• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the NRA's solution to "fix" our current problems with Mass Shootings?

None of those are my suggestions.

You dismiss before examining them, because you care more about your little pea-shooter than a child's life.

I want the freedom to use a democratic system to prevent gun manufacturers from getting guns into the wrong hands.

Meanwhile, you wish to stifle debate, because democratic solutions aren't worth considering if they take something you like away. Even if it saves the lives of innocent kids.

You're greedy. You're anti-life, and you're anti-democracy.

If you think that we haven't seen those proposals dozens of times and pointed out the flaws in the reasoning behind them then you'd have to be a new person here.

Are you willing to give up any of your rights if someone thinks it will save the life of a single child?
 
:roll:

Whatever you need to convince yourself of, you dismissive, insulting, projecting newbie.

Yes, it is clear you have no argument.

You do not wish to even have a debate about gun laws. You just plug your ears and shout NO NO NO.

Children are dead. In our schools. These events are happening more and more often, and it is because of the availability of guns, and the lack of regulation on their ownership.

I am a Louisiana native. I hunt, I fish, I like the outdoors.

I advocate for reasonable gun laws, because I don't need an arsenal to fight for freedom.
 
You know who uses guns the most to protect themselves? People in war zones. Just having to use guns clock to protect yourself a lot does not mean that you live in a safe place. The gun lobby has made this country a war zone, and the only person who benefits from it are the people selling the guns.

Actually, this country is safer and safer. Violent crime has been on the decline for decades despite the number of firearms in circulation going up. Aside from suicides, the majority of gun violence is in liberal gun controlled cities. I have actually used a firearm in home defense, in such a city (Baltimore)

My guns benefited me, you're either ignorant or lying.
 
Oh the nra should do something ! What do they should do have more background checks? Shocking more big government this is what happened when you let the democrats speak


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
NO. There isn't a problem that the NRA has the power or authority to fix.

I would think it would be in the best interests of those who have the most passion around gun rights to at least try to come up with some possible solutions to what we're seeing happening more and more often.

Who stands to lose the most if these kinds of mass shootings get worse/bigger, and more frequent over the next few years?

Who would benefit the most if they could come up with a reasonable "fix" to the problem?

Of course if you're going to sit there and claim there is no problem, then that's a whole different issue of ignorance.
 
CVDhRdqWEAAcw37.jpg
 
Actually, this country is safer and safer. Violent crime has been on the decline for decades despite the number of firearms in circulation going up. Aside from suicides, the majority of gun violence is in liberal gun controlled cities. I have actually used a firearm in home defense, in such a city (Baltimore)

My guns benefited, you're either ignorant or lying.

The vast majority of violence is in large urban centers where poverty was specifically concentrated by pro-business conservatives during the mid 1900's.

But keep on with that dog whistle.

St. Loius Missouri has no gun laws and is predominately conservative, yet the second most dangerous cities in the US.

The third is Memphis, also Republican controlled.

Your narrative is garbage.
 
Last edited:
None of those are my suggestions.

You dismiss before examining them, because you care more about your little pea-shooter than a child's life.

I want the freedom to use a democratic system to prevent gun manufacturers from getting guns into the wrong hands.

Meanwhile, you wish to stifle debate, because democratic solutions aren't worth considering if they take something you like away. Even if it saves the lives of innocent kids.

You're greedy. You're anti-life, and you're anti-democracy.
Which children did my guns kill? The answer is None. Total failure on your part attempting to pass lies off as truth.
The rest of you BS is not even worthy of further discussion.
 
Their solution is to arm everyone, of course.

Of course. If every one has a gun, or, better still five guns, the NRA will have more members. It will then have majority political power and even fewer pols or officials will dare challenge its dictats. "Guns don't kill people" says the NRA and there enough stupid Americans to believe that piece of idiocy and to make the NRA a very serious threat to democracy and to life of course.
 
Which children did my guns kill? The answer is None. Total failure on your part attempting to pass lies off as truth.
The rest of you BS is not even worthy of further discussion.

Your guns haven't killed anyone, yet.

But they sure would make it easy for you to do so, if you chose to.

Especially if you have an arsenal of long-rifles and a stockpile of ammo, which you shouldn't need for anything. Long-rifles are useless for home defense, they don't conceal well, they are useless for self-defense out in the world.

And if you're preparing for a society where one would need such weapons, you're obviously not interested in solutions, just coping with the problem you're too cowardly to address.

BEKKUZ FREEDUMZ
 
Is there an official NRA outline on how to fix the problems we're seeing more and more around mass shootings?
Has a "solution" been offered by the NRA as to what to do?

We're seeing more and more mass shootings, and school shootings.
More often than not with semi-auto, tactical rifles.

What's the actual NRA stance on the best path forward to reduce not only the number of mass shootings, but also the number of casualties in each shooting?

How does the NRA propose we "fix" the thing that's currently broken in the USofA?

The NRA is full of lunatics that are one biological component-gone-wrong away from being mass murderers themselves. I don't care what they have to say, and neither should anyone else. That's the problem in this country.
 
Which children did my guns kill? The answer is None. Total failure on your part attempting to pass lies off as truth.
The rest of you BS is not even worthy of further discussion.

How many children could your guns kill? The answer is Many. Something for the guniacs to consider as they drool over he objects of heir lust.
 
The NRA is full of lunatics that are one biological component-gone-wrong away from being mass murderers themselves. I don't care what they have to say, and neither should anyone elses. That's the problem in this country.

The NRA has 5 million members. An estimate 4 million citizens own 10 million AR-15s and the like. You should be too afraid to leave your house.
 
How many children could your guns kill? The answer is Many. Something for the guniacs to consider as they drool over he objects of heir lust.

How many kids could a rental truck kill?
 
Yes, it is clear you have no argument.

You do not wish to even have a debate about gun laws. You just plug your ears and shout NO NO NO.

Children are dead. In our schools. These events are happening more and more often, and it is because of the availability of guns, and the lack of regulation on their ownership.

I am a Louisiana native. I hunt, I fish, I like the outdoors.

I advocate for reasonable gun laws, because I don't need an arsenal to fight for freedom.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws too, if reasonable means Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced.
 
I would think it would be in the best interests of those who have the most passion around gun rights to at least try to come up with some possible solutions to what we're seeing happening more and more often.

Who stands to lose the most if these kinds of mass shootings get worse/bigger, and more frequent over the next few years?

Who would benefit the most if they could come up with a reasonable "fix" to the problem?

Of course if you're going to sit there and claim there is no problem, then that's a whole different issue of ignorance.

(repost)

My suggestion to reduce mass shootings like active shooter and domestic violence looks at three actions: prevention, isolation, intervention.

Prevention is the process to reduce the chance that a shooter will have a firearm in the first place. It's easier for DV than for active shooters, as the Lautenberg Amendment can be used to disarm anyone convicted of domestic violence or with a personal protective order sworn against them preemptively or actively. For Lautenberg to be effective, we need to educate potential victims, their legal support and local law enforcement. Potential active shooters don't have that history and with HIPAA restrictions find it easier to pass background checks. Prevention against rampage shooters is much less effective.

Isolation is the action of keeping a shooter separated from his victims. For DV, removal of the family to a safe house is the primary tool, unless the DV offender commits another crime or is caught violating a PPO before any homicide attempts occur, when he can be arrested. For active shooters, limiting access to schools or other targeted areas via channelized entry, metal detectors and similar passive measures are the first step. Being able to effectively lock down classrooms and other sub-geographies is also necessary.


Sometimes none of these work, or the area under attack isn't conducive to isolation, and that's where intervention is important. The FBI teaches Run, Hide, Fight when thrust into an active shooter situation, and data shows that the best way to fight is with a firearm. The current strategy of limiting ammunition magazine capacity to force reloads where the shooter can be physically restrained is untenable and hasn't been shown to be effective as an active response with a firearm. It suffers from fatal flaws: that the pool of potential victims includes someone that is brave enough to physically attack the shooter, that the brave person isn't among the first shot, that he or she is lucky enough to be in a close enough position during a reload and that he or she is physically capable of restraining a shooter. The biggest flaw, however, is that this tactic requires at least 10 shots to be fired with up to ten dead victims before there is a chance to stop the shooter. We've seen with both the Uber driver and Philly barbershop that CCW holders are not so restrained and can act quickly and effectively enough to stop a shooter with no innocent lives lost.
 
The NRA has 5 million members. An estimate 4 million citizens own 10 million AR-15s and the like. You should be too afraid to leave your house.

Yes, when a select group of America feels they don't need one AR-15, not two, but damn near THREE AR-15s, I should definitely be concerned with their mental stability, as I am.
 
Is there an official NRA outline on how to fix the problems we're seeing more and more around mass shootings?
Has a "solution" been offered by the NRA as to what to do?

We're seeing more and more mass shootings, and school shootings.
More often than not with semi-auto, tactical rifles.

What's the actual NRA stance on the best path forward to reduce not only the number of mass shootings, but also the number of casualties in each shooting?

How does the NRA propose we "fix" the thing that's currently broken in the USofA?

The purpose of the NRA is primarily sport shooting, which means getting people interested in it, and training them to do it safely. Secondarily its activism to protect citizens right to keep and bear arms. They dont really have any relevance to solutions which would reduce gun violence other than making sure those who do dont infringe on their rights to keep and bear arms.


HOWEVER, they have previously offered up some opinions which is mainly centered on self defense.
 
Their solution is to arm everyone, of course.

which is slightly less stupid than disarming honest people and hope nutcases and criminals won't have guns
 
If anyone's interested, here's how I would fix it.

Gun Safety offered as an elective class to high school seniors. I feel this would be a popular class, as a great many seniors find themselves having to fill a schedule and choose things like Art and a Study period. Wouldn't you rather take the gun glass? And not a half assed one either, like an extensive in depth look at gun safety.

I feel that every school in the country should already have a mental health professional on staff for developmental reasons, one could possibly catch the signs of an unstable student before they decide to shoot up the school and do something about it.

Also, I think that Gun Vendors would be smart to keep a mental health professional on staff to spot unstable individuals at the point of sale. At the very least it could ease their conscience if one of their guns was sold to a man that shot up a bar, or a church, or a school. At the most it could save lives. Wouldn't even have to be a full on psychologist, could be a certification any employee can get after a course designed specifically for this purpose. I've had to get loads of certifications for jobs, never once thought it infringed or put an unnecessary strain on me or my employer.

And I think there should be heavy penalties for mistorage of guns. Most child gun deaths are accidental, someone found Dad's gun in the closet and shot themselves playing with it, things like that. Does not infringe on the right to own a firearm is you require people to store them safely. And Punish them when they do not. Heck, you would be doing them a favor, when your child dies, there is an overwhelming amount of guilt involved, especially if it is your fault. Punishment helps alleviate some of that guilt. Consoling someone that feels guilty, makes them feel worse.

I think the NRA should do a marketing series on non lethal ammo, rubber bullets, and bean bags for home defense, or within city limits at all. Really stress just how dangerous stray fire is to your neighbors. "It's your right to defend your home, but why choose to endanger your friends. When you can buy incapacitating rounds on sale now!" Gun Owners are for the most part collectors, they have no intention of ever shooting a person. They would, but it's not something they are planning on ever happening. They could be sold the idea of non lethal rounds with advertising. Don't even have to make a law. Just commercials with pitch's like, "You can't sue a dead man." "If he dies, he won't learn nothing." "If you want brownie points with Jesus, show mercy and send them to jail." Buy Thoughtex. Rubber Bullets today, we guarantee it hurts just like a real bullet or your money back. And now they glow in the dark!"

I hate the NRA, but the thing is they are responding to specific complaints with a broad brush, and spending money to sell it. Can't counter that in the minds of people who are inclined to agree with their broad ideals, have a personal interest, and different reasons to hate liberal ideology to boot. Won't work. It's insane to repeat the same thing over and over and expect a different result. So seek the same results via different routes. It's not like background checks do diddly squat anyway. Lots of ways to get guns that don't involve a background check. Heck, just buy CB radio and say Audio a few times, and Yep a couple times, and boom you summon the local barter system. They always got guns. And it's perfectly legal to buy em. And also why a registry is pointless.

It's an uphill battle to change people's minds, unless your selling them something. Then all you gotta do is paint them a picture of something they would enjoy. If you are not trying to change them, they'll be way more receptive to things. This is a free society, and we shouldn't have to resort to legal measures to make our country safer. We claim to be civilized, well in my opinion a civilized people would find an amicable way everyone can agree on to prevent senseless death, especially child death. Unless you are a sociopath, a few agreed upon measures that save innocent people shouldn't be to much of an inconvenience.
 
The NRA is full of lunatics that are one biological component-gone-wrong away from being mass murderers themselves. I don't care what they have to say, and neither should anyone else. That's the problem in this country.

this is the sort of abject nonsense that prevents any useful discussions. You hate the NRA because you don't like the candidates they support. And you wonder why gun banners are not taken seriously by anyone who wants to support the second amendment.
 
Yes, when a select group of America feels they don't need one AR-15, not two, but damn near THREE AR-15s, I should definitely be concerned with their mental stability, as I am.

Your attitude is what sells millions of AR 15s
 
The vast majority of violence is in large urban centers where poverty was specifically concentrated by pro-business conservatives during the mid 1900's.

But keep on with that dog whistle.

St. Loius Missouri has no gun laws and is predominately conservative, yet the second most dangerous cities in the US.

The third is Memphis, also Republican controlled.

Your narrative is garbage.

Speaking of garbage: St Louis is majority African American, not likely to be conservative. The current mayor of St Louis is a Democrat, and Democrats have held the mayor's office since 1949.

Census
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_St._Louis

Memphis is almost 2/3 African American, again not likely to be conservative. The current mayor and recent previous mayors of Memphis have all been Democrats.
 
Why is it the NRA's job to "fix" anything? What is the legal basis for the NRA having responsibility for the shootings?

Here is the NRAs mission statement:



The bolded is exactly what they are doing. Look, the shootings are a tragedy I agree and maybe there is something the government can do about it I don't know. However, it is not the NRAs responsibility to "fix" anything.

Thats the NRA foundation, a subsidiary of the NRA, IIRC. They also have a Institute for Legislative Action.


https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/
 
Back
Top Bottom