Poll of the Day > The NRA released a VIDEO to warn Politicians NOT to support GUN CONTROL!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just 2 Days after one of the worst mass shootings in America that left 17 students and teachers dead, the NRA has released a video explaining why firearms SHOULDN'T be regulated and urged politicians to AVOID a regulation vote!!

The shocking video by the NRA uses WW2 era Britain as an example of why firearms shouldn't be controlled as the 1963 fotage of "The Big Picture" a documentary produced by the US Army Signal Corps are told why guns are essential to US citizens, including the AR-15!!

The narrator says "there will always be bad guys" and "careless people" who have access to firearms but that shouldn't lead to restrictions as they draw similarities between banning guns because of shootings to banning cars because of road accidentss.

They also used Britain as an example of why guns should remain unchanged speaking to the rescue of British Troops from Dunkirk that saw British leave tonnes of military equipment on the beaches of France leaving British people weak against the enemy

The narrator says "In Great Britain, gun legislation of this kind almost ended in disasater. The nation was threatened with imminent invasion by Hitler's forces and they were defenseless to fight back. Ten Downing Street urgently requested aid from the United States. America responded and sent shiploads of arms to the embattled British, helped turn the tide"

But the depiction that the UK was on the brink of collapse is untrue. What's true was that the US did supply them with arms during WW2, a lack of superiority in the air above Britain the English Channel meant that they were never seriously considered..

The video also suggests that the bad guys will not be stopped from getting guns and that it's dangerous to take guns away from the law abiding ones that will "save them". It says guns will save a life, not take it and that a potential government attack on its citizens is IMMINENT if gun regulation is passed!!

The NRA video was in response to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman after the gun depate as re-opened and the people are sending a signal to politicians who don't vote for change and are being sponsored by the heavily lobbied NRA. They too are threatening politicians who vote to change gun laws and will stop funding candidates that do.

Who's side are you on?

The disgusting video -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/16/11/494739FB00000578-5399551-image-a-61_1518781228453.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/16/11/494739A100000578-5399551-image-a-62_1518781614238.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/16/11/4947393A00000578-5399551-image-a-63_1518781629434.jpg
---

Gun control is using both hands.
---

They should just give teachers access to fire arms for the purpose of self protection instead or increase police presence in schools
Boom problem solved
---

I'm on neither side because fuck gun control and fuck the NRA, bunch of money-grubbing shitstains.
---

If there's a happy medium between allowing folks to have firearms while keeping it out of the hands of lunatics, I'm all for it. Unfortunately I am not sure what that medium would be.
---

So, they think keeping a piece of metal or plastic in the hands of a lunatic is worth more than a human being's life? Fuck the NRA!
---

gguirao posted...

So they think keeping a piece of metal or plastic in the hands of a lunatic is worth more than a human being's life? Fuck the NRA!

But isn't it kinda true that those lunatics would still be able to get guns. I mean, if they try hard enough, they could probably still get one.
---

Ben111 posted...

They should just give teachers access to fire arms for the purpose of self protection

That's only going to work until the first teacher which such a "sanctioned" gun uses theirs to shoot up their own classroom after snapping.

The moment I realize my teacher is carrying a gun, I leave, some things just do not belong in a classroom, regardless of the ideas behind the reason why.
---

why is every shooting "the worst shooting" when there's other shootings that are way worse
---

Ben111 posted...

They should just give teachers access to fire arms for the purpose of self protection instead or increase police presence in schools
Boom problem solved

The police in the UK don't carry firearms, and here we are suggesting that teachers in schools should carry. I don't know what idiom applies here.
---

LinkPizza posted...

But isn't it kinda true that those lunatics would still be able to get guns. I mean, if they try hard enough, they could probably still get one.

I could go out and kill someone right now with my bare hands, and depending on my target I might not have to try very hard at all.

Yet, murder remains illegal. But why?
---

Full Throttle posted...

they draw similarities between banning guns because of shootings to banning cars because of road accidentss.

Which is actually a decent pro-gun control analogy. Cars don't get banned because of road accidents, but people who use cars irresponsibly (or are otherwise incapable of driving safely) do have the privilege of driving taken away from them. Nobody gets up in arms about that, why get so uppity about applying similar restrictions to guns?

LinkPizza posted...

But isn't it kinda true that those lunatics would still be able to get guns. I mean, if they try hard enough, they could probably still get one.

Yes and no. Most arguments along that line are very short-sighted, and look only at what would happen if guns were suddenly made illegal and every law-abiding citizen turned theirs in. In practice, every single illegally-obtained gun was obtained legally at some point. If you cut off the legal supply, the illegal supply will also be cut off, making it so prohibitively difficult to get one that the vast majority of criminals won't be able to (and those that can aren't people the average Joe would be able to defend themselves against anyway, because they're going to be the more serious criminals with some kind of organized backing).

Obviously, it's not that simple. That would be a long-term trickle-down effect, and there'd need to be a massive push of anti-gun enforcement to get the existing supply of illegal guns off the streets before disarming the people who need them for self-defense. But fundamentally, if there are no legal guns, there won't be any illegal guns either. That's just common sense.
---

adjl posted...

In practice, every single illegally-obtained gun was obtained legally at some point. If you cut off the legal supply, the illegal supply will also be cut off, making it so prohibitively difficult to get one that the vast majority of criminals won't be able to

lol

Guns aren't mechanically complex and the factories across the US aren't going to mystically stop functioning. This also ignores Afghanistan using 100 year old British surplus Enfields and reloading.

Legal production would cease but it would merely drive the industry underground and the criminals, heavily invested in their leverage tools, would keep and maintain their guns more rigorously. If anything, guns could get cheaper for criminals as the production wouldn't require stringent regulation or marketing, the guns would become just for threatening the undefended.

You'd likely lower school shootings but you'd definitely increase firearm-related offences dramatically across the board.

adjl posted...

there'd need to be a massive push of anti-gun enforcement to get the existing supply of illegal guns off the streets before disarming the people who need them for self-defense.

Good luck with that. The UK is distinctly anti-gun yet we still have significant handgun (outright illegal) violence by minors.

adjl posted...

But fundamentally, if there are no legal guns, there won't be any illegal guns either. That's just common sense.

No, it's nil sense. If you have 50 legal guns and 50 illegal guns, after passing an anti-gun law you end up with 100 illegal guns, not 0.
---

I love how the TOPIC title is PRETENDING that this is SURPRISING!!
---

I believe in control, but I also believe in big government, so I'm basically the opposite of the "pro" camp.
---

Nicodaemos posted...

I could go out and kill someone right now with my bare hands, and depending on my target I might not have to try very hard at all.

Yet, murder remains illegal. But why?

I don't know what you're comparing...

adjl posted...

Yes and no. Most arguments along that line are very short-sighted, and look only at what would happen if guns were suddenly made illegal and every law-abiding citizen turned theirs in. In practice, every single illegally-obtained gun was obtained legally at some point. If you cut off the legal supply, the illegal supply will also be cut off, making it so prohibitively difficult to get one that the vast majority of criminals won't be able to (and those that can aren't people the average Joe would be able to defend themselves against anyway, because they're going to be the more serious criminals with some kind of organized backing).

Obviously, it's not that simple. That would be a long-term trickle-down effect, and there'd need to be a massive push of anti-gun enforcement to get the existing supply of illegal guns off the streets before disarming the people who need them for self-defense. But fundamentally, if there are no legal guns, there won't be any illegal guns either. That's just common sense.

But I think that might be the problem. I think the trickle would take way too long. And definitely won't be 100%. There are way to many guns just around. Not to mention all the guns people have lost, gotten stolen, people who owned guns and died, or people who lie about those things happening. Or people who own a lot of weapons who are off the grid now. I just feel the trickle would be very slow. And it's possible that for a good amount of times, the only ones that have guns would be the people that we wouldn't want having guns. And the people who could be responsible with them would be everybody who turned theirs in...
---