6 ms·

Why I just joined the NRA

10 points by kcima 14y ago

ericcumbee 14y ago
I applied for my Georgia Firearms (Concealed Carry) Licence today. My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition) Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns." To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns.
- phinnaeus 14y ago
  I'm not in favor of gun regulation, but I disagree that the way to have less violence is to have more guns. I just wish people liked guns less.
  - ericcumbee 14y ago
    12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well. I dont really think people that like guns are the problem though. I would not classify myself as someone that "likes" guns. On the other hand i know people that "like" guns, and it's not that they likes the power a gun has, but they certainly understand and respect it, and therefore take extra care. They like them because they appreciate them for the same reason that people appreciate works of art, or sportscars. For the Craftsmanship, for the minior details that went into the design of the gun, for the historical value of the gun.
    - Steko 14y ago
      "12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well." Pretty sure they used large aircraft to kill people and no one is crying tyranny over the idea that large aircraft need a bunch of regulations to ensure public safety.
  - redspark 14y ago
    You mean we can wish problems away? Man, I have been doing this all wrong! Guns have absolutely no effect on violence. Treat people better, make sure they have access to opportunity and caring about one another is how you reduce violence. I own more than my share of guns and they have never made me violent, or invoked violence. I have a few knives, they too have never invoked violence in me.
- Steko 14y ago
  "My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition)" Maybe a better comparison is gun control in other countries. "Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."" So what, "some truth to it" is a shockingly low standard. "To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns." To me this is nonsense because: (1) Countries with gun control have neutralized gun violence without arming the entire populace. (2) Allowing the entire US population to arm freely has had a net negative effect on controlling insane people with guns.
  - kcima 14y ago
    "England has a complete ban on guns. No UK citizen can carry a gun. Period. Not a one. Result? UK violent crime rate is 3 1/3 times higher than America. The FBI reports 386 violent crimes per 100,000 in the USA. The UK Home Office reports 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 in England."
    - Steko 14y ago
      Those statistics are not apples to apples. Notably the UK started classifying common assault (no injury) as a violent crime which more than doubled the "violent crime" rate. You might ask why the people who fed you this talking point used a clearly deceptive statistic instead of an obvious one like murder.
      - kcima 14y ago
        They sure are apples to apples. Violent crime in the US vs violent crime in the UK. These are not clearly deceptive statistics. Murder is not the only kind of violent crime. Allowing people to protect themselves is a great deterrent against violent crime of all types. That is what these statistics point to. Why do you so easily want to give up these hard-won freedoms?
ltcoleman 14y ago
I'm not completely convinced all of his facts are backed up, but I do agree with his sentiments. Gun control will never be an answer to violent crime, far too easy to obtain illegally. I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban. I agree that mental illness awareness is a much better place to spend the $500 million Obama just asked for gun control. More government always fixes things! .... right?!
- johng 14y ago
  If you are not convinced of his facts, check the relevant websites yourself. There's a great drill-down on the statistics in this video and you can go to the same (official) websites and pull the stats yourself: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0 https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0
  - Steko 14y ago
    Or you could look at the US and UK murder rate and conclude that gun control radically reduces murders even when one country is possibly more violent than another.
    - kcima 14y ago
      You are looking at only one type of violence, murder, and then assuming that murder rates are affected by guns. Then you turn around and say that one country is possibly just naturally more violent than another and it has nothing to do with the deterrent affect guns have on violent crimes of any kind. Hmmm..
      - Steko 14y ago
        Murder provides a nice apples to apples comparison because, as noted elsewhere on this page, violent crime statistics for the US and UK is an apples to pineapples comparison.
- Steko 14y ago
  "far too easy to obtain illegally." Please go to Japan and obtain a gun illegally as proof of this claim. " I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban." Bad regulation is proof that all regulation doesn't work! ... right?
jmadsen 14y ago
The way to break gun violence is to teach people that the way to solve differences is not to make sure you're a bigger bad ass than anyone who might come in conflict with you. Americans don't have a love of guns, they have a love of confrontation. That was the most difficult cultural thing I had to learn when I moved to Japan.
- hga 14y ago
  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.
  - jmadsen 14y ago
    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.
    - hga 14y ago
      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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935644 I take this as evidence we're simply a violent people, however we're armed or not.
johng 14y ago
I'm surprised this type of stuff hasn't gotten more attention here on HN. What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment. I will side with the forefathers who made this counter 100 out of 100 times in relation to any recent politicians. No one ever said that Freedom was easy or that it didn't come at a cost. It does and always will. But maintaining freedom and our core principles as laid out long ago should be a goal we never stop working towards. This seems like a huge step backwards.
- retube 14y ago
  > What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment So what? Maybe the 2nd amendment is wrong, or a bad idea, or a 200 year old proclamation that is no longer relevant in modern times? People's attachment to this clause is just... fundamentalist. And why do people insist on equating gun ownership with freedom? You're not allowed to own bombs or missiles, does that also mean I am not free? There's lots of things we're not free to do which actually makes us freer: not to steal, or house break, or kill people. I for one am glad my freedom is curtailed in this manner. It means i can live in a (largely) peaceful and safe society, and am free to go about my business with minimum threat to my existence or assets. And further adding to my sense of security is the knowledge that I am very unlikely to ever be threatened, injured or killed by a gun as almost no one owns one here - because they are illegal. Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns, what makes american's so special? why do you need to own a gun? (yeah sure, self defence, but if no one had them in the first place that wouldn't be necessary)
  - johng 14y ago
    What makes American's so special is the fact that we are a unique country. A country that was built on our core values, as they are laid out in our constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us wrong. We are the same country that came to the worlds aid (and europe, especially) during WW1 and WW2. Our beliefs aren't perfect. They just happen to be less wrong then others, IMHO... and in the opinion of a large majority of our country. If you can't understand why the right to keep and bear arms is an essential aspect of being american then you are short sighted and have refused to see how history repeats itself over and over throughout mankind. I 100% believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said the following: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Once you start picking apart our constitution, little by little, you soon open up the flood gates for rights and liberties to be taken away much more easily. They can already wire-tap without a warrant. Now they want the guns. This is how it starts... First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. Lets modify the above... First they came for the assault rifles, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one. Then they came for the bolt action rifles, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one. Then they came for the pistols, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one. Then they came for me, and there was no one left with the capabilities to defend me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... Having the ability to arm yourself and defend yourself and uprise against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT should the need arise is specifically why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was... and I believe they felt very strongly about this. It's #2 on the list after all. When we try to outsmart the people that made our great country, we usually mess it up. Just my 2c.
thisisdallas 14y ago
I agree that making something illegal won't make it go away and that is why I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else. I'm not talking about wacky conspiracy theories or a government military takeover but something along the lines of someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation. I don't think it's "to protect Americans" but to pad the pocketbooks of politicians, appease lobbyist or some other sort of twisted expression of this recent uprise in government corruption. The article mentions a staggering obvious truth, "Why would we rush to ban guns, when almost all of our mass murders and most of our violent crimes occur in places with the strictest gun control?" There is also the fact that the proposed gun control laws all talk about assault rifles. That's fine, go after assault rifles but don't overlook handguns too. Last year in Chicago, more people were killed by handguns than the total number of those killed in all of the mass shootings over the last decade. How can those proposing gun control ignore that? Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US yet it has one of the highest rates of murder in the US…most of which results from the use of handguns. Yet, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are the problem….
- Steko 14y ago
  "I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else..... someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation.' So you're saying that the universal outrage over all these children being murdered couldn't possibly lead to good faith attempts to reform society to prevent similar events? You're saying it's probably a front for ... something? That the powerful archery, knife and karate lobbies were just waiting for any pretext to get rid of guns so they can start raking in the bucks?
  - kcima 14y ago
    No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns from everyone because of this. It is not logical. 32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car. If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles? I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to understand? Let me put it a different way. Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in prison. Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.
johng 14y ago
This is a great video on what needs to be said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR3t7j2tUec http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h...
rdl 14y ago
If you're considering joining the NRA for the same reasons as in this article, I'd strongly suggest you also join the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is also well regarded, and if you're a Californian, Calguns (or in other states, your state's gun association).
- hga 14y ago
  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 conservative and Republican causes beyond the RKBA to be of much use even in their ratings, and they have very very little influence.
  - rdl 14y ago
    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.
    - strlen 14y ago
      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.
      - hga 14y ago

10 points by kcima 14y ago

I applied for my Georgia Firearms (Concealed Carry) Licence today. My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition) Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns." To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns.

phinnaeus 14y ago
I'm not in favor of gun regulation, but I disagree that the way to have less violence is to have more guns. I just wish people liked guns less.
- ericcumbee 14y ago
  12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well. I dont really think people that like guns are the problem though. I would not classify myself as someone that "likes" guns. On the other hand i know people that "like" guns, and it's not that they likes the power a gun has, but they certainly understand and respect it, and therefore take extra care. They like them because they appreciate them for the same reason that people appreciate works of art, or sportscars. For the Craftsmanship, for the minior details that went into the design of the gun, for the historical value of the gun.
  - Steko 14y ago
    "12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well." Pretty sure they used large aircraft to kill people and no one is crying tyranny over the idea that large aircraft need a bunch of regulations to ensure public safety.
- redspark 14y ago
  You mean we can wish problems away? Man, I have been doing this all wrong! Guns have absolutely no effect on violence. Treat people better, make sure they have access to opportunity and caring about one another is how you reduce violence. I own more than my share of guns and they have never made me violent, or invoked violence. I have a few knives, they too have never invoked violence in me.
Steko 14y ago
"My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition)" Maybe a better comparison is gun control in other countries. "Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."" So what, "some truth to it" is a shockingly low standard. "To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns." To me this is nonsense because: (1) Countries with gun control have neutralized gun violence without arming the entire populace. (2) Allowing the entire US population to arm freely has had a net negative effect on controlling insane people with guns.
- kcima 14y ago
  "England has a complete ban on guns. No UK citizen can carry a gun. Period. Not a one. Result? UK violent crime rate is 3 1/3 times higher than America. The FBI reports 386 violent crimes per 100,000 in the USA. The UK Home Office reports 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 in England."
  - Steko 14y ago
    Those statistics are not apples to apples. Notably the UK started classifying common assault (no injury) as a violent crime which more than doubled the "violent crime" rate. You might ask why the people who fed you this talking point used a clearly deceptive statistic instead of an obvious one like murder.
    - kcima 14y ago
      They sure are apples to apples. Violent crime in the US vs violent crime in the UK. These are not clearly deceptive statistics. Murder is not the only kind of violent crime. Allowing people to protect themselves is a great deterrent against violent crime of all types. That is what these statistics point to. Why do you so easily want to give up these hard-won freedoms?

ltcoleman 14y ago

I'm not completely convinced all of his facts are backed up, but I do agree with his sentiments. Gun control will never be an answer to violent crime, far too easy to obtain illegally. I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban. I agree that mental illness awareness is a much better place to spend the $500 million Obama just asked for gun control. More government always fixes things! .... right?!

johng 14y ago
If you are not convinced of his facts, check the relevant websites yourself. There's a great drill-down on the statistics in this video and you can go to the same (official) websites and pull the stats yourself: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0 https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0
- Steko 14y ago
  Or you could look at the US and UK murder rate and conclude that gun control radically reduces murders even when one country is possibly more violent than another.
  - kcima 14y ago
    You are looking at only one type of violence, murder, and then assuming that murder rates are affected by guns. Then you turn around and say that one country is possibly just naturally more violent than another and it has nothing to do with the deterrent affect guns have on violent crimes of any kind. Hmmm..
    - Steko 14y ago
      Murder provides a nice apples to apples comparison because, as noted elsewhere on this page, violent crime statistics for the US and UK is an apples to pineapples comparison.
Steko 14y ago
"far too easy to obtain illegally." Please go to Japan and obtain a gun illegally as proof of this claim. " I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban." Bad regulation is proof that all regulation doesn't work! ... right?

jmadsen 14y ago

The way to break gun violence is to teach people that the way to solve differences is not to make sure you're a bigger bad ass than anyone who might come in conflict with you. Americans don't have a love of guns, they have a love of confrontation. That was the most difficult cultural thing I had to learn when I moved to Japan.

hga 14y ago
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.
- jmadsen 14y ago
  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.
  - hga 14y ago
    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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935644 I take this as evidence we're simply a violent people, however we're armed or not.

johng 14y ago

I'm surprised this type of stuff hasn't gotten more attention here on HN. What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment. I will side with the forefathers who made this counter 100 out of 100 times in relation to any recent politicians. No one ever said that Freedom was easy or that it didn't come at a cost. It does and always will. But maintaining freedom and our core principles as laid out long ago should be a goal we never stop working towards. This seems like a huge step backwards.

retube 14y ago
> What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment So what? Maybe the 2nd amendment is wrong, or a bad idea, or a 200 year old proclamation that is no longer relevant in modern times? People's attachment to this clause is just... fundamentalist. And why do people insist on equating gun ownership with freedom? You're not allowed to own bombs or missiles, does that also mean I am not free? There's lots of things we're not free to do which actually makes us freer: not to steal, or house break, or kill people. I for one am glad my freedom is curtailed in this manner. It means i can live in a (largely) peaceful and safe society, and am free to go about my business with minimum threat to my existence or assets. And further adding to my sense of security is the knowledge that I am very unlikely to ever be threatened, injured or killed by a gun as almost no one owns one here - because they are illegal. Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns, what makes american's so special? why do you need to own a gun? (yeah sure, self defence, but if no one had them in the first place that wouldn't be necessary)
- johng 14y ago
  What makes American's so special is the fact that we are a unique country. A country that was built on our core values, as they are laid out in our constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us wrong. We are the same country that came to the worlds aid (and europe, especially) during WW1 and WW2. Our beliefs aren't perfect. They just happen to be less wrong then others, IMHO... and in the opinion of a large majority of our country. If you can't understand why the right to keep and bear arms is an essential aspect of being american then you are short sighted and have refused to see how history repeats itself over and over throughout mankind. I 100% believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said the following: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Once you start picking apart our constitution, little by little, you soon open up the flood gates for rights and liberties to be taken away much more easily. They can already wire-tap without a warrant. Now they want the guns. This is how it starts... First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. Lets modify the above... First they came for the assault rifles, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one. Then they came for the bolt action rifles, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one. Then they came for the pistols, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one. Then they came for me, and there was no one left with the capabilities to defend me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... Having the ability to arm yourself and defend yourself and uprise against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT should the need arise is specifically why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was... and I believe they felt very strongly about this. It's #2 on the list after all. When we try to outsmart the people that made our great country, we usually mess it up. Just my 2c.

thisisdallas 14y ago

I agree that making something illegal won't make it go away and that is why I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else. I'm not talking about wacky conspiracy theories or a government military takeover but something along the lines of someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation. I don't think it's "to protect Americans" but to pad the pocketbooks of politicians, appease lobbyist or some other sort of twisted expression of this recent uprise in government corruption. The article mentions a staggering obvious truth, "Why would we rush to ban guns, when almost all of our mass murders and most of our violent crimes occur in places with the strictest gun control?" There is also the fact that the proposed gun control laws all talk about assault rifles. That's fine, go after assault rifles but don't overlook handguns too. Last year in Chicago, more people were killed by handguns than the total number of those killed in all of the mass shootings over the last decade. How can those proposing gun control ignore that? Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US yet it has one of the highest rates of murder in the US…most of which results from the use of handguns. Yet, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are the problem….

Steko 14y ago
"I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else..... someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation.' So you're saying that the universal outrage over all these children being murdered couldn't possibly lead to good faith attempts to reform society to prevent similar events? You're saying it's probably a front for ... something? That the powerful archery, knife and karate lobbies were just waiting for any pretext to get rid of guns so they can start raking in the bucks?
- kcima 14y ago
  No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns from everyone because of this. It is not logical. 32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car. If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles? I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to understand? Let me put it a different way. Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in prison. Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.

johng 14y ago

This is a great video on what needs to be said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR3t7j2tUec http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h...

rdl 14y ago

If you're considering joining the NRA for the same reasons as in this article, I'd strongly suggest you also join the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is also well regarded, and if you're a Californian, Calguns (or in other states, your state's gun association).

hga 14y ago
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 conservative and Republican causes beyond the RKBA to be of much use even in their ratings, and they have very very little influence.
- rdl 14y ago
  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.
  - strlen 14y ago
    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.
    - hga 14y ago