Nice Move, Dick's Sporting Goods

[stoic-one 1,549]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

What are the NRA's efforts towards ensuring that a prospective gun owner demonstrate aptitude and a basic understanding of responsible gun ownership before purchasing one? 

The NRA actually advocates starting people sooner, rather than later, on firearms safety through programs like Eddie Eagle:

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

And progressing through that with certified instructors to provide long term training and safety courses.

https://firearmtraining.nra.org/become-an-instructor/

http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

The NRA actually advocates starting people sooner, rather than later, on firearms safety through programs like Eddie Eagle:

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

And progressing through that with certified instructors to provide long term training and safety courses.

https://firearmtraining.nra.org/become-an-instructor/

http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx

Ok.

What does the NRA do to *ensure* that gun owners are properly trained on use and ownership, whether it be by an NRA certified instructor or elsewhere? If gun safety is a primary component of the organization's mission, then I would think that they would lobby for it to be a requirement. Could be a win-win, after all. Could drive up enrollment in their courses. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Ok.

What does the NRA do to *ensure* that gun owners are properly trained on use and ownership, whether it be by an NRA certified instructor or elsewhere? If gun safety is a primary component of the organization's mission, then I would think that they would lobby for it to be a requirement. Could be a win-win, after all. Could drive up enrollment in their courses. 

I know where you're going with this question, and I am pretty sure you will not approve of my answer. For various reasons.

As I mentioned, the NRA is a member directed organization, their foremost priority is to advocate for the 2nd amendment on a nationwide level. That said, it's not that they don't lobby for gun safety, they do, but making training a requirement on the federal level has never been a priority because the NRA (read members) feel it is unconstitutional to impose requirements/restrictions. There are quite a few regulations in place as it is, just not mandatory training to purchase. Now you can agree or disagree with that stance, but that depends entirely upon how you interpret the constitution. It's primarily a conservative organization, so they believe the constitution exists to limit government control. Not to limit freedom, per se. Especially if you throw in the 14th amendment as was argued in McDonald v. City of Chicago. And that was after DC v. Heller. Those cases were primarily about restrictions to purchasing a firearm. It's an argument that's been going on quite a while, and there will be reasonable (and unreasonable ) disagreements on either side of the matter.

I don't think the NRA gives a whit about making money through mandatory/required training. Besides, the people that make the most by being a certified instructor, are the instructors themselves, and that's usually not that much. Not that the amount matters because a good portion of the guys I know that do it don't charge for it.

On the state levels, where training is a requirement for permitting (obviously not all states, nor types of firearms), NRA Certification is almost exclusively the bar required for those who conduct training, as required by various states/locales. Again, many of the instructors do basic skills testing and training, gratis, and simply collect the fees the states mandate to give the courses.

None of this means the NRA doesn't push training and safety quite heavily, they do, what they don't push is requirements the NRA deems unconstitutional. And as I said above, the NRA advocates starting people sooner, rather than later, on firearms safety. They've been successful in getting some of that training implemented in some schools (pre-K through 4th), but as you can imagine, there is quite a bit of push-back. Back when I went to school, we had firearms classes in school. Obviously, by and large, they don't do any of that anymore, and I believe that is to our detriment.

We've gone through a couple generations that have no understanding of the benefits and dangers of small arms, and no matter how you define it an AR is a small arm. Most people today only see the dangers, it's sad.

[kd4au 1,145]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But to some degree this is like saying "Sarin nerve gas doesn't kill people, people kill people."  Of course an inanimate object doesn't just up and kill people of its own free will.  But some things are too lethal, too dangerous to just let anyone have.  So if some organization with the money and influence that the NRA has were arguing (successfully) that average citizens should have the right to access to biological/chemical weapons, we'd treat them like crazy people.  And if we had a rash of incidents where people legally purchased biological/chemical weapons to kill dozens of school children, we'd be right to try and curtail that access.

So what I'm saying is, the reason the NRA is catching some flak (not being "blamed" per se) over this is that they continually fight tooth and nail against almost any effort that would make these high powered weapons harder to get when the consensus is that such weaponry should be, at best, VERY difficult to obtain.

Nice try, but last time I looked we didn't have a right to buy nerve gas but we do have a right to own guns.

[kd4au 1,145]

4 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I believe this. I believe that most people in the NRA are decent and honest people. 

And I think you would be right. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

6 minutes ago, kd4au said:

Nice try, but last time I looked we didn't have a right to buy nerve gas but we do have a right to own guns.

Technically, it's a right to bear arms which could mean a lot of things.  But the point still stands - "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not a valid response.  Of course inanimate objects don't kill on their own. 

But regardless, it's not an unlimited right.  Just because you can own guns doesn't mean you're allowed to own any gun with no added restrictions.  High powered weapons like this can and should be much harder for the average person to obtain.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Technically, it's a right to bear arms which could mean a lot of things.  But the point still stands - "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not a valid response.  Of course inanimate objects don't kill on their own. 

But regardless, it's not an unlimited right.  Just because you can own guns doesn't mean you're allowed to own any gun with no added restrictions.  High powered weapons like this can and should be much harder for the average person to obtain.

To expound on this, we limit rights every day in this country.

Free speech isn't unimpeachable.  You can't scream bomb on an airplane or make knowingly false statements in print without being open to libel/slander lawsuits.

Felons are stripped of their right to vote.

The right to a speedy trial is laughable as it can take months or even years for a case to get to court.

Point is, nothing in our constitution is really absolute.  It's all been interpreted throughout the years.

[Barnacle 9,064]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Technically, it's a right to bear arms which could mean a lot of things.  But the point still stands - "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not a valid response.  Of course inanimate objects don't kill on their own. 

But regardless, it's not an unlimited right.  Just because you can own guns doesn't mean you're allowed to own any gun with no added restrictions.  High powered weapons like this can and should be much harder for the average person to obtain.

Bolded to emphasize that reasonable people can support the right to bear arms, and at the same time support restrictions and/or barriers to ownership. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

But regardless, it's not an unlimited right.  Just because you can own guns doesn't mean you're allowed to own any gun with no added restrictions.  High powered weapons like this can and should be much harder for the average person to obtain.

Balderdash, the AR-15 in its most common caliber, 5.56 and .223 Rem, is banned for use in 10 states for hunting purposes. Nope, no dear hunting or anything else. It's considered an intermediate cartridge and that's being generous. The standard AR-15 weapon can be purchased in cartridges that range from .17 to .300ish+, aka 30 caliber, there's probably 25+ cartridges it can accept with the proper barrel, some of which are strictly varmint rounds. But the typical caliber is 5.56x45 NATO and it's little, and also compatible brother, .223 Remington. Even the US Army is looking for replacements for it based on ineffectiveness in the field, and they have full auto select fire M4's, that's how high powered it is.

If the contention is that it's lethality can be tied to rate of fire or large magazine capacity, fine, but no one should mistake it for "high powered".

Here's a picture of the Ruger mini-14 with 20 round magazine, looks docile enough, the same capability as an AR in the exact came caliber (5.56), just looks more like a hunting rifle. It's marketed as a small game rifle, you know, like coyotes, wild pigs, or bobcat... Maybe a deer if you're close enough (100 yards) or it's small, and legal in your state. Did I mention it's illegal to use .223 in 10 states?

 

Like I said, if the discussion is about rate of fire (like adding a bump stock) or magazine capacity, or evil customizable features like a pistol grip, fine. But high powered weapon is a bit of hyperbole the press loves to push.

If we're looking at banning things, being specific matters. Ya gonna ban my Ruger too? 

 

Edit:

Sorry guys, "high powered" triggered me, get it? 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

17 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Balderdash, the AR-15 in its most common caliber, 5.56 and .223 Rem, is banned for use in 10 states for hunting purposes. Nope, no dear hunting or anything else. It's considered an intermediate cartridge and that's being generous. The standard AR-15 weapon can be purchased in cartridges that range from .17 to .300ish+, aka 30 caliber, there's probably 25+ cartridges it can accept with the proper barrel, some of which are strictly varmint rounds. But the typical caliber is 5.56x45 NATO and it's little, and also compatible brother, .223 Remington. Even the US Army is looking for replacements for it based on ineffectiveness in the field, and they have full auto select fire M4's, that's how high powered it is.

If the contention is that it's lethality can be tied to rate of fire or large magazine capacity, fine, but no one should mistake it for "high powered".

Here's a picture of the Ruger mini-14 with 20 round magazine, looks docile enough, the same capability as an AR in the exact came caliber (5.56), just looks more like a hunting rifle. It's marketed as a small game rifle, you know, like coyotes, wild pigs, or bobcat... Maybe a deer if you're close enough (100 yards) or it's small, and legal in your state. Did I mention it's illegal to use .223 in 10 states?

 

Like I said, if the discussion is about rate of fire (like adding a bump stock) or magazine capacity, or evil customizable features like a pistol grip, fine. But high powered weapon is a bit of hyperbole the press loves to push.

If we're looking at banning things, being specific matters. Ya gonna ban my Ruger too? 

 

Edit:

Sorry guys, "high powered" triggered me, get it? 

 

I don't have your expertise, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's high powered.  Maybe not compared to even more high powered options you could get, but from a lethality perspective, from a damage perspective, it's not like other kinds of guns you typically see in emergency rooms for GSWs.

Quote

 

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal...

...Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading...

...I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

Now, yes, the rate of fire is a factor here.  There are certainly hunting rifles that blow a much bigger hole in someone. But you can only deliver a few shots from one before you're reloading and it's not the quick and easy dropping of a magazine and popping another high capacity one right in after it.   So it's a combination of the high velocity of the bullet from this gun as well as the rapid rate of fire and the ability to have large amounts of bullets in a magazine that make it so lethal.  

If "high powered" isn't the right term for it, fine.  But that combination is what I think most people are getting at and what should be more highly regulated.

[stoic-one 1,549]

I've seen my share of articles on the subject, your link isn't necessarily outside the norm, bit there are a lot of variables involved in terminal ballistics. 

There have been more than a few occasions I'm aware of where a 5.56 round seriously underperformed from a ballistics standpoint. Comparing a 9mm handgun round to just about any rifle round is a comparison few would bother to make when it comes to gaging performance, the 9mm doesn't stand a chance.

The most important factor in small arms shooting is accuracy, it pretty much wins every time, no matter what firearm or caliber.

I don't intend to minimize anything here, just explain that in the rifle world 5.56 isn't particularly highly regarded or considered powerful. The numbers don' bear it out.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Way to go Georgia. Nice!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-senate-vote-tax-bill-delta-benefit-dropped-151532090.html

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

12 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

I've seen my share of articles on the subject, your link isn't necessarily outside the norm, bit there are a lot of variables involved in terminal ballistics. 

There have been more than a few occasions I'm aware of where a 5.56 round seriously underperformed from a ballistics standpoint. Comparing a 9mm handgun round to just about any rifle round is a comparison few would bother to make when it comes to gaging performance, the 9mm doesn't stand a chance.

The most important factor in small arms shooting is accuracy, it pretty much wins every time, no matter what firearm or caliber.

I don't intend to minimize anything here, just explain that in the rifle world 5.56 isn't particularly highly regarded or considered powerful. The numbers don' bear it out.

I understand.  Like I say, I don't think the "raw power" factor is the only thing people are referring to when using the layman's term "high powered."  It's a combination of damage it can inflict compared to other common types of weapons used in crimes (not many folks are robbing stores or shooting up schools or concerts using a hunting rifle) due to high velocity, rate of fire, ability to use large capacity magazines, and quick reloading capabilities.  

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Way to go Georgia. Nice!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-senate-vote-tax-bill-delta-benefit-dropped-151532090.html

 

"Attacking conservatives."  What a pantywaisted load of crap.

It's all fun and games until Delta relocates HQ to a state who doesn't tie up gas tax incentives over a minor discount to a special interest group's membership.  

[McLoofus 35,182]

17 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Way to go Georgia. Nice!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-senate-vote-tax-bill-delta-benefit-dropped-151532090.html

 

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

"Attacking conservatives."  What a pantywaisted load of crap.

It's all fun and games until Delta relocates HQ to a state who doesn't tie up gas tax incentives over a minor discount to a special interest group's membership.  

Don't forget Amazon's HQ2, which these petty redneck dumbasses have been courting for some time and quite likely just kissed goodbye.

By the way, if anyone else wants to whine about the perception of the GOP being in bed with the NRA, take your tears to the gold dome in Atlanta.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Hell will freeze over before Delta leaves Atlanta and the chances of Amazon going to Georgia were already slim. But they will make a business decision not based on gun control issues.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 hours ago, stoic-one said:

I know where you're going with this question, and I am pretty sure you will not approve of my answer. For various reasons.

As I mentioned, the NRA is a member directed organization, their foremost priority is to advocate for the 2nd amendment on a nationwide level. That said, it's not that they don't lobby for gun safety, they do, but making training a requirement on the federal level has never been a priority because the NRA (read members) feel it is unconstitutional to impose requirements/restrictions. There are quite a few regulations in place as it is, just not mandatory training to purchase. Now you can agree or disagree with that stance, but that depends entirely upon how you interpret the constitution. It's primarily a conservative organization, so they believe the constitution exists to limit government control. Not to limit freedom, per se. Especially if you throw in the 14th amendment as was argued in McDonald v. City of Chicago. And that was after DC v. Heller. Those cases were primarily about restrictions to purchasing a firearm. It's an argument that's been going on quite a while, and there will be reasonable (and unreasonable ) disagreements on either side of the matter.

I don't think the NRA gives a whit about making money through mandatory/required training. Besides, the people that make the most by being a certified instructor, are the instructors themselves, and that's usually not that much. Not that the amount matters because a good portion of the guys I know that do it don't charge for it.

On the state levels, where training is a requirement for permitting (obviously not all states, nor types of firearms), NRA Certification is almost exclusively the bar required for those who conduct training, as required by various states/locales. Again, many of the instructors do basic skills testing and training, gratis, and simply collect the fees the states mandate to give the courses.

None of this means the NRA doesn't push training and safety quite heavily, they do, what they don't push is requirements the NRA deems unconstitutional. And as I said above, the NRA advocates starting people sooner, rather than later, on firearms safety. They've been successful in getting some of that training implemented in some schools (pre-K through 4th), but as you can imagine, there is quite a bit of push-back. Back when I went to school, we had firearms classes in school. Obviously, by and large, they don't do any of that anymore, and I believe that is to our detriment.

We've gone through a couple generations that have no understanding of the benefits and dangers of small arms, and no matter how you define it an AR is a small arm. Most people today only see the dangers, it's sad.

That's about what I expected. Thanks as always for the thoughtful response. 

Freedom ain't free, as they say.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Hell will freeze over before Delta leaves Atlanta and the chances of Amazon going to Georgia were already slim. But they will make a business decision not based on gun control issues.

Delta parting ways with the NRA isn't a gun control issue and the GA GOP's response is even less of one. 

What a bunch of clowns.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Delta parting ways with the NRA isn't a gun control issue.

 

Then what was it?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

26 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Hell will freeze over before Delta leaves Atlanta and the chances of Amazon going to Georgia were already slim. But they will make a business decision not based on gun control issues.

I wouldn't be so certain of that.  There is absolutely nothing about Atlanta that makes it indispensable for Delta.  Delta made Atlanta into a hub city, not the other way around.  What happens if Nashville, Charlotte, or some other southeastern city come calling with the promise of friendly tax incentives Georgia removed because they got in a snit and did a little posturing for voters?  You think that Georgia will make business decisions based on gun control issues but a private company that just had tens of millions in potential tax breaks stripped out won't, especially if someone else would offer them that and more?  You're crazy.

And Atlanta wasn't a long shot for HQ2 of Amazon.  

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-hq2-housing-experts-put-their-money-on-atlanta-or-northern-virginia-2018-02-28

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2018/1/29/16946010/amazon-hq2-headquarters-atlanta-shortlist

https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/amazon-likely-to-choose-atlanta-hq2-study.html

http://fortune.com/2018/01/02/amazon-second-headquarters/

Granted, everyone is just trying to make educated guesses here, but it's simply not true to minimize their chances so it doesn't appear that the GA legislature may have shot themselves in the foot over what should have been a minor issue of zero legislative significance.

[stoic-one 1,549]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I wouldn't be so certain of that.  There is absolutely nothing about Atlanta that makes it indispensable for Delta.  Delta made Atlanta into a hub city, not the other way around.  What happens if Nashville, Charlotte, or some other southeastern city come calling with the promise of friendly tax incentives Georgia removed because they got in a snit and did a little posturing for voters?  You think that Georgia will make business decisions based on gun control issues but a private company that just had tens of millions in potential tax breaks stripped out won't, especially if someone else would offer them that and more?  You're crazy.

You may or may not be right from a financial standpoint, but I can't think of an airport or city that could handle the flight volume Delta would bring without a LOT of expansion spending. It's a ridiculous number of flights.

ATL has bent over backwards over the years to keep pace with their operations. I guess I don't really know for sure, but probably billions of dollars would be required to update any other airport I can think of.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, stoic-one said:

You may or may not be right from a financial standpoint, but I can't think of an airport or city that could handle the flight volume Delta would bring without a LOT of expansion spending. It's a ridiculous number of flights.

ATL has bent over backwards over the years to keep pace with their operations. I guess I don't really know for sure, but probably billions of dollars would be required to update any other airport I can think of.

But you're not moving all of Atlanta's traffic to another city, just Delta's.  And while that is significant, you're not having to replicate the entirety of Hartsfield.

Openings like this don't come often.  They probably should never come.  Georgia just created one.  They'd better hope Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee or some other state around there didn't have designs on doing something like this and now have the foothold they needed to go for broke.  33,000 jobs and massive volumes of travelers coming through spending money each year are some pretty damn big incentives to make magic happen.

That said, if Delta got serious about pursuing something with another state, I think the GA Legislature would find some way to save face and reapply the tax breaks.  Delta can find another home if they want to.  GA would have a beast of a time finding another airline that could replace what Delta brings to ATL.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Then what was it?

It was a corporation making a decision about its relationship with a lobbying group.

As for Amazon, you're half right. They won't pass over Georgia because of its irresponsible gun laws. Those already exist and aren't going anywhere. They're part of the package, though.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

38 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Hell will freeze over before Delta leaves Atlanta and the chances of Amazon going to Georgia were already slim. But they will make a business decision not based on gun control issues.

I work in the tech sector.  No, the odds were actually much higher than most.  Atlanta has many of the things Amazon wants in a HQ2 city, like:

- Proximity to quality higher education

- Public transportation

- A major airport capable of handling international flights

- A place on the eastern side of the country

- Large metro area

Now add in that Delta is working feverishly to make Seattle a western hub and you start to see where Amazon and Atlanta make sense.

What will hurt Atlanta are things exactly like this with Delta.  One of the primary considerations for Amazon are "stable and business friendly tax structures".  The GA legislature just showed it can be unstable, even for one of the largest employers in the state.  It's an incredibly short-sighted move that could cost them upwards of 50k very well paying jobs.  I've interviewed with Amazon before for a job at their headquarters.  Trust me when I tell you that they pay extremely well.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

You may or may not be right from a financial standpoint, but I can't think of an airport or city that could handle the flight volume Delta would bring without a LOT of expansion spending. It's a ridiculous number of flights.

ATL has bent over backwards over the years to keep pace with their operations. I guess I don't really know for sure, but probably billions of dollars would be required to update any other airport I can think of.

New York and Virginia are already courting Delta's business following the GA legislature vote.  And they aren't the only one's who would love that business.  Delta already has a hub in Detroit, which is a MUCH nicer airport than Hartsfield.  Think Michigan, given Detroit's struggles over the years, wouldn't come after that many jobs?  Delta holds all of the cards here, not Georgia.  Legislators need to start remembering that or their constituents may find themselves out of a job.