legal expertise to suggest specific changes. [as another poster pointed out, SYG and civil immunity are actually two separate issues. Each would need addressing]

-I know I'm forgetting something obvious that I usually include, but getting any one of these passed will be a major effort in today's political climate.

These all address the gun side of the equation, which I look on as treating the fever of an ill person. It is a symptom, not the disease. That must be treated on a social level. I found this list a good start

1. Access to alcohol and drug treatment and rehab
2. Prison reform
3. Curbing the school-to-prison pipeline
4. Addressing structural racism and investing in young black men
5. Correcting income inequality
6. Addressing gender inequality and "macho" culture

[Maedhros]

12. Personally, I am for restricting concealed carrry permits to trained professionals

with a demonstrated need.

Ordinary citizens do not need to be able to kill another anytime, anywhere.

[sarisataka]

23. I'm afraid that cat

Is out of the bag.

In 1986 1 state had unregulated carry, 8 shall issue, 25 may issue and 16 no issue. Today those numbers are, in order, 7, 35, 8, 0. The momentum is 1-2 states moving to unrestricted per year.

The best option is accept carry as reality and compromise to get some qualifications in place. The other option is a multi-decade battle to reverse the trend which will have the side effect of every other restriction be more vehemently opposed.

[Maedhros]

24. I just don't trust people to pack weapons with them 24-7.

I've had some (admittedly anecdotal) personal experiences that left me shaking my head. One involves a group of acquaintances purposely carrying their concealed handguns into a music festival where weapons were prohibited just to make a "political statement." Another involves a traffic stop in which the driver of the vehicle alerted the passengers that his pistol was under the seat and "he wasn't going to let the cop take it from him."

Scary shit, from what casual observers would say were "reasonable" people. I have to think there are many, many more concealed carry permits in the hands of abject fools. We should make them much, much harder to get.

[villager]

19. I look forward, then, to the networking and lobbying you'll be undertaking with fellow gun owners

Let us know how it goes...

[Archae]

11. There no longer is an NRA.

They are the GSL, Gun Sales Lobby.

And the only thing sacred to them is the selling of guns.

[villager]

14. I assume your accompanying image is meant ironically, Archae, but I wouldn't be surprised

...if there were contexts where it would be used quite literally.

Including pushing that particular opiate to its particular masses....

[Archae]

17. According to a few conservatives, Jesus would want more guns

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

[villager]

18. You can't be the Prince of Peace unless you come strapped!

[underpants]

13. Bookmarked

Thanks for posting