LogFAQs > #888800284

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.

Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.

Yeah, I'm a teetotaler, so I'm not going to defend alcohol at all.
But I'm not sure what giving alcohol companies money would really accomplish. NRA is a lobbying group, not a company, first of all. And what legislation would an alcohol lobbyist push for that could increase deaths?
NRA meanwhile has seemingly limitless options, like arming teachers (for "safety"), then arming students (for "safety"), then move on to arming doctors and nurses (for "safety"), then perhaps chipping away at laws to track movement of guns through the "Iron Pipeline" (for "safety"), and getting larger ammo magazines allowed so you can fire off dozens of shots before needing to reload...cause you just can't be too "safe," you know?

Paying the alcohol companies would be like buying entire communities a round of drinks. It could also be used to lobby to roll back alcohol-related laws, including helping kids drink at younger ages which helps to make it even more socially acceptable (currently a third of Americans don't drink) and to get them addicted. Keep in mind that Muslims have enough sense to realize the dangers of alcohol and therefore should be able to recognize its potential as a weapon.

As for arming teachers, it would certainly cut down on the number of school attacks and SAVE lives rather than cost them. After all, even in the absence of guns, you have mass stabbings and other incidents.

As for the uproar over larger ammo capacity, it's a silly argument considering that:
A) If your rate of fire remains unchanged, the advantage from improved capacity is somewhat diminished. And keep in mind that the NRA is leading the charge when it comes to calling for restrictions on bump stocks (which increase the rate of fire)
B) The number of people killed by high-capacity weapons in mass shootings is tiny compared to the overall people killed.

streamofthesky posted...

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?

I think you're missing the boat on why handguns are used. Rifles, shotguns, etc, have far fewer restrictions than handguns yet handguns are far more widely used in murder. And not just twice as many or three times as many, but we're talking TWENTY times as much. It's not an availability issue, it's a convenience issue. Handguns are easy to carry and conceal. Rifles, shotguns, semi-auto long-guns are not. That's overlooking that there are semi-auto handuns.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash