Why does the NRA go quiet whenever there's a mass shooting?

[1bad65]

You’re actually asking for an answer to that? Sigh.

Because the majority of deaths associated with cars are accidental. Because cars serve another significant purpose than as instruments of death. Because cars benefit the inhabitants of an industrialised first world society on a day to day basis. Because cars are a necessity for anywhere without widespread public transport.

That’s why. But you already knew that, thus rendering your question rhetorical and a pathetic deflection from the issue(s) at hand.

So you can't answer the question and are finding ways to duck it.

Got it.

Next time, just say you can't answer it right off the bat and save the nonsense.

[1bad65]

1) what in the hell does a person want the nra to say ?!?!?!? might as well alcohol and auto makers at the podium whenever a drunk or careless person misuses their product.

No, no, you can't bring up cars. That's a strawman argument. LMFAO!!!

[1bad65]

You truly are an fuking idiot.

Wow, what an effective argument.

How can anyone argue against such logic?

[1bad65]

While in theory, I agree that guns for mentally ill people is not good.

The problem is that “mentally ill” is a very gray area/thin line.

Until they get a firm, concrete definition of what is “mentally ill”I can’t see how you could sign it, being that vague.

It’s a very slippery slope without solid parameters and definition

Exactly.

For example, you have a lot of veterans returning from combat in the ME.

Many of those men and women will have PTSD, a mental condition. So do those people who fought for the country then get banned from owning guns when they return home?

[1bad65]

What new gun law(s) would have prevented this shooting?

[The Big Dunn]

Why do the pro gun people act like every mass shooting is inevitable? None of us know what law could've prevented a mass shooting.

Had we banned the sale of all AR-15's this kid couldn't have gone into the gun store and purchased this gun. Does he get it on the black market-quite possibly. Could he go steal one from someone's house-quite possibly. He also may not have been able to get a weapon.

Australia made changes in there laws that have reduced, but not eliminated, gun violence. They Restricted weapons include military weapons such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers and anti-tank guns.

That is a simple fix the US could undertake.

No law can eliminate all gun violence. Enacting laws like Australia will change the culture over time. Any reduction in gun violence is a good thing.

Had we done this after Columbine we surely would have prevented some of the mass shootings that followed.

That's the point the gun lobby tries to avoid. The lack of action over the past 10-15 years contributes to every mass shooting that happens.

We don't know if a law change would have prevented yesterday's shooting or any of the other ones. That doesn't mean we don't change the law.

Maybe we change it and see if there is a reduction in mass shootings. If so, then we can better answer that question.

[Split Decision]

On any given day a motivated killer can walk into almost any school unchallenged with a butcher knife up his sleeve. He can walk into a kindergarten class of 20-30 kids and kill just about all of them in the several minutes before authorities arrive.

Now what would have prevented that attack? A ban on butcher knives? Restrictive laws to purchase a butcher knife? Or an armed security guard at the school?

How come they always use guns not knives?

[////]

They don't go quiet. They're acting the same as ever.

What would they say about the mass shootings?

Mass shootings are less than 0.5% of annual homicides. They're barely newsworthy. The only reason they get so much coverage is because the media makes money encouraging copycat crimes & keeping the phenomenon alive.

Deny if it you want but deep down you know it's true. This shooter, like all the others, said he wanted to be infamous.

I grew up thinking mostly hysterical housewives fell for these types of stories but I'm realizing uneducated urban guys are even worse. 17 people die and they get sucked into the ensuing media frenzy and think "everything has changed".

[Split Decision]

They don't go quiet. They're acting the same as ever.

What would they say about the mass shootings?

Mass shootings are less than 0.5% of annual homicides. They're barely newsworthy. The only reason they get so much coverage is because the media makes money encouraging copycat crimes & keeping the phenomenon alive.

Deny if it you want but deep down you know it's true. This shooter, like all the others, said he wanted to be infamous.

I grew up thinking mostly hysterical housewives fell for these types of stories but I'm realizing uneducated urban guys are even worse. 17 people die and they get sucked into the ensuing media frenzy and think "everything has changed".

Ah well if you frame it like that with statistics it feels nicer. We can forget it and move on. fxcxk the kids that get shot up, people just need to shut up and let them schools get shot up in peace.

[////]

Why do the pro gun people act like every mass shooting is inevitable? None of us know what law could've prevented a mass shooting.

Had we banned the sale of all AR-15's this kid couldn't have gone into the gun store and purchased this gun. Does he get it on the black market-quite possibly. Could he go steal one from someone's house-quite possibly. He also may not have been able to get a weapon.

Australia made changes in there laws that have reduced, but not eliminated, gun violence. They Restricted weapons include military weapons such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers and anti-tank guns.

That is a simple fix the US could undertake.

No law can eliminate all gun violence. Enacting laws like Australia will change the culture over time. Any reduction in gun violence is a good thing.

Had we done this after Columbine we surely would have prevented some of the mass shootings that followed.

That's the point the gun lobby tries to avoid. The lack of action over the past 10-15 years contributes to every mass shooting that happens.

We don't know if a law change would have prevented yesterday's shooting or any of the other ones. That doesn't mean we don't change the law.

Maybe we change it and see if there is a reduction in mass shootings. If so, then we can better answer that question.

It's not a matter of inevitability, it's a matter of being both unnecessary & irrelevant.

Unnecessary because school shootings are a media commodity we could easily opt out of. The majority of school shooters including the latest one have cited a desire for media infamy as their motive. School shootings were exceptionally rare despite a far higher # of guns per-household and on-campus prior to Columbine & the documentaries that turned the shooters into icons for high school rejects.

Irrelevant because it isn't mathematically relevant for policy making when 17 people die. Mass shootings are among the rarest ways an American can die.

Routine urban homicides are thousands of times more common but we already have strict gun laws in cities where the residents have proven too irresponsible to handle their freedom, so there isn't much political incentive for coverage.

I don't think you fall for this NRA-blood-on-its-hands stuff but you tow the line out of party loyalty, right?