Are NRA members generally more dangerous people than non members? [W:629]

[X Factor]

What do you think? Attaching poll.

 

[haymarket]

how do you define dangerous?

 

[Goshin]

What do you think? Attaching poll.

Well, if you threaten our lives, homes or rights, yes we are.

Otherwise no, not really.

 

[X Factor]

how do you define dangerous?

Off the top of my head, I say in the sense of being more likely to commit acts of lethal violence.

 

[mike2810]

In general, no.
but don't threaten me or my family. (of course one take a lot of verbal threats with a grain of salt).

 

[haymarket]

Off the top of my head, I say in the sense of being more likely to commit acts of lethal violence.

If you limit to that you are ignoring the dangerous threat their ideas and political actions present to others and the nation as a whole.

But its your poll - so define it the way you want to. Thanks for the prompt answer.

 

[Fiddytree]

Well, if you threaten our lives, homes or rights, yes we are.

Otherwise no, not really.

Taking this into consideration, I would argue it depends.

In terms of violence, no. In terms of advocating for policies injurious to the health of other Americans outside their normal gun rights advocacy, they just may be if they take their cues from the NRA. Thankfully, its membership has not moved in a serious direction to do what the NRA has at one point or another wanted to do to other American citizens.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

None of the members I know are what I would consider dangerous, but that's a tiny fraction of the claimed (LOL) 5 million members.

Just average peeps for the most part.

FYI - not all gun owners belong to the NRA. I'm part of that group.

 

[Captain Adverse]

IMO?

They are just citizens more dedicated to ensuring the preservation of their right to keep and bear arms...despite all the ongoing and IMO unconstitutional infringements by a partisan Congress it was supposed to protect us from.

Thanks to McDonald v. City of Chicago, that protection against infringement is supposed to apply to State Legislatures too.

I may end up joining...

 

[X Factor]

Well, if you threaten our lives, homes or rights, yes we are.

Otherwise no, not really.

Interesting Gosh, and I know exactly what you mean. NRA members are, of course, likely gun owners so could potentially use firearms to protect their lives, homes and rights. On the other hand, I am not a member yet I am also well armed so I would also have the capability of being equally dangerous in those situations, maybe more so because I don't have any NRA stickers anywhere that might warn anyone off. That's a little tongue in cheek but NRA members could legit be less dangerous since my impression is that it's people with the common interest of responsible gun ownership.

 

[Grand Mal]

What do you think? Attaching poll.

No. People who join clubs aren't the dangerous ones. Loners are more dangerous than joiners.
'Course, people who identify as members of a group can encourage each other and become a dangerous pack.

 

[X Factor]

If you limit to that you are ignoring the dangerous threat their ideas and political actions present to others and the nation as a whole.

But its your poll - so define it the way you want to. Thanks for the prompt answer.

That could be said of any idea or political actions one just happens to disagree with.

 

[Goshin]

Taking this into consideration, I would argue it depends.

In terms of violence, no. In terms of advocating for policies injurious to the health of other Americans outside their normal gun rights advocacy, they just may be if they take their cues from the NRA. Thankfully, its membership has not moved in a serious direction to do what the NRA has at one point or another wanted to do to other American citizens.

Hm? What does the NRA want to "do to other American citizens" of an injurious nature?

 

[Fiddytree]

Hm? What does the NRA want to "do to other American citizens" of an injurious nature?

1. National Database of the mentally ill. Depending on the range used, that would be about 18.1% of the U.S. population for AMI (any mental illness), 4-5% for SMI (seriously mentally ill), and comparable rates for youth with SED (serious emotional disturbance). Reminder: NRA is opposed to national database of gun owners for civil liberties concerns, but cool with it for us, despite the fact that those of us with history of mental illness have already had to deal with institutionalization or sterilization in the previous generations.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4242797/nra-national-database-mentally-ill

2. Call backs to insane asylums, which violated the principles of the 14th amendment and were seriously revamped during the 1970s and 1980s, further developed with the ADA and the Olmstead decision of 1999. Wayne Lapierre: "They’re not serious about prosecuting violent criminals... They’re not serious about fixing the mental-health system. They’ve emptied the institutions and every police officer knows dangerous people out there on the streets right now. They shouldn’t be on the streets, they’ve stopped taking their medicine and yet they’re out there walking around..."

3. In calling for increased arming of SROs and teachers, NRA would call to exacerbate already discriminatory and biased institutions of punishment for racial minorities and students with disabilities, increasing chances of lethal encounters in schools over small violations of school policy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/23/a-big-question-in-the-debate-about-arming-teachers-what-about-racial-bias/?utm_term=.a2bc06b7596f

 

[Goshin]

1. National Database of the mentally ill. Depending on the range used, that would be about 18.1% of the U.S. population for AMI (any mental illness), 4-5% for SMI (seriously mentally ill), and comparable rates for youth with SED (serious emotional disturbance). Reminder: NRA is opposed to national database of gun owners for civil liberties concerns, but cool with it for us, despite the fact that those of us with history of mental illness have already had to deal with institutionalization or sterilization in the previous generations.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4242797/nra-national-database-mentally-ill

2. Call backs to insane asylums, which violated the principles of the 14th amendment and were seriously revamped during the 1970s and 1980s, further developed with the ADA and the Olmstead decision of 1999. Wayne Lapierre: "They’re not serious about prosecuting violent criminals... They’re not serious about fixing the mental-health system. They’ve emptied the institutions and every police officer knows dangerous people out there on the streets right now. They shouldn’t be on the streets, they’ve stopped taking their medicine and yet they’re out there walking around..."

3. In calling for increased arming of SROs and teachers, NRA would call to exacerbate already discriminatory and biased institutions of punishment for racial minorities and students with disabilities, increasing chances of lethal encounters in schools over small violations of school policy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/23/a-big-question-in-the-debate-about-arming-teachers-what-about-racial-bias/?utm_term=.a2bc06b7596f

Thank you.

If #1 is correct, in that they have called for something that broad based, I would also have a problem with it.

2... while the devil is in the details I have long said we messed up in the 80s when we closed down most of the state asylums and de-funded a lot of mental health. Granted there were abuses in the past... but in LE I encountered many individuals who clearly *needed* to be institutionalized rather than in prison, but there were no beds to be had for them.

3... well I just flat disagree that this is a racial issue.

 

[Fiddytree]

Thank you.

If #1 is correct, in that they have called for something that broad based, I would also have a problem with it.

2... while the devil is in the details I have long said we messed up in the 80s when we closed down most of the state asylums and de-funded a lot of mental health. Granted there were abuses in the past... but in LE I encountered many individuals who clearly *needed* to be institutionalized rather than in prison, but there were no beds to be had for them.

3... well I just flat disagree that this is a racial issue.

Re: #2

The institutional range has gaps, but we've never meaningfully developed a community-based system. Outside of SAMHSA System of Care grants and states using Medicaid state plan amendment waivers 1915c and 1915i, we are seriously lacking basic healthcare for folks. If anything we need a hell of a lot more emphasis on "walking the streets." Mental health care is like any other chronic health condition, but we largely wait until crisis mode until we serve folks, and sometimes, not even then.

Re #3:

It is a racial issue, like it is a disability issue. School staff disproportionately respond to and punish more harshly minority students. They also physically discipline (paddling, seclusion and restraint) students at far, far higher rates than the rest of the population. Much of it over petty nonsense, but sometimes staff do these things because "they feel threatened." SROs are also inappropriately being used across the country to be the enforcers of school policies. Arming staff makes it that much more dangerous.

 

[jet57]

What do you think? Attaching poll.

A lot of that depends on what you mean by dangerous, so as is it's a loaded question. I voted 'no' however. I think that by and large many members are just folks who like their guns and hunting etc. I think also that many members are super patriot types and support the sedition that the leadership of the NRA is peddling and THEY are dangerous to this country politically as we've seen and I think that they are very dangerous to the future of the second amendment. It is those types that created the March for Our Lives movement and they are fanning the flames of the anti gun movement: in the conspiratorial corner of mind, it wouldn't at all surprise me if the avid rabid far right second amendment people like Wayne LaPierre and his minions, weren't in fact setting us all up for the overturning of the second amendment.

Ya' gotta watch fanatics, they aren't always what they appear to be.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

No. Unless you plan on doing them physical harm, in which case they are probably more likely to be armed than the typical random person.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re #3:

It is a racial issue, like it is a disability issue. School staff disproportionately respond to and punish more harshly minority students. They also physically discipline (paddling, seclusion and restraint) students at far, far higher rates than the rest of the population. Much of it over petty nonsense, but sometimes staff do these things because "they feel threatened." SROs are also inappropriately being used across the country to be the enforcers of school policies. Arming staff makes it that much more dangerous.

No.

IMO this is a cultural issue, as opposed to a race-based issue. What follows is my take via personal observations growing up and living around the country, in ghettos and suburban neighborhoods, while serving periods in law enforcement and education.

If the culture raises one to fear and/or hate authority figures causing juveniles to respond with taunts, threats, and even violence; then by acting out on this training it often leads such individuals to suffer harsher disciplinary responses.

Many Black Americans are raised in single-parent homes with the sole parent their mother. She has to be both sole provider and family disciplinarian, with the fathers often either deadbeat or completely absent. In many cases while the mother will discipline as harshly as the absent father, in just as many cases they claim sole authority to do so and often teach their kids to disrespect the authority of anyone but themselves. "You're not my momma" is a common (and one of the nicer) refrain when a teacher, counselor, or other adult attempts to intervene at school or in some other "controlled" environment.

However, many other Black Americans, raised either in a proper nuclear family or a residential situation where they are acculturated to the disciplinary norms of their peers reinforced by their parent, don't create such situations requiring aggressive discipline.

This is part of the reason you see a divide between members of the Black community; between the Al Sharptons and the Thomas Sowell's, the "brothers" and the "Uncle Toms."

Also, Asians in the main don't typically have such disciplinary problems; and Hispanics also seem to have fewer problems unless they are engaged in gang-related activity. Although with Hispanics, there is an issue with language barriers especially among youth born and raised outside the U.S. that also cause frictions.

Finally, white children are no strangers to bad characteristics leading to harsh discipline. They also suffer from the problems of single parent households, being poor, having alcoholic or drug abusing parents. They too can end up facing harsh discipline in schools...and are likely (apparently from so many involved in mass shootings) to act out on that at some point in their lives.

 

[Black Dog]

What do you think? Attaching poll.

why are you making this a poll? I mean seriously of course not, people are all different.

 

[calamity]

What do you think? Attaching poll.

I'll bite. Sure they are. See Ted Nugent.

 

[apdst]

Re: #2

The institutional range has gaps, but we've never meaningfully developed a community-based system. Outside of SAMHSA System of Care grants and states using Medicaid state plan amendment waivers 1915c and 1915i, we are seriously lacking basic healthcare for folks. If anything we need a hell of a lot more emphasis on "walking the streets." Mental health care is like any other chronic health condition, but we largely wait until crisis mode until we serve folks, and sometimes, not even then.

Re #3:

It is a racial issue, like it is a disability issue. School staff disproportionately respond to and punish more harshly minority students. They also physically discipline (paddling, seclusion and restraint) students at far, far higher rates than the rest of the population. Much of it over petty nonsense, but sometimes staff do these things because "they feel threatened." SROs are also inappropriately being used across the country to be the enforcers of school policies. Arming staff makes it that much more dangerous.

Are you saying white kids act up just as much, but get punished less?

 

[MSgt]

Considering that there are only 5 million NRA members (cult members) versus 325 million people in the American population, of which 42% of people in the US live in households with guns...the question of the poll doesn't seem to have a point.

In my very earned opinion in this very ungrateful country, the most dangerous person to my Right is the person who can't reconcile his Rights to the reality that he demands that my Rights be defined by the lowest denominator of the undeserved population who has the Right to abuse them.

 

[Black Dog]

I'll bite. Sure they are. See Ted Nugent.

So you base everything you know about people who are members of the NRA on Ted Nugent? :lamo

 

[calamity]

So you base everything you know about people who are members of the NRA on Ted Nugent? :lamo

Well...if they're stupid enough to put him front and center---that's the price to be paid.