Wayne LaPierre resigns as leader of the NRA days ahead of civil trial
Wayne LaPierre resigns as leader of the NRA days ahead of civil trial
Wayne LaPierre, the leader of the National Rifle Association of America who served for decades as a fierce protector of the Second Amendment, advocating for firearms owners and manufacturers, is resigning days before his civil trial is set to begin.
Wayne LaPierre, the leader of the National Rifle Association of America who served for decades as a fierce protector of the Second Amendment, advocating for firearms owners and manufacturers, is resigning days before his civil trial is set to begin.
The NRA announced Friday in a statement LaPierre is stepping down as executive vice president and chief executive officer, effective January 31.
Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA executive and head of general operations, will become the interim CEO and executive vice president of the organization, the NRA said on its website.
...
New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2020 filed a lawsuit to dissolve the NRA, claiming the organization violated laws for non-profit groups and took millions for personal use and committed tax fraud. The case is set to go to trial on Monday.
You're viewing a single thread.
Gun owner here.
This is a very good thing.
Like many gun owners, I have a love-hate relationship with the NRA. On one hand, they do a lot of political action, on the other hand, I think they do almost as much to set gun rights back as many anti-gun groups do.Look at the message they send out, it's always panicked rabble-rousing to raise funds. It makes gun owners look crazy. I get the need to raise funds, but if they focused more on educating the general public about firearms and what makes a gun more or less dangerous and why people own and how they use guns, I think that would do an awful lot more good for everybody. I don't think most anti-gun people are evil, I think they are fighting for what they believe will bring about more safety. Same thing with pro-gun people. Thus, good faith education helps everybody.
It's also become fairly obvious that Wayne and a band of his cronies who have basically a stranglehold on NRA leadership are more or less totally corrupt and are using an awful lot of NRA donations to enrich themselves rather than to further the mission. Maybe that's why they keep sending out rabble-rousing fundraisers.
Anyway here's to hoping that a new chapter brings some new leadership that aren't a bunch of corrupt assholes.
I don't think most anti-gun people are evil, I think they are fighting for what they believe will bring about more safety. Same thing with pro-gun people. Thus, good faith education helps everybody.
Good faith education means understanding that "belief" has absolutely zero relevance to this conversation. Beliefs can be wrong. The only thing that matters is objective material evidence that one's position is correct.
The gun-control crowd has mountains of evidence that guns make society more dangerous, that firearm regulations reduce gun crime, and that firearm deregulation increases gun crime. This evidence comes from the USA, as well as numerous other countries with varying laws surrounding firearm ownership. Mental health and societal order are contributing factors, but nothing correlates with gun violence like the number of guns on streets, and the causal links are well established.
The gun-rights crowd, on the other hand, has little to no evidence that guns make us safer. This is because guns, objectively, do not make us safer. All reputable data points us solidly to the conclusion that guns increase our risk of injury or death. This is not some matter of opinion or belief, it is a fact, and you can either be right or you can be wrong about it. That is why the gun-rights arguments are generally centered around fear of hypothetical assailants, or heroism by good guys, because when the facts aren't on your side, it's more effective to focus your energy on hyperbole and anecdotes. That, or they just parrot "shall not be infringed", because a religious interpretation of the Constitution makes an excellent thought-terminator when the questions get too hard.
Just because there are "two sides" to an argument doesn't make both sides equal. One side can just be wrong, and in this case, there's plenty of evidence to make that assertion.
Good faith education means understanding that “belief” has absolutely zero relevance to this conversation. Beliefs can be wrong. The only thing that matters is objective material evidence that one’s position is correct.
On this I agree 100%. Feelings don't matter, data matters.
Here's the most important data point I have, that's responsible for an awful lot of my beliefs.Murder victims by weapon, 2015-2019. Following years are on a newer site that doesn't easily deep link. The result is more or less the same for most years though- each year about 10k-12k people are killed with a firearm. This data is centrally tracked by FBI and can be considered very reliable.
Defensive Gun Uses in USA. A Defensive Gun Use, or DGU, is were a lawful gun owner uses a legally owned firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The overwhelming majority of DGUs (90+%) end with no shots fired; the criminal sees the gun and runs away. DGUs are often unreported (as there's often little to report) and those that are reported are not centrally tracked in any way. That means the only way to estimate their frequency is statistical analysis of victimization surveys. That of course means there's wide disagreement on the overall number of DGUs.
To save you a long read- anti-gun researcher Hemenway estimates 55k-80k/year; pro-gun researchers Kleck and Gertz say it's 2.1 million/year, Cook and Ludwig took a different analysis method and came up with 4.7 million/year. Other analysis of government NCVS data suggests between 100k/year and 370k/year.The point is, even if you go with low end estimates from Hemenway, Firearms are used 5x more in defense than as murder weapons.
I recognize that's not a perfect comparison, as many of those DGUs wouldn't have resulted in death had the victim been unarmed, and that also doesn't consider non-fatal shootings.
However, the general argument for why 'guns are bad' is because a criminal can kill me with one; I look at this and see another side of that coin.
The other thing I've found as I learned about guns, is that not all gun owners are the same.
I was surprised to find that gun ownership in most areas has as much of a safety culture as pilots. Sure there's a few idiots, but the vast majority of people I've interacted with in the gun community are VERY safety oriented. These are not the people who would threaten you.
The lion's share of gun violence is committed by prohibited gun owners, people who due to previous convictions are already ineligible to possess a firearm. And it's usually committed with an illegal firearm too.Unfortunately, in these stats you can't easily screen out gang-related violence. But you CAN use your brain.
Go to a site like mass shooting tracker and pick a few stories at random. You'll find an awful lot like 'victim 1 and victim 2 were leaving a house party on whatever block of whatever road, suspect 1 opened fire from a moving vehicle operated by suspect 2. Victim 1 and victim 2 were both injured, as well as bystander 1 and bystander 2. Victim 1 returned fire and injured suspect 1.' AKA, gangland drive by shooting.
My point overall is this- having studied the stats and the reality of guns and gun ownership pretty extensively (more so than most I believe at least), I believe the ACTUAL HARD EVIDENCE (when you don't massage it for example by including suicides in 'gun violence) clearly shows that in the US at least, private civilian gun ownership and concealed carry are NOT the evil that anti-gun people make it out to be, and may even be an overall net benefit for society.
A subjective perspective from outside the US:
If I follow your argument that illegal firearms are the problem, I still believe that the amount of illegal firearms in circulation is a direct function of the legal arms market's size.
And as long as the threshold for acquiring a firearm is low, so is the threshold for injuring someone with one.
This goes for a criminal using an illegal one in a robbery, a frustrated teenager emptying their uncle's poorly secured gun locker for a school schooting or even for suicides: An abundance of guns makes these things easier, so they happen more often.
Mandating stricter controls, safety training or weapon-lockup procedures can alleviate this some, but any process that relies on a lot of not strictly organized individuals to be applied will be fallible and permeable by nature.
Selling more weapons to private citizens will always lead to more gun-related deaths and injuries.
The only way to reliably reduce the amount of weapons in circulation is to sell less of them (and keep removing illegal ones).
Naturally, this is unpopular with an industry that relies on selling as many as possible.
(I'm also aware that something like this would have to be a very slow process. Even if the pool of legal weapons were drained overnight, all those illegal guns would still be around.)
A Defensive Gun Use, or DGU, is were a lawful gun owner uses a legally owned firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The overwhelming majority of DGUs (90+%) end with no shots fired; the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
You raise an interesting metric that expands the conversation. However, that metric introduced cannot be considered without its counter. If the majority of DGU results in no shots fired (non-discharge DGU events), and therefore contributes to the unreported positive influence of guns, the opposite must be introduced.
That being: crimes where a gun is brandished by the criminal as a means of coercion, but not discharged; non-discharge Offensive Gun Use events
I'm not even sure what statistics, if any, exist to capture enough data to draw a conclusion, but I would guess (with nothing to back up that guess) that non-discharge OGU events would outweigh the benefits of non-discharge DGU . At that point its also a subjective discussion.
How many non-discharge DGU events are enough to counter the non-discharge OGU events?
OGUs as you call them are almost certainly tracked, if only because they are almost all reported to the police and a crime has actually occurred so a record will be kept. I would be interested in looking at those numbers if you have any? I may search for that myself later on.
However when considering how to address this, we must keep in mind that laws don't affect everybody equally. For example, if somebody is drag racing on public streets, lowering the speed limit from 45mph to 35mph will have no effect on them because they will continue to ignore the speed limit while driving at 90mph. But the law abiding people trying to get to work who follow the speed limit will be slowed down. Thus the good people are restricted and the criminal is unaffected.
Same is true with guns. The person who commits the OGU is already breaking the law, both in committing their crime and in using their gun to do it. You can make concealed carry illegal for example, but do you think that is going to reduce the number of criminals who carry guns? I don't. It will however reduce the number of their law-abiding victims who are armed.
So when we consider what gun policy we should have, it's helpful to remember that we've been trying to keep drugs out of criminals hands for about 50 years now, we're spending tens of billions a year on it, and we've little progress to show for it. Drugs are still widely available. Guns are easier to make than drugs. Drugs require growing certain crops, processing them in a lab, etc. This takes weeks or months of grow time and specialized equipment and chemicals that don't have legit 'day shift' uses. In comparison, schematics for just about any gun are available online, and any decent machine shop can turn out a workable copy. Unlike the drug lab, that machine shop has a legitimate 'day shift' use and can operate in the open.
Point being, I don't think that you can prevent criminals from having guns by restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to own or carry them. Didn't work with drugs, doesn't work with guns either.
OGUs as you call them are almost certainly tracked, if only because they are almost all reported to the police and a crime has actually occurred so a record will be kept. I would be interested in looking at those numbers if you have any? I may search for that myself later on.
I don't think it likely that every time a person brandishes a gun or shows a holstered gun during a crime that it is reported to the police.
However when considering how to address this, we must keep in mind that laws don’t affect everybody equally. For example, if somebody is drag racing on public streets, lowering the speed limit from 45mph to 35mph will have no effect on them because they will continue to ignore the speed limit while driving at 90mph. But the law abiding people trying to get to work who follow the speed limit will be slowed down. Thus the good people are restricted and the criminal is unaffected.
Same is true with guns. The person who commits the OGU is already breaking the law, both in committing their crime and in using their gun to do it. You can make concealed carry illegal for example, but do you think that is going to reduce the number of criminals who carry guns? I don’t. It will however reduce the number of their law-abiding victims who are armed.
You're making a very good argument for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and banning guns completely. I wasn't thinking about going quite that far, but you're starting to convince me.
Guns are easier to make than drugs. Drugs require growing certain crops, processing them in a lab, etc. This takes weeks or months of grow time and specialized equipment and chemicals that don’t have legit ‘day shift’ uses. In comparison, schematics for just about any gun are available online, and any decent machine shop can turn out a workable copy. Unlike the drug lab, that machine shop has a legitimate ‘day shift’ use and can operate in the open.
This must be why Europe, Japan, Australia and dozens of other nations with gun bans are awash with illegal guns, mass shootings are a regular event, and incidents of firearms used in the commission of other crime are so common in those nations...except they aren't.
The assassination of former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe was killed with a firearm made in a machine shop equal to an commercial grade weapon...except it was this instead:
This uses black powder obtained by from fireworks with with only two shots before lengthy reloading process would be required. It would also have all of the flaws and failures of the primitive firearm it is allowing intervention of the shooter in many cases.
If the this homemade gun is the result of laws controlling the mass spread of firearms, then I think they would be considered a resounding success.
Point being, I don’t think that you can prevent criminals from having guns by restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to own or carry them.
How is it nearly every other nation on the planet is able to largely accomplish this but you claim its impossible?
you overlooked the "under no pretext" people.
Those are the same as the "shall not be infringed" people. Anyone who views the 2nd Amendment as self-validating.
this is basically the opposite of analysis. it's caricature. keep pigeonholing people that you don't agree with. I'm sure that will bring them around to your point of view.
Look, if someone is pro-gun just because of the Constitution, then they are a stupid person incapable of independent thought. One sentence written 200+ years ago doesn't help us understand how things work in the real world. Justifications for modern lax gun laws need real arguments, not deferment to code or self-aggrandizing anecdotes.
If someone says that guns make us safer because of the constitution, then they have made no actual argument and are essentially expressing a religious belief about guns. These kinds of arguments are devoid of critical thinking. They aren't serious arguments, it's essentially just virtue signalling.
I have absolutely zero interest in pretending that these people's ideas are ideas worth considering. Sometimes you just have to learn to recognize bullshit and refuse to give it any power. If that makes people feel bad, okay, but I don't see how that's my problem. I have a standard not to legitimize intellectually bankrupt arguments, and I'm not lowering that standard because someone else feels judged.
FWIW, I'd generally agree that I hate when people on either side parrot the party line and have no ability to debate their own positions other than spouting talking points.
However I think the Constitution is an exception to that-- someone can be 'I support guns because the Constitution' and be meaning 'we should follow the Constitution as written and intended by the Framers' (which I think is a valid and learned POV) rather than 'I blindly follow whatever the old document says and I don't think for myself why it's good or bad'.
The Constitution is the law of the land, period. You can disagree with it- you can say it's wrong, that its ideals no longer serve modern society, etc.
But simply ignoring it or 'interpreting' it to mean whatever we want it to mean in that moment is a VERY slippery and dangerous slope. That's how you get warrantless wiretapping, torture memos, extraordinary rendition, civil asset forfeiture, and a whole host of other awful things.If you disagree with the Constitution, there's a process to change it. But until it gets changed, we MUST follow it as it was written and intended by the Framers.
If we don't do that, then we go down a very dark path- free speech only applies to things said in person and paper printed publications (not the Internet as it wasn't around in the 1700s), the 4th amendment only applies to hardcopy files and not computer files or cloud storage as those are new inventions not envisioned by the Framers, etc etc, It's really NOT a good direction for us to go.
I'd also like to point out for just because something is a law doesn't mean it is just or correct. I would also like to point out that just because there's a process. That does not mean it is adequate or usable.
While I fall into the camp of people who would be more favorable to actually following the text of the second amendment. And for all the second amendment people to learn basic English grammar. That a comma separates two parts of a connected thought and not two separate thoughts.
The facts are, guns have only made us less safe. Most other countries in the world can go years, decades even between mass shootings. Even longer between school shootings. We are the only country in the world where such things happen on a nearly daily basis. And that has to do with our sorely outdated and outmoded second amendment.
I agree there's plenty of unjust laws and unusable processes. But 'it's too hard to change the Constitution so we should just ignore it' is a real bad way to go.
As for the text of it, you should be aware that if you are a male citizen between 18 and 45 years of age, legally you are part of the United States Militia. Google it.
As for why we have so much violence, I find it amusing that you look only at guns and not at the many other causes or predictors of societal decay. For example, most civilized nations have some form of socialized health care. Few others have families going bankrupt because someone gets cancer. Most civilized nations have strong social safety nets, and actively work to bring people out of poverty. Most civilized nations treat addicts like patients to be treated rather than animals to be caged. Most civilized nations have decent paths out of addiction and poverty that don't require you to be already rich to afford them. Most civilized nations have strong worker protections and unions, which combined with a good social safety net, make real upward mobility an achievable goal.
Evil men will always find the tools they need to dispense their evil.
I agree there's plenty of unjust laws and unusable processes. But 'it's too hard to change the Constitution so we should just ignore it' is a real bad way to go.
You said that not me. I simply said it was inadequate and unworkable. The fact that you would agree with that. That it was inadequate and unworkable. But that being the remedy you suggest to people who disagree with you. Show that you're likely being disingenuous.
As for the text of it, you should be aware that if you are a male citizen between 18 and 45 years of age, legally you are part of the United States Militia. Google it.
I'm aware. Though too old to be included anymore.
As for why we have so much violence, I find it amusing that you look only at guns and not at the many other causes or predictors of societal decay. For example, most civilized nations have some form of socialized health care.
You find it funny that I focus on the topic of the thread? I find it funny that you find it funny that that's what I would focus on. That said, being a staunch lefty someone who hovers somewhere around social libertarian, Marxist etc. I am actually 100% for those things, push for those things and believe that they would help. As well as abolishing private prisons and legalizing most if not all drugs in combination with some basic controls on them. But that wasn't what we were talking about here.
The only thing that matters is objective material evidence that one’s position is correct.
This argument may have more weight if you support it by presenting objective material evidence.
Turn on the news. Any given day.
If it bleeds, it leads.
When you see gang related gun violence, ask if those gun owners were legal gun owners who filled out a background check form and took a training class, or if they weren't legally allowed to have guns in the first place and bought an illegal gun on the street?
Most defensive gun uses go unreported because there's nothing to report- the criminal ran away when they saw a gun.
Sorry to link back to Reddit but it's useful here- Here's the /r/CCW list of Redditor involved defensive gun use situations