- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The National Rifle Association reportedly advised its members against participating in a study released this week that shows a majority of gun sellers want tougher background checks for gun buyers.
The NRA apparently was unaware that the University of California professor behind the study -- himself an NRA member -- received the email discrediting his research.
Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, conducted a survey of 1,601 federally-licensed gun dealers and pawnbrokers across the country in 2011. Fifty-five percent of respondents supported comprehensive background checks.
But when Wintemute started interviewing gun vendors for his study, he received an email essentially advising him against himself.
"If you are a federally licensed dealer in firearms, you may recently have received a survey questionnaire from gun control supporter Dr. Garen Wintemute, of the University of California, Davis," said the email, obtained by Al Jazeera.
"Why is Dr. Wintemute sending the survey?" said the email. "Consider the source. Over the years, he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from anti-gun organizations to conduct 'studies' designed to promote gun control."
Wintemute said he never received any money from anti-guns groups.
"I've turned it down, in fact," said Wintemute.
Wintemute said he did not respond to the email. "The positions taken by the leadership of the organization," he said, "don’t represent NRA members."
The NRA was not available for comment at time of publication.
Wintemute completed the study, despite the opposition. In 2011, he found that a majority of gun shop owners supported comprehensive background checks that include provisions barring people from purchasing firearms if they had a history of everything from mental illness to alcoholism-related crimes.
"I suspect that the levels of support we got in 2011 would probably be higher if they were published today," after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn, he said.
That sounds like a strategy at least half of the people on the heroes list in your profile have used. Fascinating.Read more @: How the NRA tried to stop a member from conducting gun-control research | Al Jazeera America
NRA caught up in more of its flat out lies and bull****. Real classy NRA, trying to stop people speak their minds in a survey because its going to go against your rhetoric. Reallll classy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
That sounds like a strategy at least half of the people on the heroes list in your profile have used. Fascinating.
Two, Al Jazeera is garbage.We arleay have one person denying to read something and one moving the goal posts!!! Yayyy!
Two, Al Jazeera is garbage.
Besides the fact that they are biased, proudly so? Nothing I guess if that is your standard. :shrug:And whats wrong with Al Jazeera's journalist credibility? Are we still gonna say the same old "they are anti-american"?
Read more @: How the NRA tried to stop a member from conducting gun-control research | Al Jazeera America
NRA caught up in more of its flat out lies and bull****. Real classy NRA, trying to stop people speak their minds in a survey because its going to go against your rhetoric. Reallll classy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
I don't always agree with the NRA but don't agree that them asking for non-compliance is wrong, the "study" shouldn't have been engaged in to begin with because it was biased.I read the story. And the first paragraph is quite telling...
The National Rifle Association reportedly advised its members against participating in a study released this week that shows a majority of gun sellers want tougher background checks for gun buyers.
Of course they do, but not because it increases safety. It puts even more money in their pocket. Every transaction or sale that goes through an FFL gets a service charge. This would bring in thousands more from private sales.
What the NRA did was wrong. This however does not diminish the fact that this "study" was to be biased from the beginning.
Read more @: How the NRA tried to stop a member from conducting gun-control research | Al Jazeera America
NRA caught up in more of its flat out lies and bull****. Real classy NRA, trying to stop people speak their minds in a survey because its going to go against your rhetoric. Reallll classy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more @: How the NRA tried to stop a member from conducting gun-control research | Al Jazeera America
NRA caught up in more of its flat out lies and bull****. Real classy NRA, trying to stop people speak their minds in a survey because its going to go against your rhetoric. Reallll classy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Read more @: How the NRA tried to stop a member from conducting gun-control research | Al Jazeera America
NRA caught up in more of its flat out lies and bull****. Real classy NRA, trying to stop people speak their minds in a survey because its going to go against your rhetoric. Reallll classy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Which is irrelevant to the People's right to keep and bear arms. The NRA is a lobby group, and one I won't give a single dime of my money to. Them being scumbags is still not going to prevent me from exercising my Second Amendment rights.
When the anti-knife nuts in Britain wanted to try to ban long kitchen knives they got their own so called experts to argue that such knives have no use,even those people claimed to be chefs.
'
British Doctors Call for Ban on Long Kitchen Knives to End Stabbings | FrontPage Magazine
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.
Read more @: How the NRA tried to stop a member from conducting gun-control research | Al Jazeera America
NRA caught up in more of its flat out lies and bull****. Real classy NRA, trying to stop people speak their minds in a survey because its going to go against your rhetoric. Reallll classy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Boom. A majority (and a bare majority at that) want private gun sales to go through their hands. now...why could that possibly be???I read the story. And the first paragraph is quite telling...
The National Rifle Association reportedly advised its members against participating in a study released this week that shows a majority of gun sellers want tougher background checks for gun buyers.
Of course they do, but not because it increases safety. It puts even more money in their pocket. Every transaction or sale that goes through an FFL gets a service charge. This would bring in thousands more from private sales.
What the NRA did was wrong. This however does not diminish the fact that this "study" was to be biased from the beginning.
Self serving advocates. I was able to figure this out in the second paragraph of your post, and there is no reason why the NRA wouldn't do what it did to protect its membership from the farce / scam of this California advocate for gun control. So what if he is an NRA member, they don't have a litmus test they require a membership fee - once paid anyone can be a member. You don't think the anti gun zealots - like yourself - don't have a few members to watch the NRA? Seriously?
The second line / paragraph says all that needs to be said - a survey of licensed dealers will of course support background checks because it means the gun owners have to frequent their business and have to pay them fees - DUH - does that rocket science for you to udnerstand? I'm shocked 45% didn't say yes - guess they are true patriots of gun ownership. The CA gun dealers are a funny group of people, most of them were supportive of many gun measures until AB 374 was passed and sent to the gov. They now beg him to veto it because it puts about 75 to 90% of them out of business.
If everyone who owned a legal gun joined the NRA, not only would the disgusting Dems and Rancid RINOS stop trying to pass gun laws, the leader of each group would ask Wayne LaPierre what his members want passed each session of congress.
I doubt that would happen. I refuse to support them because they don't have gun rights in mind, only their own interests. They have a long history of choosing their own interests over the rights of the People. They have repeatedly supported legislation that taxes and infringes on manufacturers and gun owners, which has done nothing but hinder Second amendment rights. Now they go behind their supporters backs and build their own database and registry of gun owners after creating a panic over the dangers of a federal government registry. They're shady, back stabbing bastards, and that is why I will never be a member of the NRA, and why they will never see a single penny from me.
if they had more members, they wouldn't need to compromise.
getting carry laws required permits. I was very very up on the CCW issue in Ohio. I admit I once worked for BOOB TAFT (long before he was governor) and though the BOOB vetoed the carry bill, I know how people like him think. we never would have overriden his veto if we tried to push a CCW without training and a background check
I think that is a bit hyperbolic hysterical nonsense. "secret database"That doesn't even begin to excuse their actions. Their secret database and support of taxes and infringements that favor those making a buck at the expense of those simply exercising their rights is inexcusable, and I will not support that. They are no better than the Obama administration, the NSA, or any other two faced group that infringes on US Citizens rights.
I think that is a bit hyperbolic hysterical nonsense. "secret database"
OMG is that stupid
It's reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?