Anti-Gun Control Groups Spent 17 Times As Much On Lobbying As Pro-Gun Control
By Patrick Follow Thu, 26 Jul 2012, 9:41am 6,647 views 64 comments
In Menlo Park CA 94025
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike Viewing Comments 1-40 of 64 Next » Last » See most liked comments
|
Patrick is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
I applaud them for not simply shooting the pro gun control crowd. haha. im kidding.
Seriously - dont eff with people who own guns.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
That article shouldn't be surprising. Fear is a powerful motivator. Who do you think is more fearful, the "pro-gun" side or the "anti-gun" side?
Follow
Befriend (1)
12 threads
340 comments
Boston, MA
How 'bout "Pro-Pool" or "Anti-Pool" side. Because like it or not, parents w/ pools in the yard wind up w/ WAAAYYY more dead children than parents who own/keep guns in the house.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Probably true, but does the same statistic hold true for adults? I'm guessing probably not.
I really don't have a dog (or a gun) in this fight, but both sides should be careful of "statistics they hear."
Follow
Befriend (4)
117 threads
17,655 comments
Premium
Lies, damn lies, and...
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
James Brady, the wounded Reagan White House Press Secretary and the person after whom the most active anti-gun lobby is named was shot in what was then and continues to be one of the two areas in the US most restrictive to law abiding citizen gun ownership, Washington, D.C. (the other is Illinois, especially Chicago - check out Chicago's gun violence stats). Further, he was shot within the heavily protected zone around a President. Both he and Reagan were shot with a .22 caliber Röhm RG-14 six shot revolver, not with a high capacity, military caliber firearm. The .22 caliber round is the most common SPORTING round in the world used for target shooting (ex., in the Olympics), small game (rabbits, squirrels), and pest control.
Now, what does the above say about the effectiveness of any kind of gun control along the avenues being suggested? It says that the only gun control step with even a remote chance of being effective would require the complete removal by locating (how?) and then confiscating the 300+ million firearms in circulation in the US. I'm sure that would be a very highly paid job for the short time you'd be alive to be involved in it.
And ask these guys about the dangers of total gun confiscation:
http://jpfo.org/
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
The anti gun people seem to forget 99% of the country is rural or semi rural. We dont all live in SF or NYC or Chicago.
If you go hiking in montana you better have a 45 cal to shoot a bear. Or wolves in alaska. Also you gotta protect the livestock from foxes/racoons who like chickens, etc.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,191 threads
6,158 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
PockyClipsNow says
No true. 79% of the country lives in urban areas:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/archives/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm
Only 21% lives in rural areas.
Follow
Befriend (1)
2 threads
324 comments
Sunnyvale, CA
freak80 says
The anti-gun side. They tend to have an irrational fear of guns that's totally out of proportion compared to how they feel about other things that are more likely to kill them.
The big difference is that it's generally an abstract concept for the anti-gun people. They haven't been shot or even known anyone who got shot.
For pro-gun people (80,000,000 of which own over 250,000,000 guns in this country) it's usually personal in terms of what they can own, how they can use their guns, how much hassle is involved, and what it costs (existing guns are usually grandfathered following a ban, although where transfers are still permitted costs can skyrocket - a transferable M16 made before the 1986 ban can run $16,000 which is 20X what a police department would pay today).
I had to keep an out-of-state storage facility when I moved to California because although my skills and tax dollars were welcome my long guns weren't.
Follow
Befriend (1)
249 threads
4,739 comments
"Again, no matter what side of this debate you fall on, you probably agree that there should at least be a debate. "
at least?
What has there been for the last 50 years, an argument?
Today more so than ever, all you can do is make owning a gun illegal.
That would make a billion or more illegal guns in America.
That would be a billion guns that are unlicensed, not tracked, and not accounted for.
Then who would we villainize every time a nut job shoots the place up with illegal guns?
Follow
Befriend (1)
2 threads
324 comments
Sunnyvale, CA
CaptainShuddup says
I'd worry about the increase in criminal fire power which would accompany significant restrictions on firearm sales through legitimate channels.
With inexpensive leakage from the legal retail market criminals can and do choose $75 .25 handguns.
If those sales channels dry up home machinists will supply their needs. The simplest repeating arm to manufacture is an open-bolt sub-machine gun.
Given a choice I prefer the status quo.
In the UK where criminals can't get inexpensive leakage from the legal market the Yardies have switched to guns like the MAC-10 with rock-and-roll option
Machine guns in the UK
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
wbblair3 says
I don't think anyone is trying to totally confiscate guns. At least not nationally. Mabye in some local jurisdictions perhaps?
At the same time not too many people think we should all be allowed to own tanks and rocket-propelled grenades.
The "sensible" position is somewhere between those two extremes and there's no real "scientific" way to know exactly where to draw the line. Plus there are diffences like urban vs. rural, cultural differences, etc.
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,215 comments
31 male
Premium
I guess this is an instance where lobbying actually benefits the citizenry. Imagine if the roles were flipped and the gun ban nuts had all the money on their side, this country would be a friggin warzone chocked full of criminals
Follow
Befriend
27 threads
233 comments
Skokie, IL
It is unlikely that someone in a the United States does not know someone that was shot or killed by a gun.
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
I would assume that since Patrick posted this article, he must be against gun ownership, despite that this is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it's part of what our troops vow to protect, and that communist governments have regularly, throughout history, banned guns prior to conducting genocide on their own people to remove the political opposition and "undesireables" from those societies.
Why anyone would want to so fully trust our obviously corrupt government in some ways suggests either brainwashing by that government, or being hired by said government. The Tavistock Institute in London certainly provides plenty of well-coordinated global propaganda to help with the brainwash aspect.
What Patrick's article link does not tell you is that the Communitarian central bankers who control and own the worldwide mainstream media actively contract out the Tavistock Institute to propagandize their pro-communist aims. These aims include the removal of individual gun ownership rights. This helps to ensure central banker behind-the-scenes power goes unchallenged during a time in history when people are beginning to wake up to the extent of central banker shadow rule and corruption.
This also explains why the pro-gun ownership lobbying efforts might require so much more funding -- it's fighting against the massive institutional framework associated with the well-funded Tavistock Institute, including the worldwide mainstream media. Remember that central bankers create money out of thin air, which is a heck of a lot more money than the pro-gun groups are ever going to have.
Follow
Befriend (1)
2 threads
324 comments
Sunnyvale, CA
StillLooking says
It is not at all unlikely.
We tend to work and socialize with people who are socioeconomically similar and the middle class and beyond don't have a murder problem.
People like to cite _Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities_ (Sloan at el) as an example showing how American access to guns makes us less safe than Canadians where similar cities (size, geography, etc) are compared although the raw data doesn't show that.
As a member of the economically similar white populations on both sides of the border those numbers showed that you were safer in Seattle where the white murder rate was 6.2 per 100,000 versus 6.4 per 100,000 in Vancouver.
Even that doesn't tell the whole story. If you look at Murder Circumstances in the Uniform Crime Reports (annual publications by the Justice Department of the Federal Executive Branch) you find significant risk factors that don't apply to you and the sort of people you associate with like gang activity, involvement with illegal narcotics, and brawling under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Logic suggests that many of those white people killed were affected by the economic disparity which leads to high murder rates among Hispanic and black Americans affects non-Hispanic white people that don't run in your circles. It's also safe to bet that the black and Hispanic people we know have demographics that make their chances of being shot and/or killed lower than the aggregate white population's.
In theory we might know someone shot or killed in a firearms accident although those are _exceedingly_ rate. In 2007 there were only 613 fatal firearms accidents out of 301,579,895 people or 1 in 491,973.
I don't know anyone who was killed by a gun or even shot and don't worry about it.
I do worry about bad drivers (both I and my daughter were hit by cars while we had the right of way bicycling), bad pilots (I knew 12 people killed in 3 separate plane crashes), and bad health care (I made a warranty return following surgery after I got home and started making pools of blood).
Follow
Befriend
27 threads
233 comments
Skokie, IL
Drew,
I happen to have known two that supposedly commited suicide, although I don't believe that story in either case and one that got shot.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Patrick, the pro gun people spent 17 x's more? Could that be because they believe in freedom? Could it be they believe in the second amendment? Could it be they believe that firearms in the hands of patriots may be the last line of defense against a tyranical government?
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,191 threads
6,158 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Daniel Estulin says
Bad assumption. Go beyond the false "conserative vs liberal" dichotomy and think for yourself.
How is the gun issue used to divide us? It's very similar to many other divisive issues, like gay marriage and abortion.
Who has an interest in dividing us, and what do they want?
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Patrick, the "two-headed beast" has an interest in dividing us. And what do they want? Ans. To remain in control, in other words: POWER.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,191 threads
6,158 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Yes, I agree.
And more specifically, what they want is the power to force us to remain their obedient servants:
Follow
Befriend (13)
103 threads
3,764 comments
If we lose guns, this government will put us all on a train to Alaska.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
There are many reasons why people pay more to protect their rights.
1. Losing my rights is a motivator. The twerps who want to take them away are generally the lazy, prozac or cymbalta achievers hanging around cafes.
2. Gun owners have money in addition to guns.
3. Gun owners are organized and not scatterbrained, they can raise cash.
4. Gun owners don't care what you think about them.
5. Gun owners have prevented crimes against themselves, their families and strangers.
6. Even if you are illiterate affirmative action law school graduate you cannot mistake the clear language in the U.S. Constitution. If you don't like having a gun, do not buy one.
7. Shooting a nice gun is like sex or surfing: the first time is a bit scary, someone has to give you some pointers, and after that, it's a blast in all senses of the word.
Avoid shitty plastic guns that have huge recoil like cops carry, e.g. Glock. Avoid any gun in 40 calibre, it sucks.
Avoid those small concealable "double action only" guns like the small Ruger.
Shoot a good piece like a CZ75, or a Sig or a Browning or something full size and made of metal not plastic. You will love it.
My absolute favorite gun is the Israeli arms Jericho or "baby eagle" in 9mm. That gun looks cool as hell, shoots very well like the CZ.
Don't be afraid of them, embrace them and have fun. Then skeet shoot shotguns and you'll really be hooked.
Los Altos Gun Club is a great place to go blasting. Have fun.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
FortWayne says
And it will certainly be one of those ultra-liberal high-speed trains. The prison camps will be located in ANWR
clambo says
Wow
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
342 comments
Phoenix, AZ
The Original Bankster's website
10 Palestinians have died for every IDF soldier.
This means that terrorists are right and the IDF are murderers right?
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,220 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
freak80 says
Pshhh RPG,that's a baby toy!
What you REALLY want is one of these babies:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Follow
Befriend (4)
334 threads
919 comments
Patrick@ 21,
You may already have this with the transcript. It's hard to beat the spoken word & written word when combined.
http://shoqvalue.com/george-carlin-on-the-american-dream-with-transcript
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
StillLooking says
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?" -- Archie Bunker
Follow
Befriend (9)
165 threads
1,549 comments
Premium
There has to be a balance. In the country it is fine. If you live out in the boonies, you need a gun . If you have livestock, a vet maybe an hour or two away and you may need to know how to put down an animal in distress humanely-guns are pretty good for that, if you know what you are doing. Plus they give you a measure of protection and you can hunt.
On the other hand, in a big city, do you really want a bunch of drunk young males walking the streets with loaded AK47s? I forget which state it is, that allows people to bring guns into bars. Again country is fine, but big cities are different animals and there has to be some restrictions-just not sure what the line in the sand should be.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
94 comments
lostand confused says
Take out AK47s and put pistols, and that is exactly what is happening in cities all over the country. Except those guns are not legally owned and obtained guns. Gangs, drug dealers, thieves, drug addicts, ex-cons, they all have guns but not through the legal channels.
It's the second amendment, just behind freedom of speech, assembly and press. So it isn't going anywhere without a large movement of support. As for the debate of what is reasonable and what isn't, the reason the NRA and other gun supporters lobby so hard to discourage any and all laws relating to gun control it's because of the concept of "give them an inch, they want a foot." Start allowing federal income taxes, and all of a sudden we see rates upwards of 20%-40%. There will always be a gun-control cry in politics and it will never end no matter what the NRA/gun rights people give. So no one wants to give anything.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,220 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
Then they are fools. If our government truly turned on its own people the military would be able to reduce this country to the stone age with narry a drop of sweat. I'd also be willing to bet that in that situation most of the people with guns would be far more willing to fore go their sacred 2nd amendment rights and swear allegiance to the new order than take a chance fighting for the old.
That said I'm constantly surprised and grateful that our rank and file military put up with us civilians as well as they do. Imagine how whiny we sound complaining about 80 hour work weeks and high home prices while so many of them spend years in complete $3@^holes with IEDs, PRG and God knows what else.
Its still not going to stop me from complaining but I do try to keep it in perspective.
Follow
Befriend (9)
416 threads
4,137 comments
Baltimore, MD
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Patrick says
Like I keep saying, if the Democrats would be more moderate on those issues, they'd regain permanent-majority status. But they won't.
I don't think it's our overlords funding the homosexual pressure groups or radical feminists. Those are real movements with money that strongly influence the Democrat party.
Follow
Befriend (1)
249 threads
4,739 comments
clambo says
Wait a minute, I hang around cafes, I'll have to keep a vigilant eye out for the twerps you speak of.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
2,851 comments
lostand confused says
Remember the street riots in LA back in the Early 90s. Had it not been for the loaded guns by the shopkeepers and merchants. Many would have been killed by thugs and their business burned and looted ! Guns stopped the killings !
Before a verdict was issued in the new 1993 Rodney King federal civil rights trial against the four officers, Korean shop owners prepared for the worst as fear ran throughout the city, gun sales went up, virtually all of them by those of Korean descent, some merchants at flea markets removed their merchandise from their shelves, storefronts were fortified with extra Plexiglas and bars. Throughout the community, shop owners readied to defend themselves as if on the eve of a war.[51] College student Elizabeth Hwang spoke of the attacks on her parents' convenience store in 1992 and the fact that if trouble erupted following the 1993 trial, that they were armed with a Glock 17 pistol, a Beretta and a shotgun and they plan to barricade themselves in their store to fight off looters.[53] Some Koreans formed armed self defence groups following the 1992 riots. Speaking just prior to the 1993 verdict, Mr. Yong Kim, leader of the Korea Young Adult Team of Los Angeles, which purchased five AK-47s, stated:
“ We made a mistake last year. This time we won't. I don't know why Koreans are always a special target for African Americans, but if they are going to attack our community then we are going to pay them back. "
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
2,851 comments
Patrick says
Your from Maine! You think differently from others... your values are different from others. WE are not you, and do not seek your values.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,379 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
freak80 says
The crossbow side. CIA did a study back in the late nineties which established the most visually intimidating hand-held weapon and the crossbow won out over all.
Follow
Befriend
14 threads
1,493 comments
Daniel Estulin says
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,379 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
So now we know what it looks like when Bubo the Owl takes a big dump on a guy's head, there's that much less mystery in the world. Back to guns!
Follow
Befriend (1)
249 threads
4,739 comments