Have you got a gun/would you kill someone?

Someone (if they haven't already, I haven't checked) is going to start a live massacre channel on youtube.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

That may be a point, but it's not the point. You quoted someone, and presented a fact, and then said "so much for your declaration." You did not just make your own point, you contradicted someone, and you did it with something that did not actually disprove what they said, and you didn't even make an attempt to explain why the (obvious) distinction between the two didn't matter.

How do you know this was his implication? Maybe he simply wanted to make a distinction between the NRA and its members. That's just consistent with what he said. So why stretch to the least charitable interpretation possible, and one at odds with its literal meaning? Just to create a more forceful disagreement? I think that's the disingenuous part.

Leaving aside that teaching someone to shoot is not teaching them to "murder" (and no, "but guns were designed to shoot things!" does not change the underlying logic, that's the genetic fallacy), this is pretty much a total non-sequitur. The point you're ostensibly responding to was about the phrase "bankrolling." Saying you like one kind of support and not another has literally nothing to do with that.

The last sentence is really what I'm on about here: the goalposts have immediately moved all the way from "I debunked your claim" to "don't pretend they have no connection," which is pretty much a total inversion of the burden of proof.

I find this interesting. I've talked to you on the board a little I read your posts so in turn I tend to think I "know" you a little. I couldn't honestly tell you tho if I've even ever met an NRA member. But then you say they are by and large "good people". Don't we maybe assume to often that people we don't really know are just good people?

My feathers ruffle at bad arguments, particularly from people who I'm pretty sure know better. You've seen me yelling at plenty of conservatives over the last couple of years, for the exact same reason. I don't always have hope that I can convince people of stuff, but I do have hope that the process of disagreement and attempts at persuasion can be better, or at least more charitable. So while it's kind of a sad commentary that most of my "arguing" is just trying to point out when people aren't arguing fairly or well, improving that in the long-term is what's important to me.

Were there gun safety classes at these shooting events? Sight-unseen, I'll bet there were.

Seems to me it's lose-lose: either the NRA gets lambasted for not educating people in gun safety, or they do this kind of outreach and then they're "linked" to anyone who shows up for freely available events.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments about gun control, but I think this attempt to paint them as "bankrolling" or "training" people by holding public events is...well, "a stretch" is probably the most polite way to put it.

Almost all of my perspective comes from working on a gun control bill in the state legislature in early 2013 (after Sandy Hook). The individuals I met were actually really thoughtful and we had disagreements but I'm still proud of a lot of the dialogue. I also had a few calls that were just people wanting to yell at my boss, sure, but that's representation sometimes (though often they were not constituents). But when the lobbying efforts came in, that's when the bills (i.e. debate/conversation) died.


So maybe I'm biased, but in my experience the individuals from the NRA/Calgun were actually interested in a dialogue (for the most part) and the lobbying arms were just trying to protect their industry.


Also shoutout to the Brady Campaign, they were wonderful in the discussion too.

No worries, I wasn't implying you were biased or anything. From what I read it seems the NRA really doesn't even have that many members So I was curious if you'd had any real contact with them is all.

__________________

Oh yeah, I definitely don't think you were calling me biased. I was just saying that my perspective is kinda specific (and therefore probably a bit biased). Because the base of NRA/Calgun people that I interacted with also had a selection bias of being the most politically savvy and particularly interested in discussion because they came to us.


Also hey, stop rising in the FB league. Making me nervous.

Is bullying really that harsh in the US? It sounds like a re-occuring theme here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_...chool_shooting
Events
The alleged gunman is reportedly Dimitrios Pagourtzis, a 17-year-old male who attended the school. Another suspect in the shooting was later arrested.[8][1][9] Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez reported ten fatalities as of 11:17 AM (CT), and multiple injuries including two law enforcement officers[10]. According to at least one witness, the primary suspect was the victim of bullying by multiple students and coaches.[11][12]

Bullying is harsh everywherr, isn't it?

We go hard in this league bro. We had a guy that was in first place for a large chunk of the year last season until Yoder walked him down at the end. It was beautiful. You can't take a day off, that's for sure.

So I just spent some time researching the details of shooters being NRA members and what I discovered was that only the NRA releases this information. Since they are the NRA... And they dont share it with the press unless its to categorically declare that "so and so was NOT on our membership rolls!" They have not made this claim in every single case however and its widely believed certain shooters were NRA members (Henry Bello, Jared Lee Loughner, etc.) but the NRA has refused to confirm that fact.

Now there have been cases where NRA membership has been confirmed for a shooter who didn’t get the major press of some of the high extreme mass shootings (there was a road rage shooting a few years ago if I recall in Florida where the perpetrator declared himself a "proud" lifelong member of the NRA). But the NRA isnt letting us know about many of the big names.

I would submit this though... There are NO requirements for NRA membership other than that you pay your yearly dues. You don’t need to be a US citizen. You don’t need to be over 18. You dont even need to be sane. Or free of any history of gun violence. Just give us money and youre in. So, statistically, and since we don’t receive confirmation or denial for every single shooting in this country, it seems almost certain that NRA members have been involved in shootings in the past 100 years or so. Is THAT a fair and reasonable enough declaration for you? Or am I still playing fast and loose with the "truth"?

Frankly, I never thought to try to link NRA MEMBERSHIP in any direct way to being a mass shooter. I don’t believe that to be true. I was simply responding to the unproven declaration that there has never been one since we cant apparently know that fact. I do wonder why you didn’t call him on that declaration, by the way, but instead just chose to jump all over my case on technical grounds, simply for pointing out the NRA isnt unconnected to these shootings even if you start with the most recent one (not counting today...).

I stand by the use of "bankrolling". They provided the funds for this program. They therefor "bankrolled him so he could become an even better shooter". That’s technically correct since you like being technical. (I did not say "they bankrolled the mass shooting"). Whereas my tax dollars did NOT bankroll a poor person to take a program so they could learn to become better at stealing hubcaps. Or a thief at all. Keeping him from starving to death is just not even close to being the same. But we can continue to argue about meaningless semantics and avoid the obvious notion that the NRA has its fingerprints all over many of these shootings either through programs and certificate awardings (which, as you note, can be technically ignored in this context) or through the fact that many of these shooters have taken full advantage of the over excessive gun rights that the NRA has worked so hard to expand. Is there a distinction between a member and an organization? Absolutely, but we can differ on what we believe was the implication of a statement made by someone who seems willing to make an unproven technical statement as a matter of fact.

But Ill play your game. I suppose if he responds with "See! You didn’t provide absolute proof that any shooter has ever been an NRA member!" Then my response would be ok then prove to me every single shooter has not been an NRA member. In this case, thats a negative that could be proven because they either have been or havent been.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Wow, Rex. I want to reiterate that I'm not touching the debate itself but I did not know that about NRA membership. Thanks for posting that.

Partially explained here, with the addendum that I saw his declaration and your response simultaneously.

It's not "technical" to point out that you didn't prove the thing you said you did, dude. At all.

If you'd simply argued with the implication or disputed how relevant the fact was (or even just expressed skepticism that it was true!), I'd have had no issue with it. And if you'd actually debunked what he was saying with a source, I'd have repped it in a heartbeat (I always rep that kind of thing). But you specifically said you'd debunked it and then threw in an extra jab with "so there goes your declaration." You don't get to simultaneously make a big point of emphasizing how you've smacked something down and then go "oh, I didn't realize we were getting all technical" when someone points out it wasn't really debunked.

Basically, if you wanna spike the football, don't try to turn someone else into a jerk for pointing out you didn't technically cross the goal line.

I'm not sure where the sarcasm or incredulity here is supposed to be coming from. Yes, that statement--different from the one you made and I responded to--is fair and reasonable. I'd have had zero issue with it if that's what you'd said.

Bankrolling a program is different than bankrolling a person. This wouldn't be controversial in any other context. If you pay for people's dog training you didn't "bankroll" their dog fighting ring, and if you teach them a martial art you didn't "bankroll" them beating people up.

Even the word "bankroll" was clearly chosen for the insidious connotation it has over "fund" or "sponsor" or whatever. This kinda rhetoric seems pretty dissonant with the disparaging talk about "semantics."

Yeah, I've seen this kinda thing before. Obvious overstatement, someone points out it isn't accurate, person is chastised for distracting from <more nuanced version of the argument that should have been advanced from the beginning>. Nevermind that "you should be making the more nuanced version of this argument" was literally what I said. See below.

Sure, but I already accounted for that with this part:

If you want to argue that the distinction doesn't matter for purposes of the argument, go ahead, but it seems weird to act like this is a definitive debunking, without making any acknowledgement of the difference or offering any attempt to explain it.

Please don't mistake my response to you for an endorsement of him. The fact that I think your response to him was unfair in no way implies that he's right, and my disagreeing with you is not some stealth way to take his side.

I think the problem here is that this is a serious issue and it's very easy to regard criticism, fair or not, as some kind of annoying roadblock to a righteous cause. Kinda reminds me of the whole "punching Nazis" in the face debate, where some people say "yeah, you can't punch people in the face for their beliefs" and the other side basically saying "BUT NAZIS." Same thing here: say something that isn't really true or overstate something, and when someone disputes it, it's "BUT PEOPLE ARE DYING." I see that as a reason to be more careful in talking about it, not less, and just in general I don't think being right about an important issue should generally be used as cover for cutting argumentative corners.

That's what I predicted this morning, when I first heard of the shooting, that bullying was involved. Stopping/curtailing bullying in school is a win win situation. I believe it would reduce the number of school shootings, and even if not, no one should be traumatized by their school experience.

Good kids with guns can stop bad kids with guns. We need more guns to protect these children. That's my mantra. Less Parenting... more guns. I really think its caught on. Don't you?

Ok I wont spike the football next time. But I think theres something to be said for managing a 90 yard gain even when the defense calls an illegal play.

but ok I think thats about enough sports analogies.

Well I certainly see the NRA as insidious. So its apropos. Should I neuter my words despite my feelings?

I appreciate that acknowledgement although Im assuming as soon as you got to his post you were probably thinking to yourself "great, just a matter of time before Rex bites on that hook with something indignant and smart assy". And sure enough... Although I actually had a lot more counter points to a number of the statements he made. But I deleted most of them thinking its not worth breaking this message down like it has any merit in the least. But let me look up that bit about no NRA ever involved in any shooting cause that sounds ridiculous. And the VERY FIRST thing I find is the fact that the NRA bank... errr... I mean sponsored his marksmanship class. And to me that was 100 times worse than just being an NRA member so I lead and finished with that. That was my thinking process. I figured people would find that at least interesting. And if there was a response it would be along the lines of "wow really? They taught the shooter to shoot?" But instead I get, "well but you didn’t prove he was an NRA member though". In the future Ill try to stick with addressing the obvious fallacy rather than being distracted by a much more salient point even if it is just screaming to be shared in that context.

Was I involved in that debate? Was that different from the "Trump defending Nazis" debate? Because I don’t remember calling for it. Personally, for the record, Im not for punching nazis as a rule (or running them over with my car despite Charlottesville and despite Blues Brothers). Nor do I support others doing it. I think its counterproductive in the long run. I will say you arent going to get me to feel sorry for the Nazi though.

As for the new shooting today in Texas, probably the most heartbreaking thing Ive seen about it so far (its been too early for the inevitable horrendous and harrowing melt downs by grieving furious parents who have lost a child) was the reaction by one student who when asked if there was a part of her that thought this wasn’t real — that this couldn’t happen at her school responded with:

“No. There wasn’t. It’s been happening everywhere. I’ve always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here, too.”

We've officially failed when our kids shrug and expect school shootings to happen to them...

School shootings are becoming a thing. It sucks. But I bet the girl who said that she felt like it was going to happen, isn't the only student who feels that way.

I can't believe as a nation we can't put our best minds on the problem and find a way to lessen the school shootings.