Apple, Amazon struggle to sit out NRA gun-control debate

“Gun-control activists are demanding that Inc. Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos do something he has carefully avoided: pick a side in a hot-button political debate,” Spencer Soper and Selina Wang report for Bloomberg. “The online retailer, along with Apple Inc., Roku Inc. and other video streaming services, is facing pressure from customers protesting any corporate relationship with the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of a Florida school shooting that killed 17 people. Even though it doesn’t sell guns or ammunition, Amazon is taking much of the heat. Angry consumers started using the hashtag #StopNRAmazon on Twitter, which surfaced last week with customers threatening to cancel their $99-a-year Prime subscriptions.”

“At issue is NRA TV, a free online channel focused on pro-gun content, which many technology companies offer through their streaming services and devices,” Soper and Wang report. “Recent episodes criticized Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel for what NRA TV said was a failure to act on warning signs about the shooter. In one segment, NRA TV host Grant Stinchfield shouts at the camera: ‘There was no act of heroism when these deputies were sitting outside taking cover behind a cruiser as kids were getting shot.'”

“When it’s content or free speech at issue, the stakes become even higher,” Soper and Wang report. “The protest over carrying the channel puts these services in the uncomfortable position of deciding what kind of information is appropriate based on what some people find objectionable — a challenge since the devices and services try to appeal to a range of different tastes and political leanings. ‘While the vast majority of all streaming on our platform is mainstream entertainment, voices on all sides of an issue or cause are free to operate a channel,’ said streaming-device maker Roku. ‘We do not curate or censor based on viewpoint,’ Roku said, adding that NRA TV doesn’t violate any of its policies. Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. — John Stuart Mill

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. ― Benjamin Franklin

If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. ― George Washington

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. ― United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Petitions call on Apple, Amazon to cut ties with National Rifle Association – February 27, 2018
Apple CEO Cook prays for victims, families, and loved ones of mass murder in Parkland, Florida – February 15, 2018


  1. Misguided targets, misinformed rage and futile attempts to silence ideas and stifle free speech are the hallmarks of the Democrat Party in the U.S.A. today.

    The problem with the gun-grabbers is that they know very little to nothing about guns.

    Educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise, you just sound stupid to those of us who know which guns are which and what each can do.

    The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. Proposing to ban firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.

    Here’s the thing about Dem/Lib/Progs: They fall in love with unworkable ideas that look good on paper or at first glance. Republicans are actually pragmatic, think things through as to how they would work in the real world, with real people in the equation, and will only go for ideas that adhere to the Constitution and actually have at least some chance of working.

    Your dream of a utopia with prancing unicorns farting rainbows DOES NOT EXIST. As long as you continue to ignore reality, you’ll never come up with reasonable solutions to real life issues. You sound like a three-year-old who’s been watching way too much Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.

    We get it: Most of us would like a perfect world. News Flash: That doesn’t exist on this planet. Some of us understand that implicitly.

    Adults should deal with reality. Take away guns and some humans will kill each other with pressure cookers, poison, butter knives – whatever they can get their hands on (actually they do this already, even with guns still in existence). In short: Get real, pajama boy, or STFU with your mollycoddled Obama-esque “NRA agenda” pablum and let the adults take care of this.

    Australians and disarmed subjects in other countries like China, North Korea, France, etc. are sitting ducks. They are a controlled populace. They are, in the end, doomed. (Until the USA saves them from themselves again, of course.)

    The reason for The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is to protect citizens against an oppressive government. The ability to shoot criminals and terrorists in the face is just a side benefit.

    The sooner you illogical gun control nuts figure that out, the better.

    1. Re FirstBot
      Explain how your Glock or AR15 is going to protect you from a government with Fighters, Bombers, Missiles, Drones, Soldiers, Marines, Tanks, Attack Helicopters and more than enough bodies to ruin your fantasy.

      1/4 of the US population owns a firearm and only about 6% hunt regularly. Just 3% of the population owns half the firearms in the US, but they on.y have 2 hands each. Not sure how having 10 guns makes you safer than only having one.

      The people who fetishize firearms should be called ammosexuals.

        1. I made no comment regarding home or self defense. The comment was directed at the laughable statement that your personal firearms existed to protect us from the government.
          Anyone who remembers Ruby Ridge or the Branch Davidians knows that “by any means necessary” is the order of the day, you and your stash do not stand a chance.

          1. How about because he just wants to own them. No reason necessary, to justify your point of view. Reference the comments made by MDN. That’s the point: Mind your own business.

            1. Sorry DG, wrong.

              Concealed weapons are none of your business. It is a constitutional right and handgun ownership was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.

              On the flip side of that coin — it is none of my business to know what you are thinking or who you are having an affair with.

              Further, concealed carry is approved law, carriers are registered and pass background checks. Those government records are no more accessible to the average citizen as social security numbers.

              As it should be …

            2. Concealed weapons are everyone’s business.

              If a Crack Head sticks up a Circle K or 7-11 and you whip out your Glock – you have escalated that situation for everyone in the store and without anyone’s consent. It is one thing for a well trained Police Officer to take out a robber, but quite another for some random person with a carry permit to endanger everyone else.
              BTW0 did you about shit your pants when Trumpov came out for gun control yesterday?

            3. “Concealed weapons are everyone’s business.”

              Short answer, absolutely not.

              Now, would that include crack heads? Or, are you only interested in the bogeyman NRA members that never committed a crime in their life, passed background checks and unlike a criminal robber only taking, they actually contribute to society in positive ways.

              “If a Crack Head sticks up a Circle K or 7-11 and you whip out your Glock – you have escalated that situation for everyone in the store and without anyone’s consent. It is one thing for a well trained Police Officer to take out a robber, but quite another for some random person with a carry permit to endanger everyone else.”

              You assume EVERYTHING involving citizen guns negative according to your one-sided meme, fine. Here’s mine:

              An average citizen with a concealed permit Glock already knows how to shoot, is licensed, registered in the county courthouse and has passed a background check. With a simple mistake that privilege can be revoked and the person can be charged according to the situation.

              Granted, most private gun owners do not have certified police level training. But many have training courtesy of the NRA or private gun clubs and other groups like guns for girls.

              That said, if I were the clerk with a gun pointed in my face — not knowing if the criminal will allow me to go home to my family that for dinner — then l’ll wager a guess most would agree with citizen proxy police intervention.

              And let’s not forget the clerks that DO fight back. They are not 100% sheeple as some liberals and the media would have us believe.

              In my little hometown in the green mountains a few months ago the same Turkey Hill was robbed at gunpoint four times in one month by the SAME person (description) after 2 a.m and made front page news.

              If a responsible concealed good guy with a gun was there, it is possible the outcome would be positive and the criminal would be behind bars by now.?Unfortunately, he is still on the loose.

              Certainly I acknowledge the risks of citizen intervention. I also acknowledge the risk of four highly trained law enforcement deputies stayed outside during the Florida school shooting. Less than a week after a drill they conducted at the school for the same purpose.

              Law enforcement also carries risks of escalation, although you never mention that, particularly when they FAIL.

              You also do not mention the concealed carry criminal. Again, do you want to make it your business if criminals without a permit or gun are walking into the store? I suspect you do, however your post seems one-sided.

              Fact: Good guys with guns have stopped criminals without a shot being fired in some cases and it happens every year.

              Accurate statistics because of the way they are tabulated are hard to come by. True story: I personally know a handful of people who have prevented a crime over the years just by flashing their piece when they were about to be assaulted by gangs. But the last thing they want to do is to report it and end up on the front page. So much for accurate statistics.

              Bottom line: Good guns with guns stop bad guys with guns and it is not EXCLUSIVE to law enforcement officials. And that goes way back to colonial times when the country was founded.

              “BTW0 did you about shit your pants when Trumpov came out for gun control yesterday?”

              No skid marks on my undies, DG. The president is an unpredictable negotiator. But the main thing I like about him is he wants positive RESULTS that benefit everyone including his detractors like you.

              While I can’t speak for the president, there are over 200,000 gun control laws on the books already. Yet, we still have gun crime.

              My first thought after the recent high school shooting was to restrict purchase of large capacity magazines to 21 years old and up. A day later, surprise I started seeing politicians in the media saying the same. Reason being, unless I’m wrong, all school shootings have used guns with 30 rounds by alienated students.

              Then I heard the pushback. Citizens serve in the combat military at age 18, kill combatants in war, fire fully automatic weapons and come home to learn they cannot purchase an AR-15? Not good.

              Carve out an exception in the law for returning veterans. Done. What’s the problem?

              DG, one thing I doubt you and other readers are aware of — NRA members are the strongest advocates of sensible gun control.

              Personally, I’m not opposed to reasonable controls …

        2. DavGreg,

          You should perhaps stop poking the bears. It just makes them more angry and therefore more likely to do something that we will all regret. You will never convince them to abandon their beliefs, any more than you could convince a Jehovah’s Witness that Christ did not return in 1914. This is purely a matter of faith, so evidence is irrelevant.

          Obviously, you and I can show that the “individual right to keep and bear arms” did not exist between the adoption of the Second Amendment in 1791 and a 5-4 SCOTUS decision in 2008. We can show that the Federal Judiciary did not assert any authority to enforce that “right” against unwilling state governments between the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and another 5-4 decision in 2010.

          From the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 until those two 5-4 opinions, every legal authority had insisted that the Ninth Amendment protected the states’ right to enforce the gun laws that 49 of them (all except Vermont) had adopted. The first modern “right to carry” legislation was adopted in the 1980s, roughly 130 years after Madison’s death.

          That doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court has now spoken in favor of the new position, so the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment is now the supreme law of the land. I fully agree that we have to live with it.

          Moreover, as you can see in the discussion here, the advocates of an absolute right to bear arms insist not only that we have to follow the law, but also that we have a patriotic duty to agree with it and proactively support it. Apple must allow the NRA Channel on their platforms, and I guess the rest of us have to allow NRA signs in our front yards.

          As I understand it, attempting to subvert the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in Heller would be profoundly un-American. That is, of course, why pro-life Americans have made no effort since 1993 to oppose or subvert the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

          1. Blah blah blah….the Second Amendment is now the supreme law of the land. I fully agree that we have to live with it…blah blah blah.

            See if you wade thru enough of the bs and word salad even a simpleton attorney eventually understands their opinion is just that. Their opinion and nothing more.

          2. The same could be said for 217 years worth of Federal court “opinions” that were discarded in 2008 because Antonin Scalia understood the intent of the Framers so much better than their contemporaries.

      1. 1/4 of the U.S. population is 80 million people. Do you have any understanding of just how quickly 80 million armed people can kill 240 million unarmed people? Why do you think this country’s military would turn on it’s citizens? Is that your fetish? We know it’s the fetish of the left by examining the history of the last 100 years.

        1. The paranoia pushed by the NRA the last 50 years is quite amusing.

          Plenty of Democrats- including “Liberals” own and enjoy firearms, hunt and shoot in competition. Bernie Sanders was repeatedly attacked by HillaryBeast because he did not meet the Limousine Liberal litmus test. His explanation that Vermont is a rural state with a deep and long tradition of hunting- some for subsistence- fell on deaf ears with the Clinton cabal.

          I grew up target shooting from about 10 years old from BB & Pellet Rifles up to real Rifles and Pistols without ever owning one myself as many friends were collectors and I bought my own ammo and cleaned it when I was done. Responsible gun owners are a very generous group of people and I have no quarrel with them- they are my neighbors, co-workers, family and friends.

          I am a Progressive- not a liberal- and I will spare you an explanation of the difference, but I draw a line between someone owning a few firearms and someone who wants an Arsenal complete with weapons of war. The M-16/AR-15 is not a good weapon for hunting unless you just want to destroy what you kill- the wounds are very different from that of a hunting rifle. I have seen the wounds both with my eyes and on CT scans in the ER over my better than 30 year career in Radiology Departments- including in military hospitals and large city ERs.

          The founders wrote the Second Amendment with muskets in mind- not today’s firearms- and in a county where the frontier was not far away, law enforcement was more an idea than a fact and wild animals were a not uncommon fact of life for many.

          My understanding of the Second Amendment is that the well regulated militia would be the Army and Air National Guard and the reserve deputy staff of police and Sheriff’s Departments.
          That does not mean you cannot have a firearm. It just means it is not an unrestricted right.

          1. Db,

            When I was a prosecutor, I was considered an expert on militias and similar groups. I lectured on the subject at statewide meetings of prosecution and peace officer organizations. I attended seminars at the national level on the subject. I think it is fair to say that I have “done some research.”

            DavGreg’s observations are neither drool nor crap. They quite accurately reflect the general understanding of the Second Amendment between its adoption in 1791 and a 5-4 Supreme Court opinion in 2008. Even that opinion recognized that the new individual right to keep and bear arms was subject to reasonable regulation, so long as the regulations did not amount to infringement.

            (Prediction: if anyone responds to this comment, they will ignore its content and simply accuse me of lying about my experience.)

            1. Eh…what paranoia “pushed by liberals” would that be?..that gun nutters want to kill people?…that semi automatic AR15 style rifles are capable of mass killing in a matter of minutes?…that bumpstocks allow mass killers to kill more people quicker?..that less guns, with a functional digital registration database would aid the tracking of illegal weapons and unfit gun owners?
              That’s not paranoia…they are indisputable facts. Your NRA inspired paranoia however, is barely credible.

            2. “Eh…what paranoia “pushed by liberals” would that be?..that gun nutters want to kill people?…”

              Exactly! Good example.

              “that semi automatic AR15 style rifles are capable of mass killing in a matter of minutes?…that bumpstocks allow mass killers to kill more people quicker?..”

              Sad, but true.

              “that less guns, with a functional digital registration database would aid the tracking of illegal weapons and unfit gun owners?”

              Ah yes, finally, the “paranoid liberal” solution to every problem on planet Earth. Tax and spend Big Government programs that create more problems than they solve.

              Again, you don’t register Constitutional rights. What part of that do you not understand?

              Playing along, OK, the mentally ill Florida shooter PASSED a background check and because of registration laws his signature, gun ID, and mugshot went from a signed piece of paper into a government registry computer DB.

              In this case it took minutes to trace the sale. So tell me how this gun registration would have prevented the shooting?

              “That’s not paranoia…they are indisputable facts.”

              Not all are “indisputable” — rather a mix of facts, paranoia and constitutional challenging wishful thinking.

              “Your NRA inspired paranoia however, is barely credible.”

              Not paranoid at all. Common sense RULES. I’d be careful using the “credible” label …

      2. No one is going to war with a jet or the entire military. All wars of tyrannical oppression are eventually fought door to door at a very local and personal level. Look back at other countries in the past 100 years and ask yourself if you were a father protecting your children from some angry mob or corrupt local officials in another country would you want a gun to defend your family?

        If I was a Jew in Nazi Germany give me a gun. Maybe I’d die but I’d hopefully take out a few of them with me. It’s called not being a victim. And just maybe if enough of my fellow citizens did the same we wouldn’t be lambs going to the slaughter.

        So yeah give me a gun. If you don’t want one that’s your choice. That’s how rights work.

        And yes I own multiple firearms. So what. I also own multiple bikes, cars, pens, glasses, chairs, computers, phones, credit cards, etc. Guess I have a lot of fetishes 😏

            1. You probably mean ugly words (the last one).

              Seems well rounded to me: liberal, independent and conservative views expressed. And certainly lots of crossover. Well done …

      3. DavGreg

        I’ll redirect you to some notable Democrats who lust like a Hollywood Producer for our Glocks and AR15s while at the same time advocating and approving the use of fighters, bombers, missiles, drones, soldiers, marines, tanks, attack helicopters and having more than enough bodies to ruin our fantasies against various peoples the world over! Ask any of those would-be tyrants why it’s necessary for them to have our guns and within their answer lies the reason why we WILL have them.

        Please, no more of your ill conceived bullshit about having multiple firearms and only 2 hands! Your kind only has 2 feet, 2 hands and 2 shoulders as well, yet you have 24 pairs of shoes, 12 hand purses and 14 various styles of shoulder-strapped pocketbooks! Not sure how having so many of those makes you more stylish, acceptable or attractive. But I’ll say this: I’ve never heard of one of those things preventing or ending a home invasion much less securing freedom!

        1. A gun in your home is far more likely to be used to kill you, a family member or a close friend than any invader. The myth of the well armed citizen defending his/her home is just that- a myth.

            1. How about the Violence Policy Center? Soon after the Charleston massacre, the VPC released their study of federal gun crime statistics for 2012. They found that in that year, homeowners in the USA defended their homes with deadly force in justifiable self defense 259 times. That year there were 20,666 suicides using guns, and 548 fatal accidental shootings. There were 8342 homicides committed using guns that year.

              In other words, people who need intervention to prevent suicides are 100 times more likely to kill themselves than a homeowner stopping an intruder, and the homeowner is twice as likely to kill someone unintentionally than to kill a criminal in his home.

              Statistics are available if you want to fund them. Problem is, some people here have very romanticized notions of their abilities, and ignore the statistical data that proves year after year how these scenarios play out.


            2. I appreciate the time you took to respond in detail.

              “How about the Violence Policy Center?”

              How about Fox News?

              Going to their website I read 100% of the headlines denigrate conservatives and Republicans. I stopped right there.

              You might as well directed me to Media Matters, People for the American Way, Urban Institute and a host of many other non-profits that are liberal front groups for the Democratic Party.

              There are liars, damn liars and statisticians. Or, something like that …

            3. Statistics. Been around a very long time.
              Myth: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
              Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
              • For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
              • 43 percent of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
              • In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

        2. Your second graf is a very original and interesting argument.

          Yes, a vast home arsenal of shoes and pocketbooks will not stop a home invasion. But in that point is a brilliant analysis.

          Those items together with a AR-15 are ALL inanimate objects that in and of themselves cannot do harm to anyone (without criminal intervention). They are as harmless as dried paint.

          Further, yes we only have two hands and firing only one gun at time insures accuracy. And how many can one carry and let’s not forget reloading. Lastly, mass shooters act alone.

          Conclusion: the home arsenal argument has always been absolutely ridiculous. For the clueless liberals out there — that’s called a cherished gun collection …

    2. “illogical gun control nuts”

      Your protestations are stupid and ignorant in the extreme. ALL other western style, industrialized nations have gun death numbers enormously below the US.

      And no, if the violent jerks have less access to guns they don’t carry on doing the same rate of murder with knives, clubs etc. Again, demonstrated by those other countries.

      It’s a very simple equation.

      And no – don’t bother with your straw man of “take away all your guns”. That is not what most people propose.

      And on government… if you want to rebel, your only chance will be to have the armed forces on your side. If you don’t have them you will simply be squashed like a bug, no matter how macho your tactical style gun makes you feel.

      The NRA and the gun nuts have become so insane about this that they support people on the “no fly” list being able to buy guns and people who are mentally unstable being able to do the same.

      1. Check your facts. let’s take your points one by one

        -Violent crime is similar in the countries with gun bans. to the point, England, (which the U.S. is often compared to) is having such a problem with knife violence that they are currently asking Chefs to go on TV and say that you do not need a kitchen knife longer than 3 inches and is placing drop boxes so people can turn them in.

        During the riots they banned baseball bats and told Amazon UK not to ship them to the UK anymore because the shop owners were trying to protect themselves and customers from beatings and deaths.

        -Read the news, several lawmakers are proposing taking ALL guns. The latest Democrat proposal takes ALL semi automatic weapons, handguns and rifles, not just the scary AR-15.

        -Who says the U.S. Military will attack the citizens? First it would take a major Unrest and LEGAL Presidential order as the Military leaders won’t follow illegal orders. Current administration is for Capitalism not a Socialism variant so that won’t happen in the first place.

        -Then there are the untruths in your last paragraph. Ted Kennedy was on the ‘no fly’ list so he should have been denied? And you are even wrong on the List they are pushing. The List they are pushing is the Terrorist Watch List, not the no fly list.

        -The Watch list is rife with errors, no one knows who is on it, if you are put on it you are not notified, and if you find out somehow that you are on it and have done nothing wrong there is no means to get off of it. Yes let’s use that list that can be abused with no recourse.

        -Then there is you last statement, no one has ever said that the mentally ill should not be on the list, again propaganda from the left, the statement was for people that needed help managing there expenses being reported as incompetent and added to the list. Not the mentally ill, but most were elderly people where one spouse who managed the finances for years passes away and the surviving spouse needed help because they had never done it before (or in years).

        Oh, and no one is saying anyone MUST have a gun, if you don’t like them, don’t get one, your choice

    3. First Whatever: Obama didn’t take away your access to guns like you claimed he would for 8 years of your constant whining and propaganda.

      But Trump, flip flopping as always, will cave to political winds.

      In addition to you boycotting Apple and Amazon, you can now add Dick’s Sporting Goods to your list. Please start your boycott now and go away to a chicken hawk neocon forum infested with all the Kremlin bloggers you always agree with

      1. Walmart too. it will be interesting to see all the NRA bobbleheads boycott all the corporations that realize weapons of mass destruction are not good for anybody in a civilized society.

        1. “weapons of mass destruction“

          LOL! A clip of 30 bullets in one gun simply does not qualify. Nuclear bombs, missiles, rocket launchers, body bombs, chemical weapons indeed qualify. A mass shooter does not.

          Get REAL liberal bobble head …

    4. First 2014 has it absolutely NAILED! That was a very concise and precisely accurate summation of the founders intent and is what is Constitutional. If some folks prefer a different set of rules then they are free to move to a country with such rules. But, don’t expect the rest of us to change or lose any of our natural rights.

      Bravo First 2014!!

    5. I will only challenge one of your arguments, for times sake. I’ll even throw you the caveat that I am Canadian, so I’m sure you’ll dismiss what I have to say immediately.

      You can’t argue in one breath that “pressure cookers, poison, butter knives” are in any way equivalent to firearms, and then in the next say that firearms are an essential liberty needed to defend against tyranny. If these were effective weapons, then you can use them to defend against “an oppressive government.”

      Now, because I am “that kind of person,” I am Googled the pressure cooker item. In 2 pages of results, I could only find one instance that a pressure cooker was used as a murder weapon. In several cases there appear to be attempts to use them as bombs, with limited success apparently. And that is the heart of why your stated “logic” fails the test: you argue that how a person *could* be murdered is equivalent to how 17 students *were* murdered.

  2. If gun activists were to pressure Apple to pick a side, then Apple would never side with the NRA.

    If the NRA are applying pressure of this nature, I would like to see the companies respond by contributing huge funds to organisations supporting gun control and to proudly shout it from the rooftops too. The NRA has become a toxic organisation and needs to be dealt with so that civilised people can live in peace.

    There’s only one nation on earth where parents consider buying bullet-proof back packs to protect their children.

      1. There certainly is a lot that I don’t understand.
        I can’t understand why people with mental issues can now buy guns, even though they were previously banned from doing so.
        I can’t understand why civilians are allowed to buy powerful semi-automatic weapons.
        I can’t understand why there is no digital record of gun ownership.
        I can’t understand why gun sales are not registered.
        I can’t understand why large capacity magazines are available to civilians.
        I can’t understand why Americans are prepared to put up with so many pointless losses of innocent lives.
        I can’t understand why so many Americans can’t see that their obsession with guns is so dangerous.
        I can’t understand why people vote for politicians who can so easily be bought.

        The common factor with all of this madness is the NRA and their toxic attitudes. Civilised Americans need to fight back – and I don’t mean with guns either. The NRA buys politicians, they are already be exposed for what they are. There needs to be a real disincentive for politicians to accept NRA money and that will come from decent Americans.

        1. Don’t worry we don’t ever expect you to understand any of this Alan. I mean you could turn off CNN and try and educate yourself on literally every single one of your questions but that would mean you might discover something that didn’t fit your narrative and confirmation bias. It’s so much easier when your politicians do everything for you including your thinking.

          1. I don’t ever watch CNN and virtually never get my news from the TV. I read news sources from multiple countries and in other languages. I wish that other people would take the trouble to get some sort of global perspective.

            I’ve yet to see any reports from elsewhere in the world talking positively about American gun culture. It’s invariably viewed as some sort of madness.

            I am highly critical of politicians in my country and other politicians elsewhere and I don’t align with any particular political party. My opinions are based on my own experience and beliefs.

            I’ve travelled widely, have spent a lot of time in America, either working, staying with friends or touring for holidays. I’ve also extensively travelled around the world including working in Russia, China, India, Africa and the Middle East and most of Europe. Wherever I go, I like to get to know the local culture and try to experience things which are unfamiliar to me or which might be challenging. A friend of mine took me to a gun fair in Arizona and I’ve also been to a wedding in India, a Pow Wow in Canada, visited an ETA ( terrorist organisation ) training camp in the Basque area of Spain and eaten seriously weird food at a banquet after a kite festival in China. I’ve watched private Arab guards with RPGs positioning twin large calibre machine guns onto roof turrets on armoured SUVs before escorting their employer away from the hotel which they ( and I ) had been staying in.

            I trust that your experience of the world is much greater than mine because otherwise your comments about how I should try to educate myself and discover unfamiliar things would be utterly laughable.

            It’s interesting to see that even Donald Trump is saying that the NRA have become too powerful and that many politicians are scared them. I’d love to have seen the look on some people’s faces when the guy they so vehemently supported spoke in that manner.

        2. Alanaudio

          You don’t understand those things because your capacity to understand them has been tainted and influenced by politics, pounded into your head by your parents, or those you’re fond of as well as your ignoring world history. Until you consider other people’s perspectives aside from you own you’ll never understand why a large number of Americans desire to keep their 2nd Amendment rights and never have that right chipped away at.

          As far as the recent shooting is concerned, it was not at the hands of law abiding citizens or the NRA but by the hands of local and federal law enforcement who through failing to do the right things enabled it. 4 armed deputies using their patrol vehicles as cover outside of a school while a certified maniac known to law enforcement is shooing up people on the inside is simply unacceptable under any conceivable circumstance! People that have the guns as part of their sworn duty as public safety officers simply failed to use them to protect of all things, children! The FBI was warned of this individual well before hand but simply dropped the ball as admitted by its current Director. Big time systematic failure of the system!

          This maniac had a history of animal abuse of which is one of, if not the leading, trait found in mass murderers, serial killers, rapists, those with a history of serial sexual and violent abuse of family members and the elderly….. and to top off the distinguished list – SCHOOL SHOOTERS. FBI knows this oh so well and have known this for decades but decided not to investigate the maniac further. A study conducted at Michigan State University detailed this criminal trait in one of it’s published pieces back in 2008. The FBI has known this fact since the 1970s and has used it to their advantage in cases for years! No way should this guy with the public record he had have been allowed access to a mere sling shot! But for some magical reason when he turned the magical age of 18, with all of his past criminal deeds and his propensity to violence as a juvenile, it all magically disappeared and he passed a background check for a purchase permit in Florida! What a freakin shame this was! When you are violent and uncontrollable as a teenager (to the degree he was) that ought to follow you around for years afterwards for the sake of the public!

          1. My political beliefs are quite different to my late parents, who were not particularly political anyway. I’m very interested in world history and believe that history can offer us many warnings about the present and the future.

            I have experienced life in cultures massively different to my own and have been fascinated to see for myself how in places like China, they embrace the new, while honouring and respecting their lengthy history. As a widely travelled, educated and well read senior, I’m perfectly able to have developed my own complex and nuanced views about many topics by now.

            All countries have disaffected, aggressive and disturbed teenagers ( and adults too ), many with mental problems. What sort of lunacy grants such people access to high powered weaponry? What sort of evil could try to defend continuing such access to anybody at all after so many children lay dead?

            The argument about mental instability is a diversion. The fundamental problem is that guns are too readily available in the USA and there are hopelessly inadequate controls over their sale, ownership, registration and use.

            The fact that armed professionals failed to intervene in Florida highlights the folly of proposing to arm teachers. Those individuals are now being publicly shamed at Presidential level and downwards. If a teacher with a gun had also failed to intervene, they would now be pilloried by the brave Sheriff of Heelspurville. There’s no way that a teacher who had been publicly criticised in that way could ever stand in front of a class of teenagers. No sane teacher would ever take that risk and on top of anything else, even police officers only hit their target about 33% of the time. Just imagine what additional hazards would be created by an armed teacher in a crowded school during an attack or how they would react if they accidentally killed one of the pupils they knew well.

            Only yesterday a teacher was arrested for shooting his gun in school. People want to put more guns into schools? What could possibly go wrong with that?

            It’s utter madness and it has to be stopped. There is no half-way measure. One day sanity might prevail. In my life I’ve seen apartheid end, the Berlin Wall has gone, the Soviet Union has massively shrunk and China has become a world superpower. There was a time also within my life when each of those things would have been regarded as permanent fixtures which would never change, but the seemingly impossible can happen in an amazingly short time.

            1. “The argument about mental instability is a diversion. The fundamental problem is that guns are too readily available in the USA and there are hopelessly inadequate controls over their sale, ownership, registration and use.”

              I stopped reading your post right there.

              You are totally WRONG. Mental illness is the glaring lynchpin in this case and the failure in reporting it to the instant background check database. Congress is now working on fixing this decades old problem.

              “Readily available” is a scary Libtard term, puh-leeze! Less than a mile from where I am visiting are several box stores that are licensed, registered and sell legal firearms. I can walk in anytime, pass a background check and walk out with a legally purchased firearm. This is how it works, so yes, I love sensible “readily available.”

              As to the government registering firearms of my most recent purchase. Tell me how that would prevent a crime, hmmm? Cars are registered, licensed, inspected, insured and taxed. So how exactly does that prevent an accident? And you do know there are over twice as many car deaths than gun deaths in the U.S. every year for decades.

              The Florida shooter bought the firearm legally and passed a background check despite mental illness and the sheriff’s deputies visiting his home 39 times. Hello?

              You think his name on a registered government computer after the fact means anything or would prevent a tragedy? Ridiculous, of course not. You don’t register constitutional rights in our country, BTW. Just like I won’t propose registering your freedom of speech in your country.

              Sorry to hear about your daughter not enjoying one of life’s privileges. I taught my nephews and nieces how to shoot and hunt at a young age. Decades later it is satisfying to see them passing along that heritage to their children …

    1. Keep in mind there is no debate. The news networks (mostly) and social media have already been told I mean decided the N.R.A killed those students, end of discussion.

      If there WAS a debate to get to the root of this, to really FINALLY try to end this from happening as easy as it does now, then the same media and social sites would have to admit that all the local, state and federal government agencies ignored the laws and rules put into place to intercept a person like this and the police both local and federal ignored all the tips, so therefore it must be the N.R.A’s fault.

      Apple with Tim Cook has a history of jumping to the side easiest to defend on social media, reality be damned. I don’t care for this attitude and I am also getting tired of their lazy outlook on products and services but fortunately they are still on top of the tech world, albeit mostly from coasting.

      Three things I ask you to consider before jumping on the anti-gun stoner-wagon (besides the fact that I have NEVER owned a gun in my life and only borrowed them for deer season)-

      This is what true Conservatives look at who understand there is a real problem that needs to be fixed, not a checkbox on a leftist agenda to use any chance they have while ignoring the actual results of societal negligence. Banning assault rifles will never end these situations.

    2. What color is the sky in your world Alan? It must be a really beautiful fantasy utopia.

      Unfortunately the rest of us live in reality and yes we like to protect our children and loved ones by whatever means necessary.

      1. I very much live in reality within a beautiful and civilised country where there is a virtually zero chance of me or anybody I know getting shot. My daughter reached the age of 16 without ever seeing a gun in real life and she’s now in her mid 40s. The gun was a sidearm on a Swiss policeman and I doubt that she’s ever seen a privately owned gun other than a farmer’s shotgun.

        Private ownership of guns in my country is highly regulated and never permitted without good reason. I often visit countries where gun ownership is widespread and they don’t have people fearing for the lives of their children.

        This extreme level of gun violence and paranoia is a uniquely American problem. In the last few hours there have been reports of a teacher being arrested for firing his gun in school and yet people are arguing for more teachers to carry guns.

        Step back a bit and try to see just how insane the situation has become. The young students in Florida are speaking more sense than many older people. I hope that people in power start listening, thinking and doing something practical to eliminate this problem.

    3. “if gun activists were to pressure Apple to pick a side, then Apple would never side with the NRA.”

      Wow, that makes no sense.

      If freedom loving Second Amendment Patriots “pressure Apple” it would be to be faithful to the Constitution and ALL customers.

      There, I fixed it for you …

  3. MDN, your take conflates two issues, in an obvious attempt too get your view across. No problem it’s your site, but this is BS. This is NOT a free speech issue: the NRA has every right to say what it want on NRATV, and anyone who wants to watch should be free to do so. But if Apple says it does not want to have that station on its services, that is its choice. And if it goes that route it is NOT taking away anyone’s freedom of speech: the NRAs opinion is still out there and people can still watch. If I ran a convenience store and chose not to carry a particular magazine, I am not reducing anyone’s freedom of speech, simply making a choice.

    1. Oh, so forcing silence of opposing viewpoints is okay so long as it’s somehow “limited” according to you, a fool?

      “Those who make conversations impossible, make escalation inevitable.” — Stefan Molyneux

      1. So Catholic Churches should be expected to allow “pro-choice” billboards on their property? Freedom of speech includes the freedom to avoid being forced to facilitate the expression of contrary points of view.

        1. Furthermore:

          Catholic Churches are tax exempt. They are not publicly traded and have no fiduciary responsibilities to Wall Street or the MSM. They only serve their flock.

          Only liberals like yourself try to conflate the issue …

        2. They shouldn’t be in the billboard business then.

          But I digress. This is all beginning to look like a full on segmentation of society and imposition of group think.

          I agree they shouldn’t have to on their property, but when does the collective monopoly make it impossible to debate issues?

      2. Superior Egoist:

        I will defend to the death my democratically elected representative legislative right to create laws that would put you in the slammer if you yell FIRE in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, or if you otherwise instigate violence or personal harm with your speech or actions.

        Every right where you stridently claim to have without limits does in fact have limits. The vocal few who demand the right of vigilante justice have deluded themselves into believing that peace can only be maintained by threat of death doled out by an average gunowner acting as both judge and jury, all without proof of training in law or law enforcement. That era of wild west frontier chaos didn’t last long, thank goodness. A better(not perfect) system of justice has taken its place.

        Either you believe in the rule of law or you are a barbarian. The constitution provides for society to establish reasonable and evolving limits as the friction between people on a crowded planet continues to increase. The usual radical right russian trolls are advocating not defense of the second amendment, but unworkable divisionism that is actively causing the downfall of democracy as simpletons cling to simplistic chauvanistic romanticized visions of frontier justice rather than confronting real problems today with collaborative solutions using methods that have been proven elsewhere in the world.

        1. Are you advocating abolishing the castle doctrine or self-defense laws?

          If so, I’d like to be present when you tell your young children that if a criminal breaks into their room at night that you’ll not be able to defend their life for fear of causing injury or harm to a poor soul who is deserving of a judge and jury!

          Tell me that you don’t mean that!

          1. Not at all. You are welcome to defend your home. Some people recommend using a taser or a shotgun with non lethal load however. You can stop an incident without deadly force.

            Also, not to change the topic, but there is a huge element of hypocrisy when gun owners claim the second amendment is a god given right. If you are a christian, you should know that the commandment to not kill does not come with caveats. Ever.

        2. Free speech is not bounded, using speech to commit crimes is punishable by the what the law foresees for said crime. “Fire! in the theater is reckless endangerment, not a speech issue. No more than speaking on a cell phone to do a drug deal.

        3. “to establish reasonable and evolving limits as the friction between people on a crowded planet continues to increase.”

          I prefer evolving rights and freedoms over evolving restrictions from the fake party of rights.

          Also, radical left do you have any idea how much world land mass is not populated? For example, there are more people in one suburb of NYC than the entire state of Montana.

          Me thinks you were strapped in a chair, eyeballs forced open, and overdosed on Soylent Green …

          1. This post perfectly demonstrates that Goeb is an extremist, more interested in his fantasy and his political games than solving real problems in the world.

            1. GoeB cannot solve the world’s problems and neither can you. That IS the job of government and why we pay taxes. Complain to them … 🤔

    2. To claim that shutting out the NRA channel from broadcast access not only on content providers such as Apple and Amazon is not stifling free speech is, quite frankly, insane. These Leftist attacks have included in the past ISPs, as well.

      It’s like saying the concerted IRS denial (under Obama) of hundreds of Conservative groups to form PACs was not an attack on free speech as well.

      These actions by the Left put undue financial burdens on dissenters (sort of like municipalities requiring coverage of certain expense when applying for a protest permit).

      Let’s also not forget that the NRA is not single entity. It consists of a reported five million voting members. There are also 150 million gun owners in the US, likely most of them voters. And if they didn’t vote before you can almost garauntee they will be registering to vote this mid-cycle since not only Leftists but GOPe #NeverTrumpettes are preparing to suppress gun rights as we speak.

      Clearly Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      1. Sigh. The IRS did NOT single out Conservative groups. They also scrutinized progressive groups the exact same way.

        And let’s see how quickly you would be shouting free speech if, say, The New Black Panthers, or Al Queda or Native American activists decided they wanted their own channel on every digital delivery system, too.

        Most gun owners don’t have military-style weapons. Most have rifles or handguns. Most are law-abiding, decent folks. No one needs an AR-15 for hunting OR self-protection. No one.

        1. Most gun owners don’t have military weapons because those are called automatics and they’re illegal and have been for over 30 years.

          Did you know a semi-automatic AR-15 is a rifle? And it’s legal. And it’s none of your fucking business wether you think I need one or not.

          Just like I don’t tell you that your free speech ends at “talking or writing on paper” and you don’t need to espouse ignorant, foolish crap on social media.

          Do you see how rights work?

  4. Typical knee jerk liberal reaction to inanimate objects. Instead of the misguided attempts to penalize law abiding firearm owners, maybe they should just put metal detectors and TSA agents at all schools and entrances. That would do a lot more toward preventing these incidents, because the lunatics will always find a way to kill, whether or not it is by firearms. The ‘Children’ protesting just do not understand how a democracy works. The need better education, but since the liberal and progressive ajenda infects our schools and colleges like a poison, it will never happen. Feel good laws do NOTHING to stop a person from committing a crime. And don’t give me the BS about so called ‘assault’ weapons and high capacity magazines. Even a revolver or shotgun in the right hands can do just as much damage. Lock down all schools now if you want a real solution.

    1. Dare I say the obvious? If the shooter needs to go through a metal detector, then he/she simply starts shooting at that location.

      Look- are armed guards and metal detectors deterrents? Of course! I believe that there are numerous schools that employ such measures in areas where gang violence is a major problem. But there are other consequences of those measures that I have heard no one talking about – the financial cost of it and the effect that having armed guards in a school has on students.

      Maybe, just maybe, taking away the favourite weapon of mass shooters could be an effective solution in the long term (there are too many available through second hand purchases for a measurable decrease to be noticed for years.)

  5. The issue in this case should not be gun control. It should be mental health care. The shooter broadcast huge signs he was unstable and EVERYONE missed or failed to follow up.

    I am all for legal citizens buying and owning guns but how is someone with obvious mental issues able to obtain the weapons he had?

    The system is broke and polarized screaming will never reach that conclusion.

    1. How does Apple stay out of the issue? Whether they carry the NRA Channel or don’t, it will be seen as taking a position. Refusing to place a candidate’s sign on your front lawn is as much of a political statement as putting it there.

      1. “How does Apple stay out of the issue?”

        Ah, let’s see. Say nothing?

        “Whether they carry the NRA Channel or don’t, it will be seen as taking a position.”

        Yes, but you don’t define the position. Let me help you out.

        We here at Apple showcase and value a wide diversity of opinions.

        Case closed …

          1. Exactly right.

            Why this is not talked about more baffles me.

            Apple censored my Second Amendment rights when the changed a handgun emoji in use since they created them and worse — replaced it with a green squirt gun. WTF!?!

            They OFFENDED and CENSORED hundreds of millions of gun owners and supporters of the constitutional amendment.

            Where is the outcry from your fellow liberals who in the 1960s opposed any and ALL censorship? …

            1. I agree!

              You know we don’t fully agree on guns, I would regulate them, but I do understand that would require an new Amendment. Apple has not only censored your beloved gun emoji (hypocrites) but the Confederate Flag in certain contexts and many other things. I don’t care about gun emoji’s or The Confederate Flag, but I do care about your right to care.

            2. Their is a night and day difference between banning a symbol of slavery and banning a symbol and cornerstone (self defense) of the Second Amendment to the constitution. Apples and oranges.

              There are over 200,000 gun laws in the books already, you have to know that. You can add 200,000 more and guess what? Criminals will STILL not obey them. Same with gun bans, just hand the advantage to the criminals.

              I do appreciate your personal thoughts …

  6. Wow MDN thanks for quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here are a couple more articles from that Declaration that I find really valuable for civilized nations.

    Article 5.

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 6.

    Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

  7. Don’t confuse free speech with a platform for free speech. Not giving you a platform to espouse your opinions is not taking away your rights. You can provide your own platform and spew all you want.

    Apple and Amazon also have rights; one of the being to provide or deny a platform to whomever they want.

    1. Extremely well put, but only one of them has a history of pulling Apps for even less controversial reasons.

      Censorship is a slippery slope. Amazon’s position at least is “we never did it, won’t do it now”, which is a position Apple can’t take.

    2. Good point and so easily solved. Many AM radio stations in large metropolitan areas simply run a disclaimer before airing the Rush radio program.

      Something like the (insert local station here) does not necessarily reflect the views of (insert local station) management, yada, yada etc.

      So easy! Problem solved. All views expressed, Constitution saved and a wonderful diversity of thought and opinion LIVES …

  8. It amazes me how people who otherwise seem intelligent are so capable of gross stupidity.

    Apps on a streaming service that are optional in no way advance or infringe on anyone’s rights. If you do not want the NRA app don’t install it, just as if you do not want Facebook you do not install it, either.

    We live in a big, diverse world full of options. How does limiting someone else’s options help you or society at large? The truth of the matter is that it does not.

    Once you open the Pandora’s Box of censoring what optional content can be offered you are many times sewing the seeds of your own injury. Once you say no to the NRA, who else do you say no to? As long as no person is injured, an NRA streaming channel is of no consequence.

    I personally view the National Rifle Association as a loathsome group that is essentially an arm of the gun lobby- far from it’s origins as a shooting group designed to teach the young to shoot and to promote firearm safety. Were it as it once was, it would be no vice.

    The bottom line is that banning an NRA video app will not save one life, make our streets safer or improve political discourse regarding firearms. Part of the price of living in a free society is tolerance of people who think differently from you.

  9. Actually, the government fucked up. The FBI fucked up, the police fucked up, the school fucked up. the media fucked up. Blame the damn firearm. That is the logic of the democrats and liberals. Won’t solve anything. Fucking amazing.

    1. Actually, I blame ALL of the above. Including the choice of weapon, and the fact that a troubled teenager can easily buy a weapon of war.

      Did you read the stories from the ER docs who talked about the kind of wounds those kids in Florida suffered? The bullet from assault weapons has three-times the velocity of a handgun bullet. It doesn’t go through you so much as PLOW through you. Exit wounds were the size of an orange.

      So I blame the Broward sheriffs. And the FBI. And the parents who took in this troubled kid and his equally troubled brother. And the laws that allowed them both to indulge in their love of firearms. And the firearm and the gun industry. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

      Not sure which part of the media you blame, though. Care to be more specific?

      1. Your laughable use of “weapon of war” proves that you know nothing.

        The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. Proposing to ban firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.

        The problem with the gun-grabbers is that they know very little to nothing about guns.

        Educate yourself before forming an opinion. Otherwise, you just sound stupid to those of us who know which guns are which and what each can do.

  10. Ever notice that we didn’t have school shootings before the became gun free zones???

    The areas of this country that have the most gun control have the highest crime. Thats why they are called shitholes

    The area of this country has the least gun control has the least crime

    How stupid do you need to be to want more gun control???

    1. I call bullshit on virtually everything you wrote. We’ve had plenty of shootings in areas that were not “gun-free” zones (including a frigging military base). There was an armed guard at the high-school — definitely NOT a gun-free zone.

      Actually, areas with the highest homicide rates are in states with some of the loosest gun laws: Missouri (St. Louis, #1; Kansas City, #12), Louisiana (New Orleans, #4; Baton Rouge, #7), Alabama (Birmingham, #5), Mississippi (Jackson, #6), Wisconsin (Milwaukee, #10).

      You know where Chicago is on the list of Top 30 cities with the highest homicide rate? #25. You know where New York and Los Angeles are? They’re not.

      Decided to look up the 15 LEAST safe states:
      15 – Florida
      14 – Mississippi
      13 – Oklahoma
      12 – Oregon
      11 – Louisiana
      10 – South Dakota
      9 – Delaware
      8 – Missouri
      7 – Nevada
      6- Tennessee
      5- Michigan
      4- New Mexico
      3- Arkansas
      2- South Carolina
      1- Alaska

      Take your “least gun control” argument and shove it. It just ain’t true.

        1. That is incorrect. You must be thinking of personal weapons. While personal weapons must be surrendered to enter a military base, and most personnel do not carry because they are not used for their daily work, bases have firing ranges, gun depots, are actively patrolled by military police, and training exercises often use live weapons. I would be more careful if i were you about making broad misleading statements before checking your facts.

          By the way, many veterans organizations advocate that soldiers surrender their weapons when off duty as one way to help reduce the number of suicides that occur today due to post traumatic stress disorders. Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield might be alive today if ptsd and similar psychiatric issues were solved. They were murdered at a gun range, EVERYONE PRESENT was trained and was armed. What armed marksman was able to stop the murders? If an expert marksmen like Kyle, carrying a pistol at the time of his murder, cannot defend themselves against an insane attacker , then why do you think letting anyone with a gun wander around is going to have the upper hand?

          Easy access to weapons simply makes it easier for the murderer to kill many innocent people. Access to bump stocks on samiautomatics makes the pistol carrier practically irrelevant. By the time you unholster your sidearm, a murderer can have dozens of bullets sprayed arcoss a room.

          You don’t have to solve all potential murder scenarios, but it is illogical to count on low likelihood armed citizen hero scenarios when there are proven safety measures that solved the mass murder epidemic in Australia and elsewhere without taking sporting weapons away from people who know how to use them.

          I rather enjoyed watching the biathlon during the olympics. ar15s have no place on the street, in the hands of mentally disturbed teenage boys.

  11. Here’s a point of view from the UK ..but I don’t know if anyone in the US is going to really apply their mind to this, or will simply reply with “fsck you, Libtard!”

    In the UK we don’t have a history of using or needing guns, it isn’t in our Constitution (..we don’t even have a written constitution..) and we absolutely live without them, except for some farmers who want to shoot foxes, badgers or vermin, and some sportspeople who use shotguns to shoot ‘game’ – pheasants, partridges, pigeons, ducks ..oh and deer.

    I know of no-one – except a couple of farmers – who owns a gun. Some criminals buy guns illicitly, but they know that if they use them, or even CARRY them, then – if caught – their jail sentence will be far more severe than without carrying a gun.

    Police don’t carry guns ..unless there’s some violent event or threat of gun violence, in which case trained police markspersons will be issued with guns and be despatched to the situation.

    Children and teenagers do not have guns, adults don’t have guns, senior citizens don’t have guns ordinary person in any street or in the countryside has a gun. Those who do want one – for shooting game, culling deer, or for whatever reason, apply for a permit, and those applications are heavily scrutinised (UK spelling).

    According to this Wikipedia page the US has 101 guns per 100 people, and at number 82 down that list the UK has 6.2 per hundred people in England and Wales (Scotland isn’t mentioned ..but there are many grouse moors in Scotland, so may gun ownership is higher there. The AVERAGE gun ownership in the world, from that Wiki article, is 10.2 per 100 population – and the US is 101 per 100 population. Ten times the world average.

    Note the mention at the top of that table case you don’t follow the link.. that “According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2009 there were roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all”.

    300 million guns in the US in 2009. Guns abound in US movies’s not Cowboys vs Indians any more, but it’s guns in just about any movie: Back To The Future; guns (..remember; the Libyans?), BladeRunner 2049; guns, in any film; security guards? ..guns. Guns, guns, guns. They’re entertaining films, but the public audience gets inured to the sight and use of guns. It percolates through to the subconscious: “guns are OK ..everyone uses them”.

    Guns are not necessary. We don’t carry guns here in the UK for “personal safety” or for any other reason. They aren’t necessary. We don’t carry lemons to squirt in each other’s eyes, we don’t carry porcupines to prick each other’s bottoms with, we do not carry offensive weapons. They aren’t necessary. We do not need to defend ourselves against people who are carrying guns ..because people don’t carry guns. There is no need for a “right” to carry guns, any more than there’s a need for a right to carry flamethrowers, or hand grenades, or water pistols, or tasers.

    It’s puerile drivel to say “it’s the person, not the gun, which kills people”. If the person weren’t carrying the gun there’d be no chance of violent deaths.

    People in the US manage to live their lives without carrying hand grenades, without driving around in armour-plated vehicles, without carrying rocket-propelled grenade launchers. It’s possible to live normal, fulfilled lives without guns, just as it’s possible to live normal, fulfilled lives without carrying mustard gas, grapefruit, Kodak Brownie cameras or refrigerators everywhere.

    Carrying a gun means that you’re afraid. Don’t be afraid, be confident.

  12. Gun owners are absolutely right. The issue of school shootings is not about the weapons. Come on now. It’s truly basic logic. It’s people of ill intent for whatever reason… be that mental illness, overt anger, deep depression, or religious zeal. The NEXUS of those people and ANY weapon must be our focus. Arming teachers is foolhardy. Posting guards at school is wasteful and pointless. The shooting in San Bernadino, the Pulse nightclub shooting, the Parkland shooting ALL could have been PREVENTED (not PRE-EMPTED) if we had a simple national Red Flag system that was so high profile no agency could sweep it under the rug. Even the Oklahoma Federal Bldg. would still be standing (no guns at all) if we had a simple system that let officials know people were threatening, had dangerous weapons or were possibly a danger to themselves and others. We have such a mix of 911, FBI, Homeland Security and local police stations.. and no coordinated effort to PREVENT violent crime in the first place. I believe weapons like the AR-15 are capable of so much damage that lives can be saved by severely limiting access to them (as was proven in the 1994 ban which did nothing to lower actual crime rates but DID have a huge effect on survivability) so there’s that. But still it’s the people that get a hold of them that should be prevented to stop the crime. Schools are not the only “soft target” for bad people. Terrorists around the world demonstrate frequently that guns are not even the weapon of choice. Car bombs, IED’s, and other implements can kill if that’s the goal. We need to put more resources into PREVENTION and treatment or arrest and expulsion (for the religious zealots). Focusing on guns, schools and the NRA is pointless and shortsighted. Let’s stop the people doing the shooting and come to some kind of reasonable way to keep highly damaging weapons under better control.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.