Yeti cuts ties with NRA

[diamond k]

Originally Posted by EZM

Oh and before you call me an anti - maybe think about the fact that my family and I own black guns, and have raised money to do tons of education for gun safety, gun advocacy, etc...

My late father, was founder of the club, donated the land to the society where the range still sits today, and donated the land where the Sportsmen still have their camp.

So check your "anti" comments at the door and at least respectfully consider my perspective as I have yours.

Thank you EZM as you have expressed exactly my stance on this topic but you have explained it much clearer and eloquently than I would be able to.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by diamond k

I definitely did not bow out the conversation I chose to bow out of a dialogue with someone that that has absolutely no interest in having a conversation without blaming me for the ills of the world because I did not believe in his perceptions of the world.

Now that is just a false accusation.

How would I blame you for the ills of the world?

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Now that is just a false accusation.

How would I blame you for the ills of the world?

You do realize that you are arguing with him about being arguementative, right?

Case Closed!

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

You do realize that you are arguing with him about being arguementative, right?

Case Closed!

I do, and I won't let false accusations slide. So far he has done that twice.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Maybe those DEMANDING certain actions from the NRA don't know what they are talking about?
Have you actually researched any of your "obvious" solutions? Too many people think that they know what works, because. Far too many useless laws are the result of people "knowing" what works rather than researching what actually works.
Quite a few of the past mass shootings resulted because agencies ignore existing law, or fail to comply with it. If a mass shooter announces his intention for years, commits assault, makes death threats and is ignored, does that mean gun laws are lax, or is there a problem with enforcement?
If a mass shooter should be barred from possessing firearms, but his records are not forwarded to the FBI, do we have a problem with gun laws or enforcement?
It's easy to call the NRA names if you don't know the details of the issues being discussed, but they are not extremist, they are informed.

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts...d-checks-nics/

One thing one looks for when trying to find a solution to a problem is what is the common factor.

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
Texas Church: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15

There is a reason for that. Wonder what that may be?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by muledriver

One thing one looks for when trying to find a solution to a problem is what is the common factor.

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
Texas Church: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15

There is a reason for that. Wonder what that may be?

1) in firearm homicides, FAR more people die by handguns than AR-15s. So do you only want to address the most dramatic incidents, or do you want to address the more frequent incidents

2) if the USA was to act on AR-15s, what is your proposed course of action?

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by Newview01

1) in firearm homicides, FAR more people die by handguns than AR-15s. So do you only want to address the most dramatic incidents, or do you want to address the more frequent incidents

You see no issues that only one type of gun is used in these mass murder incidents?

2) if the USA was to act on AR-15s, what is your proposed course of action?

Start with licensing of WHO buys. We in Canada require special license for handguns, as well as extra training, right? Those are not a bad solutions for those that want an AR-15 or equivalent. And yes, I am very aware of the 2A. As well as SCOTUS cases which allow for restrictions. In particular in Kolbe v. Hogan, 17-127, and Norman v. Florida, 17-68, they confirmed that assault rifles can be restricted, and confirmed their Heller decision of 2008.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by muledriver

You see no issues that only one type of gun is used in these mass murder incidents?



Start with licensing of WHO buys. We in Canada require special license for handguns, as well as extra training, right? Those are not a bad solutions for those that want an AR-15 or equivalent. And yes, I am very aware of the 2A. As well as SCOTUS cases which allow for restrictions. In particular in Kolbe v. Hogan, 17-127, and Norman v. Florida, 17-68, they confirmed that assault rifles can be restricted, and confirmed their Heller decision of 2008.

And will licensing prevent criminal activity?

In what country has increased gun control effectively reduced gun crime, or violent crime in general?

If you truly believe that by requiring Americans to register there AR-15s that the mass shooting trend will decrease, I don't know what else to say.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by Newview01

And will licensing prevent criminal activity?

In what country has increased gun control effectively reduced gun crime, or violent crime in general?

If you truly believe that by requiring Americans to register there AR-15s that the mass shooting trend will decrease, I don't know what else to say.

Where did I say anything about registration???

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by muledriver

Where did I say anything about registration???

Sorry - licensing is what I meant. The requirement to possess a valid license to legally purchase an AR-15 will do nothing to stem the violence.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by muledriver

One thing one looks for when trying to find a solution to a problem is what is the common factor.

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
Texas Church: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15

There is a reason for that. Wonder what that may be?

That’s easy. The answer is simple math.

If a certain model of car outsold all others and was so popular that literally dozens of manufacturers made the same model then over the course of decades you would see a spike in the number of traffic accidents involving that model. This hypothetical car model can be called the AccordCamryF150. One thing about the AccordCamryF150 is that well over 90% (probably in excess of 95%) of all units ever made are still on the road, they don’t rust away so their numbers keep accumulating. Many are garaged and only driven to the range on Sunday. Extraordinarily few get involved in accidents.


The AR-15 has been the best selling rifle for years and has been manufactured for over a half of a century, it’s made by literally dozens of different manufacturers and in the last decade it’s manufacture numbers have exceeded a million annually, one year hitting over 1.6 million (about double the number of Ford F150’s made that year). Each and every year the number of them grows, though very few among them are ever broken or destroyed. Get the picture?

The most common theme among all of those instances you referenced is that all were carried out by murderous sociopaths.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

That’s easy. The answer is simple math.

If a certain model of car outsold all others and was so popular that literally dozens of manufacturers made the same model then over the course of decades you would see a spike in the number of traffic accidents involving that model. This hypothetical car model can be called the AccordCamryF150. One thing about the AccordCamryF150 is that well over 90% (probably in excess of 95%) of all units ever made are still on the road, they don’t rust away so their numbers keep accumulating. Many are garaged and only driven to the range on Sunday. Extraordinarily few get involved in accidents.


The AR-15 has been the best selling rifle for years and has been manufactured for over a half of a century, it’s made by literally dozens of different manufacturers and in the last decade it’s manufacture numbers have exceeded a million annually, one year hitting over 1.6 million (about double the number of Ford F150’s made that year). Each and every year the number of them grows, though very few among them are ever broken or destroyed. Get the picture?

The most common theme among all of those instances you referenced is that all were carried out by murderous sociopaths.

The point is, you have a semi-auto with high capacity magazines that's involved. I don't see a Winchester .270 or a Savage 25-06 used, do we? Not once. Nor do you see a plethora of semi-automatic handguns, do we?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by muledriver

The point is, you have a semi-auto with high capacity magazines that's involved. I don't see a Winchester .270 or a Savage 25-06 used, do we? Not once. Nor do you see a plethora of semi-automatic handguns, do we?

Again it is pretty easy to make decisions based on feelings, and jump on a single fact without looking any deeper.

There have been mass shootings where AR15s were not used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univer...tower_shooting
What do you know, a bolt action rifle with a scope on it. Should they therefore be banned?

Secondly, one might ask why a rifle that has been commercially sold since 1970, has only just very recently been used in a relatively large number of mass shootings.
Could there be something else at play? Another possible conclusion is that the press themselves play a role in the decisions of mass murderers.
There is plenty of research concerning the contagion effect in suicide: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...de-contagion1/
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/mental-h...ean/index.html
The very same logic applies to mass murderers who see that the press will make them famous, and at the same time tells them how to dress and what equipment to use. We end up with copy cats and blame the equipment rather than looking any deeper.
I would argue that almost any firearm introduced into a mass of defenseless people will do great damage. An AR15 offers very little advantage where the victims are unarmed and defenseless. Do you honestly think that elementary school aged children could not be massacred with a shotgun?
I would suggest that if such a crime were to occur and the press then provided their standard vilification of the shooter (providing fame), and the firearm (providing directions), the result would be a bunch of massacres using shotguns.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by muledriver

The point is, you have a semi-auto with high capacity magazines that's involved. I don't see a Winchester .270 or a Savage 25-06 used, do we? Not once. Nor do you see a plethora of semi-automatic handguns, do we?

Here's your answer to that, though you'll have to guess how many handguns of the total were semi-automatics versus revolvers or break-actions.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-4.xls

Take note that these tables are from a pretty unbiased source, but also not that they only differentiate between handguns and rifles, not by subcategorizing those into specific model types. See how handguns are used 19 times more frequently than rifles? How many of those rifles were actually AR-15's ? Of the rifles used in the 374 homicides in 2016 what if 1/4 were AR-15's used in murders (maybe its 1 in 10 but for the sake of argument I'll use a higher percentage). If that were the case then 93.5 murders used an AR-15, so lets round up to 95. That's fewer than the murders committed by strangulation or fire. Let that sink in.

As for the capacity argument, Glock makes factory 33 round magazines that fit all their double stack 9mm pistols, there are also aftermarket ones available. I'll allow that pistol rounds have less energy, but that's counterbalanced by them being easier to conceal.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by JamesB

.....

I would argue that almost any firearm introduced into a mass of defenseless people will do great damage. An AR15 offers very little advantage where the victims are unarmed and defenseless. Do you honestly think that elementary school aged children could not be massacred with a shotgun?
I would suggest that if such a crime were to occur and the press then provided their standard vilification of the shooter (providing fame), and the firearm (providing directions), the result would be a bunch of massacres using shotguns.

A person so inclined could absolutely perform such a massacre with a shotgun or lever action and be able to reload on the fly while still having some in the tube magazine. A pump action Remington 7615 takes AR-15 magazines as do many other firearms that were designed to capitalize on the abundance of those magazines. Heck, some killers might want to differentiate themselves and choose a different weapon type, be it a unique/different firearm, a rental van, a kitchen knife (no magazine limit on these, btw. Infinite stab potential!), explosives or fire.

Fireworks at rock concerts have killed infinitely way more people than my firearms.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Here's your answer to that, though you'll have to guess how many handguns of the total were semi-automatics versus revolvers or break-actions.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-4.xls

Take note that these tables are from a pretty unbiased source, but also not that they only differentiate between handguns and rifles, not by subcategorizing those into specific model types. See how handguns are used 19 times more frequently than rifles? How many of those rifles were actually AR-15's ? Of the rifles used in the 374 homicides in 2016 what if 1/4 were AR-15's used in murders (maybe its 1 in 10 but for the sake of argument I'll use a higher percentage). If that were the case then 93.5 murders used an AR-15, so lets round up to 95. That's fewer than the murders committed by strangulation or fire. Let that sink in.

As for the capacity argument, Glock makes factory 33 round magazines that fit all their double stack 9mm pistols, there are also aftermarket ones available. I'll allow that pistol rounds have less energy, but that's counterbalanced by them being easier to conceal.

You're obfuscating by pointing to total homicides, not to mass killings. My observations are correct; the AR-15 type firearms (not just the one made by Armalite) are overwhelming used, if not almost exclusively. And the simple reason is high capacity magazines that they use. Yes, also they being semi-automatics, but there are hundreds of other semis out there not being used.

I'm not in favor of banning virtually any firearms, but I am strongly, strongly in favor of limiting WHO can own some of them, and I see no need for target shooting OR hunting for a high capacity magazine.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by muledriver

You're obfuscating by pointing to total homicides, not to mass killings. My observations are correct; the AR-15 type firearms (not just the one made by Armalite) are overwhelming used, if not almost exclusively. And the simple reason is high capacity magazines that they use. Yes, also they being semi-automatics, but there are hundreds of other semis out there not being used.

I'm not in favor of banning virtually any firearms, but I am strongly, strongly in favor of limiting WHO can own some of them, and I see no need for target shooting OR hunting for a high capacity magazine.

I see.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by muledriver

You're obfuscating by pointing to total homicides, not to mass killings. My observations are correct; the AR-15 type firearms (not just the one made by Armalite) are overwhelming used, if not almost exclusively. And the simple reason is high capacity magazines that they use. Yes, also they being semi-automatics, but there are hundreds of other semis out there not being used.

I'm not in favor of banning virtually any firearms, but I am strongly, strongly in favor of limiting WHO can own some of them, and I see no need for target shooting OR hunting for a high capacity magazine.

Again, why do you suppose that this has become a problem recently? Is it because of the AR15 (available since 1970) or perhaps because of something else?
Also as you point out, why not the Mini 14? Why not the Beretta MR1?
You are not in favour of banning virtually any firearms, but based on your current logic you will inevitably end up with a system that does just that based on selecting bad guns because someone misuses them, in the absence of any other research or thought.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Maybe those DEMANDING certain actions from the NRA don't know what they are talking about?
Have you actually researched any of your "obvious" solutions? Too many people think that they know what works, because. Far too many useless laws are the result of people "knowing" what works rather than researching what actually works.
Quite a few of the past mass shootings resulted because agencies ignore existing law, or fail to comply with it. If a mass shooter announces his intention for years, commits assault, makes death threats and is ignored, does that mean gun laws are lax, or is there a problem with enforcement?
If a mass shooter should be barred from possessing firearms, but his records are not forwarded to the FBI, do we have a problem with gun laws or enforcement?
It's easy to call the NRA names if you don't know the details of the issues being discussed, but they are not extremist, they are informed.

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts...d-checks-nics/

Sorry - maybe the way I said it wasn't clear - I think you totally missed what I said (or at least as intended).

My simple point was that EITHER side demanding ANYTHING results in a stalemate and no results. I used the term "DEMAND" to illustrate the hypocrisy in a rhetorical sense.

Either way - when 2 sides plant their heels - What ends up happening is the minority eventually looses.

It's no secret the minority in the US is the NRA now.

I think that the NRA hard line "absolutist" position is going to lead us all down a path where we are left with spears (but not pointy ones that could hurt anyone) if they don't at least play ball.

Equally, the antis are against all forms of firearms and would have us wearing helmets and pass legislation prohibit us from running with scissors.

The bottom line is WE, as gun owners need to bridge the difference and find common ground before we loose.

And yes, I get the fact that legislation won't prevent all tragedies, just the same as posted speed limits don't stop all speeders BUT doing NOTHING is NOT an option.

That's all, that's it.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by EZM

Sorry - maybe the way I said it wasn't clear - I think you totally missed what I said (or at least as intended).

My simple point was that EITHER side demanding ANYTHING results in a stalemate and no results. I used the term "DEMAND" to illustrate the hypocrisy in a rhetorical sense.

Either way - when 2 sides plant their heels - What ends up happening is the minority eventually looses.

It's no secret the minority in the US is the NRA now.

I think that the NRA hard line "absolutist" position is going to lead us all down a path where we are left with spears (but not pointy ones that could hurt anyone) if they don't at least play ball.

Equally, the antis are against all forms of firearms and would have us wearing helmets and pass legislation prohibit us from running with scissors.

The bottom line is WE, as gun owners need to bridge the difference and find common ground before we loose.

And yes, I get the fact that legislation won't prevent all tragedies, just the same as posted speed limits don't stop all speeders BUT doing NOTHING is NOT an option.

That's all, that's it.

I got all that from your post.
My point is that the NRA is not "absolutist", it is portrayed as such by those that are constantly trying to ban firearms. They oppose poor legislation as they should. They also insist that existing legislation is enforced before more legislation is passed. These are pretty reasonable positions unless you support more useless bans and other punishments for those that committed no crimes.
There really isn't a compromise position when one side sees a certain firearm misused and suggests that it should therefore be banned. The end result of accepting this strategy as compromise is that there is no reasonable end game. If the bans are successful (say all AR15 rifles disappeared overnight) a crazy person would use something else, and the cycle would repeat until all firearms were gone, then knives, then bats etc.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by muledriver

You're obfuscating by pointing to total homicides, not to mass killings. My observations are correct; the AR-15 type firearms (not just the one made by Armalite) are overwhelming used, if not almost exclusively. And the simple reason is high capacity magazines that they use. Yes, also they being semi-automatics, but there are hundreds of other semis out there not being used.

I'm not in favor of banning virtually any firearms, but I am strongly, strongly in favor of limiting WHO can own some of them, and I see no need for target shooting OR hunting for a high capacity magazine.

So you're ****ed at the magazines then, not the firearm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcwz8-EfFYE

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by muledriver

You're obfuscating by pointing to total homicides, not to mass killings. My observations are correct; the AR-15 type firearms (not just the one made by Armalite) are overwhelming used, if not almost exclusively. And the simple reason is high capacity magazines that they use. Yes, also they being semi-automatics, but there are hundreds of other semis out there not being used.

I'm not in favor of banning virtually any firearms, but I am strongly, strongly in favor of limiting WHO can own some of them, and I see no need for target shooting OR hunting for a high capacity magazine.

Three gun, national course , steel competition, hog hunting and general varmint hunting are all activities where so called " high capacity " magazines are desirable in the U.S.
Cat

[EZM]

Originally Posted by diamond k

Thank you EZM as you have expressed exactly my stance on this topic but you have explained it much clearer and eloquently than I would be able to.

It's not often people say my delivery is eloquent ..... and I appreciate the compliment.

Often time I'm accused of much worse .... lol.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Three gun, national course , steel competition, hog hunting and general varmint hunting are all activities where so called " high capacity " magazines are desirable in the U.S.
Cat

I've never had the need for anything more than a 5 shot magazine when hunting with a center fire... ever. Even back in the day when I hunted with my .303, I've never got up to the 6th shot. And that one had open sights.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Again, why do you suppose that this has become a problem recently? Is it because of the AR15 (available since 1970) or perhaps because of something else?
Also as you point out, why not the Mini 14? Why not the Beretta MR1?
You are not in favour of banning virtually any firearms, but based on your current logic you will inevitably end up with a system that does just that based on selecting bad guns because someone misuses them, in the absence of any other research or thought.

Yeah, I'm not in favor the way we do it in Canada now, leaving it up to the RCMP. Regardless of issues the way we do that, most here would not want anyone driving a semi without training and a license. Or a school bus.

So what is wrong with requiring a separate licence for certain guns? Not registration, as I don't care WHAT you have if trained and screened, but I do have a problem WHO has access to those guns.

[EZM]

The common denominator, without exception, in every single case, for mass violence (including gun violence) is a weapon got into the hands of a person who should not have had access to a weapon. Could be a person who believes in a crazy ideology, a guy on anti depressants, a person with mental illness or whatever. Could be an AR-15, could be a van.

Specific to firearms - it's my position that we need "people control legislation" which screens high risk individuals from obtaining firearms. Will it stop every incident and prevent every one of these crazies from getting a gun? Probably not - but it will stop some and make it more difficult for others - but doing nothing is not an option - why wouldn't we all (or even the NRA) support such a common sense pragmatic control mechanism. We have it here in Canada.

As far as an AR-15 is concerned, to state the obvious, the term refers to the most common "platform" of weapons which probably cover off 100's, if not 1000's of variants.

On the flip side - to be completely frank - the AR-15 is the most effective type of weapon system in these mass killing situations. Given a choice, this is going to be the firearm to use in most situations. I don't think many people could argue about that.

Yeah - I know - blaze away - but that's the reality.

The AR-15 (or similar black guns) are accurate, short enough to wield, with a high energy round, which allows user quickly re-acquire a target, has low recoil, a high capacity magazine, etc... etc...

It still doesn't change the fact a crazy was behind the trigger - it's not the weapon that needs restriction and control - it's the people who would own this (or any) firearm for that matter.

[RandyBoBandy]

PSA for today :
ob·fus·cate
ˈäbfəˌskāt/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: obfuscating
render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate their etymological origins"
synonyms: obscure, confuse, make unclear, blur, muddle, complicate, overcomplicate, muddy, cloud, befog
"mere rationalizations to obfuscate rather than clarify the real issue"
bewilder (someone).
"it is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them"
synonyms: bewilder, mystify, puzzle, perplex, confuse, baffle, confound, bemuse, befuddle, nonplus; informalflummox
"her work became more and more obfuscated by mathematics and jargon"

[270person]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I rest my case.

You had one? Hmmm. Ok.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by muledriver

I've never had the need for anything more than a 5 shot magazine when hunting with a center fire... ever. Even back in the day when I hunted with my .303, I've never got up to the 6th shot. And that one had open sights.

Sounds pretty anecdotal. Should we base laws upon your personal experience?
There are plenty of places in the southern US where feral and wild pigs move in large numbers and were hunters use what we consider to be high capacity magazines when hunting.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by EZM

The common denominator, without exception, in every single case, for mass violence (including gun violence) is a weapon got into the hands of a person who should not have had access to a weapon. Could be a person who believes in a crazy ideology, a guy on anti depressants, a person with mental illness or whatever. Could be an AR-15, could be a van.

Specific to firearms - it's my position that we need "people control legislation" which screens high risk individuals from obtaining firearms. Will it stop every incident and prevent every one of these crazies from getting a gun? Probably not - but it will stop some and make it more difficult for others - but doing nothing is not an option - why wouldn't we all (or even the NRA) support such a common sense pragmatic control mechanism. We have it here in Canada.

As far as an AR-15 is concerned, to state the obvious, the term refers to the most common "platform" of weapons which probably cover off 100's, if not 1000's of variants.

On the flip side - to be completely frank - the AR-15 is the most effective type of weapon system in these mass killing situations. Given a choice, this is going to be the firearm to use in most situations. I don't think many people could argue about that.

Yeah - I know - blaze away - but that's the reality.

The AR-15 (or similar black guns) are accurate, short enough to wield, with a high energy round, which allows user quickly re-acquire a target, has low recoil, a high capacity magazine, etc... etc...

It still doesn't change the fact a crazy was behind the trigger - it's not the weapon that needs restriction and control - it's the people who would own this (or any) firearm for that matter.

Access to firearms is an important consideration. I have not addressed licensing, but assuming it works (the evidence is mixed), look at how many of the listed murderers were missed by the system:

Aurora: AR-15 Shooter diagnosed with mental problems, attempted suicid epreviously
Orlando: AR-15 Shooter on terrorist screening list
Parkland: AR-15 Shooter made death threats, and assaulted peers. No action taken.
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15 Shooter murdered firearm owner and stole weapons
Umpqua CC: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15 Firearms license revoked, mental health issues
Texas Church: AR-15 Shooter should have been prohibited, files not updated
San Bernardino: AR-15 Shooters investigated for openly jihadic postings

You perceive the AR15 as the best choice, but that might just be a reflection of how the press reports the issues.
Here are some counter points to yours:
Rifles are not that concealable, and until very recently most mass shooters used handguns.
Handguns offer most of the same advantages at close range: quick acquisition, low recoil, high capacity. They also make less noise so victims may not be aware of shootings in the same building.
Also, and this is very important to the argument, the victims are UNARMED. Trapping a bunch of unarmed people in a building allows a mass murderer to use any firearm to great advantage. You have to be purposely blinded to this to ignore all of the mass shootings that did not involve AR15s.
Please have a look at the contagion effect. I think it is the most likely reason AR15's have become the fad in these shootings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/