Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I just joined the NRA

townhall.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#41

Post by hga »

jmadsen wrote: post #40
hga wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is a really serious outlier when it comes to not having a "love" of confrontation! I mean, their word for "you're wrong" doesn't even have that semantic content. I suspect America is a lot closer to the middle than it.

I wasn't comparing to Japan, merely stating how it took an effort to change. America may be in the middle confrontation-wise, but when you add in the ease of obtaining a handgun, you get the current problem.

Debatable, see my research on non-gun US and all method U.K. murder rates, which are really close: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935644

I take this as evidence we're simply a violent people, however we're armed or not.

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#42

Post by Steko »

hga wrote: post #39
Steko wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"when it comes to mass shootings Europe has been doing worse than the US as of late" This is false. "school shootings" Europe: 65, US: 85 "Other spree shootings" Europe: 93, US: 121 Europe has over twice the population of the US.

I'm only counting "Western Europe", excepting the former East Germany, west of the old Iron Curtain for a whole bunch of reasons. Where do you get 85 school shooting deaths (?) in this century? VT 32 + Newtown 24 = 56. (In all cases I do not count the shooter if he died.) Plus I'm also pointing out that there were a lot more school shooting incidents. It's too late for me to go into spree shootings, but ... when I ju…

"Where do you get 85 ..."

I just output the wiki lists it appeared you were working from. Once you start selectively editing you open yourself up to acts of cherry picking so I didn't edit anything. It's possible that I missed string entries that didn't follow a sort on the date column, I'll take a look again later but here is my list for us school spree shootings this century:

Lanza 27 Goh 7 Kazmierczak 5 Cho 32 Roberts 5 Weise 9 Total 85

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#43

Post by hga »

Steko wrote: post #42
hga wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm only counting "Western Europe", excepting the former East Germany, west of the old Iron Curtain for a whole bunch of reasons. Where do you get 85 school shooting deaths (?) in this century? VT 32 + Newtown 24 = 56. (In all cases I do not count the shooter if he died.) Plus I'm also pointing out that there were a lot more school shooting incidents. It's too late for me to go into spree shootings, but ... when I ju…

"Where do you get 85 ..." I just output the wiki lists it appeared you were working from. Once you start selectively editing you open yourself up to acts of cherry picking so I didn't edit anything. It's possible that I missed string entries that didn't follow a sort on the date column, I'll take a look again later but here is my list for us school spree shootings this century: Lanza 27 Goh 7 Kazmierczak 5 Cho 32 Rob…

Fair enough on the US side, although your addition on others still looks to be off, e.g. I get 53 for European schools, and you still haven't addressed the 157.

But arguing over simple body counts reeks of Vietnam War insanity; that Europe is not doing well in this is undeniable, worse or not is a debatable point, the statement that "Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns..." is obviously falsifiable in every particular, i.e. they have lots of guns and they misuse them as well.

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#44

Post by strlen »

rdl wrote: post #36
hga wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want effectiveness, though, I only recommend the NRA (reluctantly, details upon request) and the SAF, since the latter has been the major driver in the lawsuits that started with Heller . The JPFO has done some good propaganda, but the last time I checked went off in a bad tangent with L. Neil Smith (who got too extreme for me not too many books after The Probability Broach ). The GAO is too partisan and into…

SAF is probably my favorite. Firearms Policy Coalition (which seems to be Calguns + SAF) is also nice, and new. My big problem with NRA is how spammy they are to members. NRA-ILA is one thing, but being offered overpriced auto insurance, etc. all the time was really annoying. I eventually got off all the marketing lists, but it took a few tries.

I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby against stupid gun laws.

However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the longer term (10+ years out) outlook.

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#45

Post by hga »

strlen wrote: post #44
rdl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAF is probably my favorite. Firearms Policy Coalition (which seems to be Calguns + SAF) is also nice, and new. My big problem with NRA is how spammy they are to members. NRA-ILA is one thing, but being offered overpriced auto insurance, etc. all the time was really annoying. I eventually got off all the marketing lists, but it took a few tries.

I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby against stupid gun laws. However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the longer term (10+ years…

That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA.

I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are.

I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have had a nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes from Florida in 1987 to Wisconson in 2011, totaling 42 states (with Vermont, Washington and maybe Indiana already having been there before it started)?

8 million outstanding licenses and counting, plus who knows in the 4 states with "Constitutional Carry" (no license required if you're not forbidden), Arizona having a substantial population (6.5 million, 15th in the nation).

And I don't believe the gun grabber propaganda that the same people are just buying more guns; for one extreme claim, someone did the math and came out with an average $100K investment per gun owning citizen.

But, yes, the NRA's pop-culture stuff, especially gaming, was an own goal and doesn't help in the long term. But there are plenty of RKBA types like myself who are happy to poison young people's minds about the NRA ^_^, so we'll see what happens after we get past the current mess.

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#46

Post by strlen »

hga wrote: post #45
strlen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby against stupid gun laws. However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the longer term (10+ years…

That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA. I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are. I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have h…

> especially gaming

Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes."

I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#47

Post by hga »

strlen wrote: post #46
hga wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA. I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are. I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have h…

> especially gaming Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes." I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

I would modify the above to:

"but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by current first amendment jurisprudence"

You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.

Re: Why I just joined the NRA

#48

Post by strlen »

hga wrote: post #47
strlen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially gaming Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes." I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

I would modify the above to: " but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by current first amendment jurisprudence" You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.

7-2 decision seems fairly solid to me. Breyer is being... Breyer (whose judicial philosophy seems to be more of "that's just like your opinion, man..."), and I would say Thomas' dissent is more focused on "in loco parentis" role of the state (in line with his other decisions involving minors) -- which I haven't really noticed amongst other prominent jurists (given Thomas is generally very solid on 1A).

The law overturned in Brown [originally -- in irony of all ironies -- Schwarzenegger] vs. Entertainment Merchants Association was created by a fellow who is currently better known for gems like these:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb...

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...

Post reply on HN