Latest School Shooting

[UncleMike101]

I think so. Oliver North is in charge of the NRA. He, unfortunately, has way too much influence over our government. The others have no control over anything, no matter what their opinion.

Mr North is NOT in charge of the NRA.
He will be the President which is an honorary appointment made by the Board Of Directors who are elected by the active membership.
As such he is allowed to speak on behalf on that organization.
Or misspeak as in the case of his Ritalin statement.
He is no more in charge of the NRA than Queen Elizabeth is in charge of Great Briton.

 

[Polybound]

I don't believe I've heard anyone willing to address the root causes behind many of these mass shootings. Video games that have graphic sex and violence and humans shooting humans should be OUTLAWED. Graphic sex and violence in movies, on television, on the internet should be eliminated. It's time for our society to go back to Mayberry. Mental health used to be dealt with by each state, but it's a cost now that our society just doesn't want to pay. People can blame guns all they want, but only law abiding citizens wanting self protection will be the only people hurt by any gun restriction law. I've seen reports that there are over 200 million guns in our country. Realistically, what law would have prevented any of these shootings. Absolutely none. These people who have been involved in these mass shootings are not only intent on killing as many people as possible, they're intent on killing themselves as well. If the guy who killed 69 people at the bar in Orlando couldn't have gotten the gun to do what he did. He'd gotten on the internet, learned how to make a bomb vest, and killed 169 instead.

 

[Jennasis]

I don't believe I've heard anyone willing to address the root causes behind many of these mass shootings. Video games that have graphic sec and violence and humans shooting humans should be OUTLAWED. Graphic sex and violence in movies, on television, on the internet should be eliminated. It's time for our society to go back to Mayberry. Mental health used to be dealt with by each state, but it's a cost now that our society just doesn't want to pay. People can blame guns all they want, but only law abiding citizens wanting self protection will be the only people hurt by any gun restriction law. I've seen reports that there are over 200 million guns in our country. Realistically, what law would have prevented any of these shootings. Absolutely none. These people who have been involved in these mass shootings are not only intent on killing as many people as possible, they're intent on killing themselves as well. If the guy who killed 69 people at the bar in Orlando couldn't have gotten the gun to do what he did. He'd gotten on the internet, learned how to make a bomb vest, and killed 169 instead.

Now it's sex's fault?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I did read the article. You said it was harder to get a semi-automatic rifle in Connecticut than Canada and that isn't true. Every time there is a school shooting there are a few posters that do nothing but say there is no need to discuss guns as part of the problem and like to use the NRA talking points to change the narrative. Your point simply isn't true.

I don’t think you did read the article because it actually MAKES my point. The writer claims a special license is required to own a restricted firearm, but then goes on to demonstrate that AR-15’s with barrels of at least 470mm (18.5”) fall under the “non-restricted” category of firearms in Canada UNLIKE CT.

And for the record, I’m unaware of the NRA using my statement as a talking point, nor am I a member.

 

[Planogirl]

Now it's sex's fault?

Not to mention that some of the most violent TV shows were on during the Mayberry days.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Now it's sex's fault?

Ain’t nobody gonna get on board with banning that.

 

[Polybound]

Now it's sex's fault?

They seem to go hand in hand. Sex and Violence sells tickets. It's where the money is for Hollywood and Hollywood is nothing but about the money. That's why Hollywood screams the loudest when it comes to gun control issues. They want to deflect blame somewhere else. They just don't want to look in the mirror.

 

[Polybound]

Not to mention that some of the most violent TV shows were on during the Mayberry days.

But the violence was different then. You never saw brains splattering all over your television screen like you do now. Yes there was plenty of violence, but they pretty much did everything but show it.

 

[Colleen27]

OTOH, there are those that think guns are the only problem. That banning or limiting guns is going to fix this issue. It’s not.

I don't know that anyone believes guns are the only problem. Even at the extreme, the people who advocate for a total ban tend to talk in terms of making it harder/forcing would-be mass shooters to resort to less effective or more complicated means with a greater chance of failure.

I don't believe I've heard anyone willing to address the root causes behind many of these mass shootings. Video games that have graphic sex and violence and humans shooting humans should be OUTLAWED. Graphic sex and violence in movies, on television, on the internet should be eliminated. It's time for our society to go back to Mayberry. Mental health used to be dealt with by each state, but it's a cost now that our society just doesn't want to pay. People can blame guns all they want, but only law abiding citizens wanting self protection will be the only people hurt by any gun restriction law. I've seen reports that there are over 200 million guns in our country. Realistically, what law would have prevented any of these shootings. Absolutely none. These people who have been involved in these mass shootings are not only intent on killing as many people as possible, they're intent on killing themselves as well. If the guy who killed 69 people at the bar in Orlando couldn't have gotten the gun to do what he did. He'd gotten on the internet, learned how to make a bomb vest, and killed 169 instead.

Or not. It is disingenuous to pretend that it is just as easy to kill people with explosives (or knives or whatever) as with a gun. The Texas shooter tried that - he had a couple types of improvised explosives he planned to use in the attack, but according to police none of them were functional. He got on the internet and tried to learn to make pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs... and either failed to understand the process or failed to get the necessary materials. But he had no problem getting and aiming guns well enough to kill. But even if one accepts the premise that a determined mass shooter will just find other means, does that really mean we should make it *easier* on them by providing unrestricted access to the most effective tools for what they hope to accomplish?

And as far as violence in the media, that's nothing new. Watch some of the old Westerns and war flicks that were popular in Mayberry days - they're bloody as hell, and kids ran around with far more realistic-looking toy guns, shooting one another in games of cops & robbers or cowboys & Indians. The big changes in decency standards have been in terms of sex and profanity, not violence.

 

[JaneBanks]

Mr North is NOT in charge of the NRA.
He will be the President which is an honorary appointment made by the Board Of Directors who are elected by the active membership.
As such he is allowed to speak on behalf on that organization.
Or misspeak as in the case of his Ritalin statement.
He is no more in charge of the NRA than Queen Elizabeth is in charge of Great Briton.

Either way he has much more influence than your average celebrity, which was the point of the post.

Britain*

 

[JaneBanks]

I don't believe I've heard anyone willing to address the root causes behind many of these mass shootings. Video games that have graphic sex and violence and humans shooting humans should be OUTLAWED. Graphic sex and violence in movies, on television, on the internet should be eliminated. It's time for our society to go back to Mayberry. Mental health used to be dealt with by each state, but it's a cost now that our society just doesn't want to pay. People can blame guns all they want, but only law abiding citizens wanting self protection will be the only people hurt by any gun restriction law. I've seen reports that there are over 200 million guns in our country. Realistically, what law would have prevented any of these shootings. Absolutely none. These people who have been involved in these mass shootings are not only intent on killing as many people as possible, they're intent on killing themselves as well. If the guy who killed 69 people at the bar in Orlando couldn't have gotten the gun to do what he did. He'd gotten on the internet, learned how to make a bomb vest, and killed 169 instead.

How do you explain low to nonexistent mass shootings in other countries? These sex-filled, violent movies, tv shows and video games exist there too. Not just here.

 

[luvsJack]

[QUOTE="Colleen27, post: 59259443, member: 144445"]I don't know that anyone believes guns are the only problem. Even at the extreme, the people who advocate for a total ban tend to talk in terms of making it harder/forcing would-be mass shooters to resort to less effective or more complicated means with a greater chance of failure.



Or not. It is disingenuous to pretend that it is just as easy to kill people with explosives (or knives or whatever) as with a gun. The Texas shooter tried that - he had a couple types of improvised explosives he planned to use in the attack, but according to police none of them were functional. He got on the internet and tried to learn to make pipe bombs and pressure cooker bombs... and either failed to understand the process or failed to get the necessary materials. But he had no problem getting and aiming guns well enough to kill. But even if one accepts the premise that a determined mass shooter will just find other means, does that really mean we should make it *easier* on them by providing unrestricted access to the most effective tools for what they hope to accomplish?

And as far as violence in the media, that's nothing new. Watch some of the old Westerns and war flicks that were popular in Mayberry days - they're bloody as hell, and kids ran around with far more realistic-looking toy guns, shooting one another in games of cops & robbers or cowboys & Indians. The big changes in decency standards have been in terms of sex and profanity, not violence.[/QUOTE]

To the bolded: And its right back to doing something about guns, which is why these debates go round and round and round. Make it harder than just breaking into your dad's gun safe? This kid did not own guns. He didn't buy guns. He used his Dad's guns who very possibly would have had those guns regardless of any new gun laws. So, we would have been right back at square one.

We have got to find a way to 1. protect our kids, 2. find out what is causing these shooters to do what they do and stop it, 3. and yes, more background checks and metal health checks on those that do purchase weapons. But 3 isn't going to do anything without 1 and 2. for the simple reason that for some of these shooters they are NOT gun owners. Their parents are. If their parents can pass the background and mental health checks then there will still be guns in the household. You can hold the parents responsible for what their kid does with their gun but is that going to stop it? Do you really think little Johnny is going to stop and think about whether his parents are gong to get in trouble? He is about to kill every one he knows and possibly himself. Just don't think its going to cross his mind.

I don't agree with the pp about violent games and movies but we watch a LOT of old westerns. Yes there was violence but it was definitely a different kind of violence. And yes kids ran around with cowboy pistols all the time. But I remember way back then, at least here, kids were told constantly "don't point that thing at anyone". Yes even a cap pistol. They were taught respect for a gun and what it can do. Not sure if that would make a difference now or not, honestly but just an observation.

 

[declansdad]

Maybe I’m mistaken. I thought you were saying that AR-15s were more restricted in Canada, you linked an article I assumed was supporting that. It says rifles over a certain length are Non Restricted. Is the article wrong? Or are ARs not restricted in Canada?

Maybe these will help.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/video-the-ar-15-in-canada-what-you-need-to-know/

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/clas-eng.htm

 

[declansdad]

Mr North is NOT in charge of the NRA.
He will be the President which is an honorary appointment made by the Board Of Directors who are elected by the active membership.
As such he is allowed to speak on behalf on that organization.
Or misspeak as in the case of his Ritalin statement.
He is no more in charge of the NRA than Queen Elizabeth is in charge of Great Briton.

The NRA is governed by its Board of Director and the Board does select its president so it is far from an honourary appointment.

I don't believe I've heard anyone willing to address the root causes behind many of these mass shootings. Video games that have graphic sex and violence and humans shooting humans should be OUTLAWED. Graphic sex and violence in movies, on television, on the internet should be eliminated. It's time for our society to go back to Mayberry. Mental health used to be dealt with by each state, but it's a cost now that our society just doesn't want to pay. People can blame guns all they want, but only law abiding citizens wanting self protection will be the only people hurt by any gun restriction law. I've seen reports that there are over 200 million guns in our country. Realistically, what law would have prevented any of these shootings. Absolutely none. These people who have been involved in these mass shootings are not only intent on killing as many people as possible, they're intent on killing themselves as well. If the guy who killed 69 people at the bar in Orlando couldn't have gotten the gun to do what he did. He'd gotten on the internet, learned how to make a bomb vest, and killed 169 instead.

To say that sex and violence in movies and video games is to blame is as silly as blaming the problem solely on guns.

 

[UncleMike101]

Either way he has much more influence than your average celebrity, which was the point of the post.

Britain*

No....
He doesn't get anywhere near the free press coverage that the "average" celebrity gets from the biased media.

The NRA is governed by its Board of Director and the Board does select its president so it is far from an honourary appointment.

The Membership elects the Board.
The Board elects the President.
The Board can remove the President any time for any, or no, reason.
The Board makes all decisions and the President is there to act as spokesperson for them and nothing more.
As I stated, he no more runs the NRA than The Queen runs England.

 

[declansdad]

No....
He doesn't get anywhere near the free press coverage that the "average" celebrity gets from the biased media.



The Membership elects the Board.
The Board elects the President.
The Board can remove the President any time for any, or no, reason.
The Board makes all decisions and the President is there to act as spokesperson for them and nothing more.
As I stated, he no more runs the NRA than The Queen runs England.

The membership elects the board and the board elects its president from the members of the board; not really honourary. In fact this is a pretty typical governance structure.

https://www.scribd.com/document/348433530/NRA-2016-Bylaws

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

Honestly is Oliver North talking about Ritalin any different than all these DRs, celebrities, etc talking about firearms that they know nothing about.

Probably. Lots of celebrities grew up with or still own guns, just like many of us. Just because they believe there should be some common sense laws restricting gun availability doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. North has always had a judgmental attitude and his performance during his short term as NRA head so far is a lesson in how not to debate or address a problem.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

No....
He doesn't get anywhere near the free press coverage that the "average" celebrity gets from the biased media.



The Membership elects the Board.
The Board elects the President.
The Board can remove the President any time for any, or no, reason.
The Board makes all decisions and the President is there to act as spokesperson for them and nothing more.
As I stated, he no more runs the NRA than The Queen runs England.

Biased media...here we go.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Probably. Lots of celebrities grew up with or still own guns, just like many of us. Just because they believe there should be some common sense laws restricting gun availability doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. North has always had a judgmental attitude and his performance during his short term as NRA head so far is a lesson in how not to debate or address a problem.

I doubt that the loudest celebrities that are calling for “sensible” laws know which end goes boom. Listen to some of them, they call for clip regulations, the banning of removable muzzle devices, or slidie stocks. They talk about outlawing devices that basically mimic a belt loop. Not exactly knowledgeable.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Maybe these will help.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/video-the-ar-15-in-canada-what-you-need-to-know/

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/clas-eng.htm

That helps but it seems the previously linked article was wrong then.