Yet another school shooting.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Edward64

From what I remember, most on this board that are pro-gun control are not for total-or-near-total ban and I'm good with that. Perfectly reasonable to close loopholes, require registration of all gun transfers (e.g. even as a gift within family members), require real training (bi)annually, 6 month wait periods etc.

For those that are for total-or-near-total ban, I'll ask the question - why penalize the law abiding, presumably sound of mind citizens from owning weapons after we enact more rigorous controls? Why put the effort on restricting the 'good guys', put the effort on taking guns away from criminals and mentally unstable.

Quite literally no one is advocating "total-or-near-total ban." Why are you trying to paint people into corners?

[tarcone]

I dont know how to put this without getting a bunch of crap for it, but here goes; wasnt there a time when we did things differently with the mentally ill? But it infringed on their rights, so they were/are more likely to be out in the gen pop. Then they have kids with the likelihood of those having mental illness.

Dont get me wrong, Im not advocating putting them all away. But what do we do? What is the support system? Where do we find the resources? Shoot, we cant take care of our elderly, how can we take care of our mentally ill?

[bronconick]

The institutions got shut down in the 80's, I think.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes. The Reagan Administration drastically cut federal funds for mentally ill hospitals. That coupled with civil liberties concerns led to the worst of both worlds. Deinstitutionalization led to tons of mentally ill people on the streets (mostly homeless).

[CU Tiger]

You are going to accuse me of nitpicking and pulling out a single point, but its such a key part of your argument I think its worth noting

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Weapons are more powerful and have been pushed harder. The NRA shifted toward anti-government and white nationalist rhetoric trying to persuade people that they need to stockpile weapons for the impending purge or black family moving into the neighborhood.

The above, especially the bolded, is why I think most discourse shuts down on this board.

This is pure fear mongering and fallacy. Much of the debate and outrage for gun attacks has centered around the 'AR platform' the AR-15 is almost entirely unchanged since 1965. Even the M4 variant goes back unchanged to 1984.

Honestly, there have been few if any advances in held weapon technology in the last 30 years. Now if we get into pure speed military full auto weapons, yes there are more recent advancements. But I dont think there has been a single shooting using these in American civilian history.

Secondly, why you find it necessary to make every single debate a race discussion is beyond me. I'm not sure what you hope to gain in the argument by your "black family in the neighborhood" comment.
I honestly don't even know what your point is there. Is it that only white people own guns and sport shoot? Is it that only racist own guns? Do you think black people do not enjoy legal and responsible gun ownership and usage? Do you think these same black people fear other black people moving into "their" neighborhoods?

I mean really this is a puzzling and useless comment to me. But you have a major history of race baiting and trying to marginalize any opposing opinion as racist here, so I am not going to spend a lot of time arguing this point.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There's probably a lot of reasons why things have changed.

The media likely plays a role. But I think that's a result of what the public wants. People love digging through the killers life. Seeing what his political affiliations are, scouring his manifesto, etc.

I don't really believe TV or movies plays much of a role, but I do think society glorifies guns and violence to a point that it does.

I dont know how big of a role any media plays, I do think it desensitizes us though. I remember when TEN first came out. Before the video...the shock my friends and I felt as high schoolers at the song Jeremy. OMG he brought a gun to school. I remember well thinking the message was he shot his classmates...then later the video and the suicide message but that wasnt our initial takeaway...but if I heard that song today I probably dont even stop and take notice. I mean Cop Killer caused a senate floor debate and protests in the street. The words today wouldnt even be the most shocking thing on the last 5 songs in the playlist...

So does that desensitize us? I dont know. I dont think its to blame either, I just think it is worth at least thinking about the effects.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There's a weird fetish some people have with militarizing everything. I saw a commercial for "tactical" sunglasses the other night. There's an entire industry built around selling weapons and gear to fat losers so they can feel manly.

Again I think you start with a good point then feel the need to lose that point in a stereotype.
I think the militarization of everything comes from the fact that America spends a disproportionate mount of money developing military tech. Many of the latest greatest inventions spring from military origins. So I think that's the marketing "genius". The tech glasses thing, I've seen as well and thought funny.

Not sure where you are going with the "fat losers so they can feel manly" thought train.
I dont think data will show mass murderers to be disproportionately obese to societal numbers. I'm not sure if you arent concerned about skinny, fit or athletic gun owners.

We get it you dont like guns. So you seem to project anyone who does as some lesser life form. Racist, or Unfit, or a Loser or whatever. I mean for God's sake we are on a text sim video game forum. Is there anything in the world that stereotypes overweight, nerd loser more than text sim video games? Yet I dont think that profile fits most.

But lets just marginalize and shame and whitewash what we disagree with, that usually works out so well.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by digamma

Thanks for sharing your story again. It matters.

Thanks again for all the relatively silent work you do in this regard, digamma.

[tarcone]

CU, there is a lot of race baiting at this site. It is the go to for a few posters. It gets tiring.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is pure fear mongering and fallacy. Much of the debate and outrage for gun attacks has centered around the 'AR platform' the AR-15 is almost entirely unchanged since 1965. Even the M4 variant goes back unchanged to 1984.

Honestly, there have been few if any advances in held weapon technology in the last 30 years. Now if we get into pure speed military full auto weapons, yes there are more recent advancements. But I dont think there has been a single shooting using these in American civilian history.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean that weapons are necessarily better (although the prices, add-ons like bump stocks, and customization options have improved a great deal). There were machine guns back in the early 1900's. What I mean is civilians now have their hands on more powerful weapons than they used to. The AR-15 Sporter was a commercial failure for decades. People were using handguns and shotguns for home protection. But since the 90's, that has changed.

If you look at the evolution of mass shootings, they've shifted almost exclusively to AR-15 models.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Secondly, why you find it necessary to make every single debate a race discussion is beyond me. I'm not sure what you hope to gain in the argument by your "black family in the neighborhood" comment.

I honestly don't even know what your point is there. Is it that only white people own guns and sport shoot? Is it that only racist own guns? Do you think black people do not enjoy legal and responsible gun ownership and usage? Do you think these same black people fear other black people moving into "their" neighborhoods?

We are talking about the NRA. An organization that has thrived in its white supremacist beliefs. It's highly relevant to the rise in militarization of civilians in this country. It's been the center of their marketing plan for decades.

Their marketing has almost exclusively centered around arming yourselves against "criminal gangbangers" and "inner city thugs" (there words, not mine). Although they do occasionally step out to insinuate you should kill federal officers. Just read through LaPierre's speeches.

They have fought against gun rights when it comes to black people (open carry in California for instance). Been silent when black legal gun owners are mowed down (Philando Castile). Heck, how long has racist apartheid supporter Ted Nugent been on their board?

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

So does that desensitize us? I dont know. I dont think its to blame either, I just think it is worth at least thinking about the effects.

I agree with you here. One thing I'd add culturally is that I think we shifted from serial killers to mass shooters. There was this fascination with serial killers decades ago and you really don't hear a lot about them nowadays. Are there less or do we just not find them interesting anymore?

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Not sure where you are going with the "fat losers so they can feel manly" thought train.
I dont think data will show mass murderers to be disproportionately obese to societal numbers. I'm not sure if you arent concerned about skinny, fit or athletic gun owners.

Who do you think is buying these guns in mass quantities? The marketing of these companies is comical. Take a look at some of these sites:

hxxps://www.rainierarms.com/ is featuring guns around a movie about a world-class assassin. hxxps://store.ar15.com is selling Punisher shirts. Look at the name of these brands on the sites and their logos and marketing. This shit isn't targeting the average hunter or family man looking for a little self-defense. It's a marketing ploy to make the regular Joe feel like some kind of warrior for purchasing these weapons they'll never need to use in a real life situation.

I have no issue with most guns either. I'm not a ban it kind of person. Just find that stuff pathetic. And I find the people who feel they need to carry inside a Starbucks while they pick up a latte to be some of the biggest pussies around. Not everyone is like that, but I've always felt that most of those hardcore gun guys who need laser dots on their AR-15 to be compensating for how weak they feel they are.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Assuming you agree that majority/most mass shootings (including suicides) are done by mentally unstable, then sure, put the effort into restricting their "right" to own weapons.

I'm all for that. It would have certainly helped limit some of these mass shootings where the individual had been marked dangerous or mentally unstable.

But you'd also need to put a lot of resources into mental health in this country. Not just to spot these people, but to prevent and help those who have issues. I think that's worth it not just for shootings, but for a slew of other societal problems it would help with (substance abuse, domestic violence, etc).

The gun lobby and many supporters fight against this. A psychopath uses the same money that a sane person does. And mass shootings are good for business. There's a financial reason why they want them to continue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

CU, there is a lot of race baiting at this site. It is the go to for a few posters. It gets tiring.

It's a popular refuge for weak minds & weaker character.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm all for that. It would have certainly helped limit some of these mass shootings where the individual had been marked dangerous or mentally unstable.

But you'd also need to put a lot of resources into mental health in this country. Not just to spot these people, but to prevent and help those who have issues. I think that's worth it not just for shootings, but for a slew of other societal problems it would help with (substance abuse, domestic violence, etc).

The gun lobby and many supporters fight against this. A psychopath uses the same money that a sane person does. And mass shootings are good for business. There's a financial reason why they want them to continue.

I would like to see where you get the information that the gun lobby and many supporters are against Helping the mentally ill.

And are you really saying the gun lobby and many supporters are in favor of mass shootings because it is good for business?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I would like to see where you get the information that the gun lobby and many supporters are against Helping the mentally ill.

The party they support continuously votes to cut funding to mental health.

The NRA has also come out and been adamant in their stance that the mentally ill have a right to own firearms and that there should be no background checks for it.

Originally Posted by tarcone

And are you really saying the gun lobby and many supporters are in favor of mass shootings because it is good for business?

Yes. Their job is to sell guns. So they are in favor of events that increase the sale of guns.

The business world can be a cruel place. People that shorted the housing market in 08 wanted to see people lose their homes. The manufacturers of fighter jets and military equipment want to see endless wars. Opiate makers want to see more addicts.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The party they support continuously votes to cut funding to mental health.

The NRA has also come out and been adamant in their stance that the mentally ill have a right to own firearms and that there should be no background checks for it.

The NRA does have point though that if you start punishing the mentally ill then people will be less likely to seek treatment. Mental illness is stigmatized enough in this society that I wonder if punishing them does more harm then good.

[bhlloy]

Are people with less than 20/50 vision punished because they can't drive a car? Seems like a very strange argument to me. Nobody is saying that they should be locked up 24/7 and we should go back to mental asylums, are they?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Nobody is saying that they should be locked up 24/7 and we should go back to mental asylums, are they?

That's the rub, isn't it? Though I'm certainly one of the folks who will happily place blame for our mental health crisis at the feet of the GOP, when we were institutionalizing the mentally ill they weren't getting treated any better, so much as they were just out of sight.

I think we probably do have a significant amount of people that require 24/7 mental health care, and the unfortunate truth is that we've never had any grasp on how to deal with those folks. Throwing them to the streets isn't working for anybody (Portland is rife with homeless folks. I probably walk by/over 3 dozen people sleeping on the sidewalk every morning, without exaggeration), and straight-jackets and padded walls have proven to be no solution either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The NRA does have point though that if you start punishing the mentally ill then people will be less likely to seek treatment. Mental illness is stigmatized enough in this society that I wonder if punishing them does more harm then good.

The NRA doesn't give a shit about civil rights. They've routinely fought against civil rights in recent years. They side with giving the mentally ill more guns because it makes gun manufacturers more money.

I was going to say that something we can all agree on is that people who beat their wives and kids should not be allowed to own guns. Especially since many of these mass shooters have a history of domestic violence. But the NRA even opposes that. You see, if you want to shoot your wife, that's still a gun sale.

[TeamBills59]

FYI the United States keeps track of the number of homicides committed in the country per year. The number of homicides currently in the United States is the lowest since the early 1960s. It has been at this level for years. The number of homicides is a lot lower then it used to be.

The "news" will not tell you this because that would hurt their ratings/views and in turn they would lose money.

I don't want to get involved in a political battle. I just wanted to point this out to people who are unaware.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TeamBills59

FYI the United States keeps track of the number of homicides committed in the country per year. The number of homicides currently in the United States is the lowest since the early 1960s. It has been at this level for years. The number of homicides is a lot lower then it used to be.

The "news" will not tell you this because that would hurt their ratings/views and in turn they would lose money.

I don't want to get involved in a political battle. I just wanted to point this out to people who are unaware.

Compare that number to every other developed nation in the world.

[thesloppy]

FWIW, I think that's a pretty well known fact on this board which has been discussed many times over the years. Crucial to this particular conversation, as mentioned above, even while the overall murder numbers declined the number of MASS murders has gone up significantly in that time:

[TeamBills59]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Compare that number to every other developed nation in the world.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

FWIW, I think that's a pretty well known fact on this board which has been discussed many times over the years. Crucial to this particular conversation, as mentioned above, even while the overall murder numbers decline the number of MASS murders has gone up significantly in that time:

I'm not going to go through the whole forum to see if it was posted before on the forum or not. I don't have time for that. Hell I have so little time I have to force myself to have a hobby. I was posting it in case people weren't aware.

As far as your graph goes, anyone can find a graph on the Internet and post it. That does't mean it's true. Don't get upset, I'm not saying it is or isn't, but just posting a graph doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Compare that number to every other developed nation in the world.

I'm not saying the United States is better or worse than other countries. I'm saying that the country is in a better place then it used to be. I see a lot of people in the world who think the opposite based on believing the "news" and not researching stuff themselves.


------

I don't have the time nor the patience to have a debate about this. I just wanted to post a little nugget in case some people weren't aware. That's all.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TeamBills59

I'm not saying the United States is better or worse than other countries.

You don't have to. The data speaks for itself.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by TeamBills59

I'm not going to go through the whole forum to see if it was posted before on the forum or not. I don't have time for that. Hell I have so little time I have to force myself to have a hobby. I was posting it in case people weren't aware.

As far as your graph goes, anyone can find a graph on the Internet and post it. That does't mean it's true. Don't get upset, I'm not saying it is or isn't, but just posting a graph doesn't mean anything.

I'm certainly not upset, but I am not exactly going to give you any credit for immediately tossing aside contrary data while claiming to be some kind of truthsayer realist who's too busy to consider a graph. That graph doesn't exist in some internet vacuum where it can't be checked in less than a minute, I know because I did so before posting it. By all means, have at it if you don't trust me. Here's a few more, a couple with their sources explicitly listed for your convenience:







For whatever it's worth to you, I've spent the last few years in both my 'real' & internet lives, repeating the fact that violence and crime are at a relative low whenever I feel it's appropriate and as an occasional counter to some of the cultural fear-mongering that threatens my sanity, which seems like is very much like your intent, and I want to acknowledge I definitely agree with you in that regard, but that aside I don't think you can use those facts to dismiss the very real rise in mass shootings. That's misinformation, not news.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

Quite literally no one is advocating "total-or-near-total ban." Why are you trying to paint people into corners?

In the context of forum members, I thought I qualified my statement in the first paragraph pretty well.

In the US, I do think there is a good minority that is advocating/supporting "total-or-near-total ban".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I dont know how big of a role any media plays, I do think it desensitizes us though. I remember when TEN first came out. Before the video...the shock my friends and I felt as high schoolers at the song Jeremy. OMG he brought a gun to school. I remember well thinking the message was he shot his classmates...then later the video and the suicide message but that wasnt our initial takeaway...but if I heard that song today I probably dont even stop and take notice. I mean Cop Killer caused a senate floor debate and protests in the street. The words today wouldnt even be the most shocking thing on the last 5 songs in the playlist...

So does that desensitize us? I dont know. I dont think its to blame either, I just think it is worth at least thinking about the effects.

Media of all sorts, including games, music etc. IMO does desensitize us and also makes some think about "hmmm, what if I did X". I don't think its the root cause (not sure if there is a single root cause) but think it does play a role ... gut feel (with absolutely no supporting evidence) of 20-30%

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes. Their job is to sell guns. So they are in favor of events that increase the sale of guns.

The business world can be a cruel place. People that shorted the housing market in 08 wanted to see people lose their homes. The manufacturers of fighter jets and military equipment want to see endless wars. Opiate makers want to see more addicts.

A leap too far, a Kevin Bacon degree of separation too much for me.

I'm pretty sure gun stores/companies/lobby/supporters are all for fear mongering re: Democrat in office, self defense against gang bangers etc. (include my all time favorite of a zombie apocalypse) and that provides them plenty of sales without hoping for a mass shooting because its good for business.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm all for that. It would have certainly helped limit some of these mass shootings where the individual had been marked dangerous or mentally unstable.

But you'd also need to put a lot of resources into mental health in this country. Not just to spot these people, but to prevent and help those who have issues. I think that's worth it not just for shootings, but for a slew of other societal problems it would help with (substance abuse, domestic violence, etc).

I definitely agree with you in concept.

However, I suspect you and I differ on the definition of "a lot of resources" but will concede it can be higher.

[Chief Rum]

I am currently running a mass school shooting email campaign for a risk managing client and I have done a ton of research on mass shootings.

The numbers in recent years entirely back up a general rise in deaths as a result of mass shootings (usually defined as four or more, not including the perpetrator/shooter). Thesloppy's graph is similar to the ones I found. Data source? The FBI.

[Chief Rum]

Although I will point out thesloppy's graph ended in 2017, by far the worst year for mass shootings, primarily because of the Vegas shooting. Actual numbers dropped in 2018, but that was in relation to the high point of 2017-- 2018 was still very high on relation to the numbers pre-2012.

[thesloppy]

That sounds like some 'fun' research CR. Eeesh.

I think it could even be argued that the since the vector for violent crimes and homicides has been heading in the opposite direction during the same period that actually serves to makes the mass shooting numbers even worse than they appear.

[thesloppy]

I dunno if/where/how it belongs in this conversation, but the book Freakonomics got it's attention & hype years ago largely based on the premise that the timing of the drop in violent crime & murder rates was based almost entirely on the legalization of abortion. The suggestion being that many less babies being born into high-risk situations resulted in that many less criminals 18-21 years later.

A controversial theory to say the least, and one that plenty of folks much smarter than me have both poked holes in and/or supported to the point that it's not necessarily going to shift anybody's thinking one way or the other, but if nothing else I think even that possibility of plausibility speaks to how shifting cultural factors in one area can result in drastic changes to another, seemingly unrelated section of our society.

[JPhillips]

Lead is a much better explanation.

[TeamBills59]

I feel it's appropriate and as an occasional counter to some of the cultural fear-mongering that threatens my sanity, which seems like is very much like your intent, and I want to acknowledge I definitely agree with you in that regard, but that aside I don't think you can use those facts to dismiss the very real rise in mass shootings.

This post is a response to you Rainmaker. I think this conversation is going in a different direction than I planned.

Rainmaker, I never said that America had lower homicide rates than other developed countries.

Thesloppy, I never said that America didn't have many mass shootings or that it wasn't alarming.

I never brought either of those things up. They had nothing to do with my post. My point was the general population of America thinks that the number of homicides in this country is going up at a super high rate and I quickly made a post explaining that it wasn't. That's all.

I feel it's appropriate and as an occasional counter to some of the cultural fear-mongering that threatens my sanity, which seems like is very much like your intent

Yes, my intention was to counter act the fear-mongering.

[CU Tiger]

Rainmaker,
I'm not trying to attack you or single you out, but I also want tohave a productive conversation here. I learn a lot from folks on FOFC, especially folks I dont agree with. So I am responding again...

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm sorry. I didn't mean that weapons are necessarily better [snip] What I mean is civilians now have their hands on more powerful weapons than they used to. The AR-15 Sporter was a commercial failure for decades. People were using handguns and shotguns for home protection. But since the 90's, that has changed.

Point number 1 is your specific quote was

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Weapons are more powerful and have been pushed harder.

I think its dishonest, at best, to say "Weapons are more powerful" and then say "I didnt mean weapons are better" when thats precisely what you said.


Why am I drawing the distinction so hard? Because I think it points directly to one of my main points. The weapons aren't better, and they aren't more accessible. (You make the point that it was available and a commercial failure - I.E. people didnt want it) yet people want them more. They buy them more.

Why is that?

What has driven the demand for it?
That's one of my real curiosities. I mean the NRA is an easy scape-goat. (Full disclosure Ive said here numerous times I am a former NRA member, even paid for an NRA lifetime membership, but I have disassociated several years ago including formally sending them notice of removal from their database request over divergences of opinion)...But is the NRA really solely to blame for influence on all people? Or do we need to examine cultural, media, and societal influences.

What makes some think the AR is suddenly cool? What makes others think they suddenly need a "better" home defense weapon (by the way I'll one back to this in a minute...I think their are better strategic choices)

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you look at the evolution of mass shootings, they've shifted almost exclusively to AR-15 models.

I agree with your larger point though some will argue some semantics, it isnt pertinent to this discussion. What I dont understand is why? The AR15/ M-4 platform isnt the only military style weapon, hell Id posit it isnt even among the 10 best. So why has it taken off? Why do almost every FPS platform base either all or a majority of their weapons on the platform. Is it great marketing and if so who is the genius behind it?


I am a self professed gun nut. I enjoy them. I enjoy shooting. I enjoy the mechanical and engineering aspects of their construction. For obvious reasons I dont like to talk specifics about firearm ownership, but lets state it this way. I have 2 main hobbies - cars and guns. I own 5 "pleasure" vehicles outside of my families commuter vehicles. I have more money value in guns than I do in cars. I have numerous AR/M4 and other similar variant platform guns. My home defense weapon of choice if a pump action shotgun. It is more effective, more reliable and honestly (though inconsequential to my decision) cheaper than an AR piece. So why do so many make the "wrong" choice?

BTW most any truly trained combat expert would make the same choice I make.

So why the AR popularity?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We are talking about the NRA. An organization that has thrived in its white supremacist beliefs. It's highly relevant to the rise in militarization of civilians in this country. It's been the center of their marketing plan for decades.

Their marketing has almost exclusively centered around arming yourselves against "criminal gangbangers" and "inner city thugs" (there words, not mine). Although they do occasionally step out to insinuate you should kill federal officers. Just read through LaPierre's speeches.

They have fought against gun rights when it comes to black people (open carry in California for instance). Been silent when black legal gun owners are mowed down (Philando Castile). Heck, how long has racist apartheid supporter Ted Nugent been on their board?

Without even debating a bit of the hyperbole here...where I take major issue with your comments, and the rhetoric that prevails at FOFC, is the false equivalency of NRA=all gun advocates.
I can line up numerous analogies for you but in short the NRA is the most visible, but it is far from the voice of all 2A advocates. I personally financially support 3 gun and 2A rights advocacy organizations. NRA isnt and never again will be one of them. GOA and USCCA are both much better run organizations. more aligned with my viewpoints. So first assumign tha all gun advicates are equivalent to the NRA is incorrect.



But secondly We are talking about mass shootings, how about telling me how many mass shooters were NRA members?



So the discussion is about mass shooting and you rant about the NRA and how evil it is, when t A) doesnt represnt all gun owners and B) doesnt represent the perpetrators in most of the cases.



Its just a red herring to obfuscate the issue in my opinion.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with you here. One thing I'd add culturally is that I think we shifted from serial killers to mass shooters. There was this fascination with serial killers decades ago and you really don't hear a lot about them nowadays. Are there less or do we just not find them interesting anymore?

I dont think we are less interested in them. The recent success of the Bundy documentaries seems to point to that. I think that technology has made it harder for anyone to perpetrate crimes uncaught for an extended period of time today

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who do you think is buying these guns in mass quantities? The marketing of these companies is comical. Take a look at some of these sites:

hxxps://www.rainierarms.com/ is featuring guns around a movie about a world-class assassin. hxxps://store.ar15.com is selling Punisher shirts. Look at the name of these brands on the sites and their logos and marketing. This shit isn't targeting the average hunter or family man looking for a little self-defense. It's a marketing ploy to make the regular Joe feel like some kind of warrior for purchasing these weapons they'll never need to use in a real life situation.

Again I think you have some stereotype prejudices that I just dont relate to. Sport shooting, competition shooting and tactical shooting groups while they share some commonality with hunters they are distinctly different and separate groups.
I am not a competition shooter. Have no real interest in it. But one of my best friends took it up recently and Ive went and cheered him on at a couple of recent comps. Much the same way you go watch a buddy play soccer, or ultimate or drone race or whatever...

Heck just go to Youtube and search up 3 gun competition or 'National Shooting Sports Foundation' I think you might be surprised.
Their participants (which the last comp I went to for my buddy they had 240 entrants in a small town in rural NC) look much more like cross fit competitors than the character you are describing. I mean dude shoots with former college football and baseball players, current and former Marines, Navy, Police etc. he idea that the only people who buy guns are weak or feel the need to com
pensate is just wrong.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I have no issue with most guns either. I'm not a ban it kind of person. Just find that stuff pathetic. And I find the people who feel they need to carry inside a Starbucks while they pick up a latte to be some of the biggest pussies around. Not everyone is like that, but I've always felt that most of those hardcore gun guys who need laser dots on their AR-15 to be compensating for how weak they feel they are.

Again I am not sure what jades your viewpoint. I dont live where you live and see or experience hat you see or experience.
I would never give Starbucks a dime of my money, unless my daughter is with me and wants a Frappucino and then we go there. So I dont know the crowd or the norm there.
I will say this, when I get dressed and leave the house I am armed. It is more common for me to be without underwear than it is for me to be without a weapon. But you will stand right beside me in any line in any store and never know it. The guys who feel the need to open carry or show off...yeah they are attention whores and I have no use for them either.



The true conceal carry guys you are around, you dont know they carry.



And speaking just for me, you wont know unless I or my family is threatened. Period. I would watch someone I dont know get killed without drawing even if I was armed. I carry for the protection of myself and my family only I feel like that is my responsibility to do so.I carry whether it is legal or not. And I will not reveal that fact unless it is absolutely necessary. And I will never hold someone at gun point. If I draw I will fire every time, without exception. And will fire until I am out of ammo or the threat is confirmed eliminated. It is an absolute last resort. Period.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Why is that?

What has driven the demand for it?
That's one of my real curiosities. I mean the NRA is an easy scape-goat. (Full disclosure Ive said here numerous times I am a former NRA member, even paid for an NRA lifetime membership, but I have disassociated several years ago including formally sending them notice of removal from their database request over divergences of opinion)...But is the NRA really solely to blame for influence on all people? Or do we need to examine cultural, media, and societal influences.

The reason is marketing. And the reason there is more marketing toward weapons like the AR-15 is because they are much more profitable to sell than handguns.

Look at how ads have changed. Guns are marketed as "patriotic". They're marketed as a sign of masculinity. No longer are you buying a tool for hunting or a handgun for next to your bed, you can now be John Wick. A segment of the population eats that up. Just as they would eat up Bud Light ads that insinuated you could hang out with babes in bikinis if you drank it.

I agree with your larger point though some will argue some semantics, it isnt pertinent to this discussion. What I dont understand is why? The AR15/ M-4 platform isnt the only military style weapon, hell Id posit it isnt even among the 10 best. So why has it taken off? Why do almost every FPS platform base either all or a majority of their weapons on the platform. Is it great marketing and if so who is the genius behind it?

Because everyone in the military learned off an M-16. It's a good weapon that is easy for smaller, weaker individuals to use. Very modular and parts are standardized across the industry. It's cheap. And you can personalize each one like a Barbie doll. Mix that with some slick marketing and that's why it's popular.

My home defense weapon of choice if a pump action shotgun. It is more effective, more reliable and honestly (though inconsequential to my decision) cheaper than an AR piece. So why do so many make the "wrong" choice?

BTW most any truly trained combat expert would make the same choice I make.

So why the AR popularity?

Because they aren't buying it for home defense. They are buying it because it makes them feel cool. Like I said, marketing of guns has changed. It's not about use, it's about how it becomes part of your identity.

I can line up numerous analogies for you but in short the NRA is the most visible, but it is far from the voice of all 2A advocates. I personally financially support 3 gun and 2A rights advocacy organizations. NRA isnt and never again will be one of them. GOA and USCCA are both much better run organizations. more aligned with my viewpoints. So first assumign tha all gun advicates are equivalent to the NRA is incorrect.

I don't know what your viewpoints are. But GOA is more extreme than the NRA. Their founder has spoken at many neo-Nazi/KKK/white supremacist rallies in the past. He has called for Christian militias to form death squads in this country. And has praised Timothy McVeigh for doing "God's work" when he slaughtered 160 people in Oklahoma City.

If that's more aligned with your viewpoints, so be it.

[CU Tiger]

I've never seen any such comments from H.L. Richardson, could you provide a link or any source/context? Certainly if he has espoused Neo-Nazi belief that'd be a deal breaker for me and Id withdraw my support.

The other thing is you seem real hung up on John Wick, I had never heard thatname in my life until you called me a Wick wannabe in a separate interaction on this board and I googled him. Admitedly I dont watch movies or really any TV beyond sporting events or documentaries, so maybe he is this generation's Eastwood or Wayne...but it seems to be a quick go to for you and I'm not sure I understand why.

Not everyone who buys a firearm hunts or wants it just for protection some want them just to shoot for fun or recreation. You seem to think this use isnt appropriate or that these people want to be some hero.

Does everyone who buys a basketball want to be LeBron or are there some 40 year olds who just want to shoot some hoops?

I probably need to stop wasting both our times we arent progessing any discussion and just largely talking past each other at this point.

[Shkspr]

You know damn well he was talking about Larry Pratt, [redacted].

[RainMaker]

You know who Larry Pratt is and what his views are. You state that the organization he runs matches your viewpoints. We can do the math.

John Wick is just an example of marketing. I literally linked to one of the biggest online gun stores that was using him as their featured ad. "Own the guns of John Wick". I pointed out the Punisher too which is used on a lot of these sites. Just showing these aren't being marketed for hunters and people looking for a little protection at home.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A leap too far, a Kevin Bacon degree of separation too much for me.

I'm pretty sure gun stores/companies/lobby/supporters are all for fear mongering re: Democrat in office, self defense against gang bangers etc. (include my all time favorite of a zombie apocalypse) and that provides them plenty of sales without hoping for a mass shooting because its good for business.

You have more faith in humanity than I do. Read through the latest happenings in the opioid lawsuits. They were openly pushing to create addicts. Even lied about the addictiveness of their product.

In the end they knew their actions would lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.

If they don't need mass shootings to generate sales, why does some of their marketing strategy center around those shootings?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

You know damn well he was talking about Larry Pratt, you spineless little shit.

Sigh...if the roles were reversed Id be on a long vacation at a minimum for a personal attack but since you hold the popular view all will be forgiven.


And for what its worth, my "alignment" is with their gun stance...

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You have more faith in humanity than I do. Read through the latest happenings in the opioid lawsuits. They were openly pushing to create addicts. Even lied about the addictiveness of their product.

In the end they knew their actions would lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.

If they don't need mass shootings to generate sales, why does some of their marketing strategy center around those shootings?

Yeah, the article(s) about the Sackler family pretty much served to remove all my faith in (corporate) humanity as well:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/h...-lawsuits.html

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Sigh...if the roles were reversed Id be on a long vacation at a minimum for a personal attack but since you hold the popular view all will be forgiven.


And for what its worth, my "alignment" is with their gun stance...

I don't know if that distinction is even worth the virtual ink it cost to write it. If the dude is the public head of a firearm organization (and I can't claim to know the first thing about this situation or the people involved FWIW) and also consistently, openly supporting violently racist entities you can't point to him and his organization as someone you agree with, but only on very particular points to be revealed at your convenience, without assuming those values yourself (to the eyes of folks who don't know you better, at the very least).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You have more faith in humanity than I do. Read through the latest happenings in the opioid lawsuits. They were openly pushing to create addicts. Even lied about the addictiveness of their product.

In the end they knew their actions would lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals.

If they don't need mass shootings to generate sales, why does some of their marketing strategy center around those shootings?

Your example equate to big tobacco pre-90's and I get that. Nevertheless, does not equate to rooting/hoping for mass shootings to generate sales.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because they aren't buying it for home defense. They are buying it because it makes them feel cool. Like I said, marketing of guns has changed. It's not about use, it's about how it becomes part of your identity.

This comment was in context of the AR. I do think focusing on AR is missing the big picture.

When you take gun ownership as a whole it is primarily protection.

Guns in America: Attitudes and Experiences of Americans | Pew Research Center

Two-thirds of gun owners say protection is a major reason they own a gun. By comparison, about four-in-ten (38%) cite hunting as a major reason and three-in-ten cite sport shooting, including target shooting, trap and skeet. Fewer point to a gun collection (13%) or to their job (8%) as being central to why they own a gun. To be sure, for many gun owners, these reasons overlap: 44% offer more than one major reason for owning a gun.

Owner of multiple guns and never been interested in the NRA. Not necessarily agreeing with you insinuation they are a racist organization, but I do agree they are too extreme for me re: gun policy.

Overall, 19% of all U.S. gun owners say they belong to the NRA. Republican and Republican-leaning gun owners are twice as likely as Democratic and Democratic-leaning gun owners to say they belong to the NRA (24% vs. 11%). And, among Republicans, conservatives have significantly higher rates of membership – 28% vs. 17% of moderate or liberal Republicans.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Sigh...if the roles were reversed Id be on a long vacation at a minimum for a personal attack but since you hold the popular view all will be forgiven.


And for what its worth, my "alignment" is with their gun stance...

Sometimes mods have real lives, but the tinfoil hat fits you well!

[tarcone]

Not sure if any of you care. But 7 were shot tonight in a st louis home. 3 died, 1 in critical condition.

But this is just an inner city shooting. Go on with your lives.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Not sure if any of you care. But 7 were shot tonight in a st louis home. 3 died, 1 in critical condition.

But this is just an inner city shooting. Go on with your lives.

It's been this way for years. This is not new in 2019.

When I was in the 8th grade(89-90), going to a public DC junior high school, I witnessed 2 kids get shot at about a week apart. No one mentioned anything about school shootings back then.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Not sure if any of you care. But 7 were shot tonight in a st louis home. 3 died, 1 in critical condition.

But this is just an inner city shooting. Go on with your lives.

Dude it's a gangland execution. Sorry but it's not a bunch of innocent 1st graders being gunned down by a psychopath. I mean outside of just trying to take the other side on this one not sure what your point is. Of course a school shooting is getting more coverage, of course we are more concerned about a school shooting. I mean I send my kids to school, I don't send them to crackhouses in gang infested North St. Louis.

Should there be a conversation about innocent bystanders in North St. Louis? Absolutely. Does the press salivate over school shootings while ignoring inner city violence? Of course. But this story aint it and let's not act like it equates to a school shooting at all.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

It's been this way for years. This is not new in 2019.

When I was in the 8th grade(89-90), going to a public DC junior high school, I witnessed 2 kids get shot at about a week apart. No one mentioned anything about school shootings back then.

There was a really interesting article several months back about the Parkland kids meeting with Chicagoland activists. One of the quotes that stood out was that the white kids worried about being shot while the black kids worried about being shot on the way to school.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Sometimes mods have real lives, but the tinfoil hat fits you well!

But there's no bias here, not at all. Not when calling out the double standards is excused in a disgraceful manner like this.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But there's no bias here, not at all. Not when calling out the double standards is excused in a disgraceful manner like this.

The fact that you are still able to post here is the only proof we need that there is an intentional effort to limit bias.