Removed by mod
Out of all the things to criticise the NRA for, this is the last
Driving a car is not a valid comparison to using a gun.
Removed by mod
“well regulated militia”. 3 words that are not there by accident.
Removed by mod
The problem is that the NRA also actively blocks things that will actually deal with the problem, like gun controls.
Removed by mod
The NRA and school shootings are the subject of the article, and gun control is an effective solution to the latter that the NRA continuously tries to block via any means necessary.
To use your example, it is like if those that trained people to drive also tried to block any sort of driving license program, believing that literally anyone should be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car.
Removed by mod
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms.
The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?
Removed by mod
You use this word correlation but I don’t think it means what you think it means. What kind of direct correlation is there between the NRA and school shootings? Please give specific examples of NRA funded or trained shooters.
I’ve just spelled out the correlation, it’s not my fault you’re incapable or unwilling to read.
Let me dumb it down so that everyone can understand:
-
school shooter goes on a rampage with an easily acquired gun.
-
understandable national outrage occurs, talks about new gun laws start taking place
-
right wing organisations, most prominently the NRA, lobby against these laws and try to turn public attention against them through barefaced lies (eg: blame on videogames, media, and espousal of a bunch of theories that are either proven bunk such as ‘good guy with a gun’ or plain don’t apply (‘good guy with a gun’ in a school setting, where the good guy with a gun simply isn’t there, are too few in number and skills to contain the situation, or would simply be mistaken for a hostile actor by other good guys with guns.))
-
proposed fixes get delayed or scrapped
-
thoughts and prayers but no real action
-
go to step 1 and repeat thousands of times over.
Most other countries got off this shitshow ride the first or second time this happened. The US is the only first world country where this still happens, because they don’t put in gun control, and literal murder machines can be bought as easily as a games console.
There are many standing laws on the books that violate the 2A. Fortunately there have been a number of cases rolling back these infringements on our collective rights.
And the result is more bloodshed. How is that fortunate?
Go back and read the 2A again. All of it. Notice something peculiar? The 2A explicitly states that it exists in light of the fact that armed individuals were a necessity for national security. It was written back when the US didn’t have a standing military or police force. Now that it does, there’s a pretty strong argument that the 2A, as written, should no longer apply.
-
Firstly, Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Removed by mod
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
Interesting take
Would it not be better to teach kids that handguns are unnecessary, and only owned by criminals and cowards?
Or is that a bit too 21st century?
Why not both?
Guns are a fact of life in the US. Kids will be exposed to them. For every child killed in a mass shooting there are many more accidentally killed due to unsafe handling.
Ignoring this fact is the gun equivalent of “just say no.”
Every person should know how to safely handle a firearm. They don’t necessarily need to be expert shots, but they should know how to not accidentally shoot someone with one.
I’m a liberal gun owner and I have a standing offer to all of my anti-gun friends to show them and their families how to handle firearms, and the NRA has some great resources for teaching him safety for kids.
They’re an evil organization, but they do a few things right.
What a bat shit insane take. 99.999% or more of guns are not used in crime. And how absolutely fucking ableist of you to assume everyone is physically capable of defending themself in hand to hand combat
Lmfao at using insane as a Insult then calling someone ableist.
https://fas.org/publication/the-ghost-guns-haunting-national-crime-statistics/
Lol ghost guns
Kids should be taught the value of diplomacy.
Telling children that drugs are bad, just say no, and never teaching them any actual information really worked out great. Drugs are outright illegal for everyone, why didn’t that stop drugs?
Let’s take that approach to something new that can be used to scare and divide people. Gun are bad, just say no. Make them all illegal. It’s not like there are 19 year old felons with full auto hand guns already all over YouTube and tiktok(that’s 3 federal crimes if you don’t realize).
Keep people scared and divided. If they aren’t they might start focusing on things that would actually save us like Healthcare, housing, income, employment, stability that everyone can have on our age of abundance.
Removed by mod
Except for all the parts in the world that have proven it true. No, you should just keep your head in the sand and rely purely on hope that someone you know won’t be killed.
Removed by mod
Children shouldn’t be using guns.
Removed by mod
Young children shouldn’t be using guns at all. Teenagers should only be using guns at authorised shooting ranges with direct 1 to 1 supervision with a trained and certified staff member - not just any adult or parent at home.
There is no need to play with guns, and the risk of harm to others is grossly disproportionate to your desire to have a bit of fun. Your freedom for fun impinges on the freedoms of others to merely be alive and healthy, thus your freedom should be heavily restrained in this instance.
Why not? Kids hunt where I live.
Guns are meant to kill at a distance without your opponent touching you or possibly even seeing you, they are fundamentally a cowardly weapon.
The phrase “never bring a gun to a knife fight” is referring to intelligence not bravery.
How about “idioms don’t dictate real life and people are dieing”, does that jive with you?
Removed by mod
I’d rather they didn’t kill each other at all, it’s weird that you’re so defensive about being able to murder people easier.
Removed by mod
Lol, that isn’t at all what I stated or implied. You’re the one who thought it was brave to kill people from far away.
Have fun with your guns. Coward.
Your perspective is incredibly narrow.
Must be nice to never have to worry about defending yourself from attackers who overpower you or who have weapons.
Definitely all those black people with guns facing down the racists with guns at the Tulsa Race Massacre should’ve been brave and fought fisticuffs, 21st century style. /S (Yes I’m well aware their homes and businesses were burned to the ground despite attempts to defend themselves).
The Black Panthers were just cowards. /S
The trans folks at Tenacious Unicorn Ranch definitely were cowards for not facing bigots threatening to kill them with fists and harsh words. /S
Must be nice to never have to worry about defending yourself from attackers who overpower you or who have weapons.
As someone who lives outside of the US: it is nice. You guys should try it.
Honestly, I wished we would.
I’ve literally only ever seen a gun take a life that didn’t deserve it. How many home invaders have you personally staved off? You know this isn’t 1921 anymore, right?
The gun culture in this country is toxic and you’re part of the problem spreading that bs to justify your own peace of mind. I’m sure you only need Jesus and your ar-15 to survive but the rest of us would like to go to the grocery store without worrying about the place being shot up by some nut job that picked up a rifle at the corner shop on a whim.
Anyone playing fair in a life or death situation isn’t trying hard enough.
This would be a lovely take, if there weren’t so many other people running around with guns. Is it cowardly to want to protect yourself from the actual cowards?
Oh, you mean the cowards with guns? The guns that make it so easy to murder you or even schools full of children? You’re talking about those gun users specifically, right? Boy, it would be great if we could get some meaningful laws about that, huh.
Sure would.
Shit, I’m a coward I guess.
Yes, because what America REALLY needs are school shooters with better aim.
It’s 4-H. That is not exactly a radical organization.
yeah but we need to fearmonger about how gun bad, so, yanno.
As a teacher of children I’m beginning to think maybe it actually would be better if fancy LLMs just took my job.
I’m actually beginning to believe the setting for Ready Player One. In the next ten years it might just be cheaper and safer for children to be given a nice VR headset and attend school fully virtually, hell they might actually get a better education since it’ll be easier to mute misbehaving children.
Not exactly going to work for kids under 12 or so, and there’s probably lots of eye strain associated with being in a VR headset for hours upon hours, but hey at least the risk of being shot will be lower since there’s clearly no way in hell that we will get laws to control weapons.
You assume that the primary purpose of public schools is to educate children. It’s not. It’s free daycare so both parents can go to work and contribute to gdp while barely treading water even with two incomes.
That was the primary reason I mentioned the whole age thing. Teenagers really don’t need a babysitter.
You’d have to fundamentally change how education is presented first in order to get 15-18 year olds to put on a headset for most of the day without “losing connection”, having “audio issues”, dogs “chewing cables”, or homework “getting corrupted”, etc.
So glad to see the NRA are finally training the kids. It’s always been obvious that the main reason for school shootings is that the children have been failing to protect themselves. After all, more adults with guns has greatly reduced the number of adult shootings, because why wouldn’t it? Good guys with the guns always stop bad guys with guns.
the next american generation will be trained from kindergarten to live with a war mentality. they’ll train in escape tactics, how to be always aware of exits, how to identify the sound of gun fire, and this will be a constant presence in their daily lives.
also those kids will buy guns on mass once they reach adulthood, after all they have been trained from birth that they live in a war against an always present unknown enemy.
Information, not criticism. It’s written “en masse”
This isn’t something new the NRA has always had a role in training Americans to shoot. This article is just complaining that they let 4-H kids learn firearms safety and shoot a 22lr. Which they’ve been doing for decades.
oh no
which mass shooting? did I miss yet another one in the pile of headlines about mass shootings??
The one in Maine on Oct. 25th.
Removed by mod
I’m surprised the NRA aren’t giving away a free gun to every family member over the age of 6 months. /s
Free? They would never do that.
Got to keep those gun manufacturer profits high.
That would NEVER happen.
If the NRA had its way, the kid would be fitted with a holster in the womb.
They wouldn’t pay for the surgery. Why cover medical costs when you can buy more guns!
They wouldn’t pay for the surgery, but they’d spend millions to pay for the politicians who would sign-in-to-law a mandate that it must be done “for the safety of the children”. It’s then up to the parent to comply with that law at their own cost.
The end game makes a lot more sense when you factor in the GQP’s forced-birth policies.
That worked fine in Serbia ;(
I’m as anti-NRA as anybody, but 4-H teaching kids to shoot is not a big deal. I taught at a high school in Los Angeles that used to have a shooting range. It also had a marching band. Both are gone. Cutbacks, focus on the required classes, no money for frilly electives.
As someone from Belgium (a country where there’s quite a lot of firearms in the hands of hunters and farmers (especially where I grew up) and where FN Herstalt is located), it sounds absolutely insane to have a shooting range at a school.
Well, it was a long time ago, and it probably had to do with the ROTC, which was a program to prepare high school students for military service.
The only way to stop school shooters is to arm students with guns?
/s
That’s not sarcastic. You fools can’t even use that bollocks right.
Hahaha so they have better skill in the future when they snap and kill half their school.
Omg republican really do be thinking with their wallets and not their pea sized brains
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good boy with a gun.
They’re giving guns to dogs now?!
UwU
It’s a line from a Sacha Baron Cohen thing where he was making right wingers look stupid. I guess I assumed it was more well known than it is!
