Responsible gun owners don't have to brandish their guns or fire warnings, right?

[Venix]

Loosening of gun laws helps drive sales. I know guns are 'legit', but this loosening makes them seem more legit.

Nobody is stupid enough to honestly believe that changing "use of force" to "use or threatened use of force" will prompt the sale of even a single firearm.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

Another "hurr I used the Google" post, and another inaccurate article that doesn't support your position.

The article claims that the firearm industry has donated up to $56 million total since 2005, an insignificant sum compared to the $100+ million in annual member dues, which are by far the largest source of funding. And that doesn't even include the personal contributions which make up a significant portion of the rest of the NRA's funding.

The NRA publishes its 990 tax forms. If you want to know how it's funded, read them. Or don't, since you never bother to even read your own sources.

 

[bradly1101]

The NRA publishes its 990 tax forms. If you want to know how it's funded, read them. Or don't, since you never bother to even read your own sources.

Where do you think The Business Insider got their info? I'm looking at their 2011 990. It says under section 8 line 'h' that their was no funding by membership dues. What's up with that?

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521710886/521710886_201112_990.pdf

 

[Venix]

Where do you think The Business Insider got their info? I'm looking at their 2011 990. It says under section 8 line 'h' that their was no funding by membership dues. What's up with that?

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521710886/521710886_201112_990.pdf

Yet another failure. That's the NRA Foundation, not the NRA.

 

[bradly1101]

Yet another failure. That's the NRA Foundation, not the NRA.

Thank you, my mistake, yes I'm fallible unlike everyone else.

OK on the National Rifle Association's 990 it says:

Total revenue: $227,811,279
Total Member dues and fees: $107,083,801

That doesn't look like more than half to me.

http://archive.org/stream/NationalRifleAssociation2010IrsForm990/2010_NRA_IRS990#page/n7/mode/2up

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not 100% opposed to that. I'd much rather pull my shirt to the side and brandish if I think it is going to diffuse a situation or fire a warning shot into something I'm 100% sure is going to stop said bullet if I think I can do that w/o shooting someone...

That's just plain stupid. A gun does not defuse a situation, it escalates it. You only use it when you or someone nearby is in immediate danager, and at that point you shoot to kill.

 

[highland145]

That's just plain stupid. A gun does not defuse a situation, it escalates it. You only use it when you or someone nearby is in immediate danager, and at that point you shoot to kill.

So I have a bat and am intent on hitting you with it. You have a gun and pull it. I would think twice.

 

[irishScott]

That's just plain stupid. A gun does not defuse a situation, it escalates it. You only use it when you or someone nearby is in immediate danager, and at that point you shoot to kill.

I once scared off two would-be muggers by looking confident and making a show of putting my hands my pockets. Most criminals are out for an easy score, the threat of a weapon is often enough.

 

[BUnit1701]

That's just plain stupid. A gun does not defuse a situation, it escalates it. You only use it when you or someone nearby is in immediate danager, and at that point you shoot to kill.

That is not universally true, presenting your firearm can act as a deterrent, ending the situation without any violence from either party. However, it is true that if the other party is sufficiently armed, it could lead to escelation.

 

[Venix]

Thank you, my mistake, yes I'm fallible unlike everyone else.

OK on the National Rifle Association's 990 it says:

Total revenue: $227,811,279
Total Member dues and fees: $107,083,801

That doesn't look like more than half to me.

http://archive.org/stream/NationalRifleAssociation2010IrsForm990/2010_NRA_IRS990#page/n7/mode/2up

Your incompetence is stunning. I said that membership dues are "by far the largest source of funding," a fact clearly proven by your own link. Personal contributions and grants account for the bulk of the remainder, followed by advertising revenue.

Since you're not bright enough to connect the dots: Your previous article claimed $52.6 million in corporate funding over the last eight years. Your new link shows $227 million in annual revenue, over four times greater than the total amount of corporate funding since 2005. Even if you're disingenuous enough to count the $20 million in annual advertising revenue as "gun industry funding," the total is still dwarfed by membership dues alone.

 

[chucky2]

That's just plain stupid. A gun does not defuse a situation, it escalates it. You only use it when you or someone nearby is in immediate danager, and at that point you shoot to kill.

I think it can be situation dependent. Again, I'd like the option of being able to brandish intentionally or fire a warning shot intentionally and not have to worry about being charged for what effectively is me saving someones life - because if I have to shoot them, they aren't coming out alive, I'm making sure of that.

 

[Venix]

I think it can be situation dependent. Again, I'd like the option of being able to brandish intentionally or fire a warning shot intentionally and not have to worry about being charged for what effectively is me saving someones life - because if I have to shoot them, they aren't coming out alive, I'm making sure of that.

The problem is that if you have time to "pull [your] shirt to the side and brandish," you aren't in mortal danger. In a situation where you are in danger, brandishing like that would be tactically foolish, since the assailant could likely kill or disarm you before you can draw.

If you intended to draw and just aborted because the assailant stopped his attack, then I agree that it's fine. And that's the type of situation that this law is intended to protect. But I don't think it's ever wise to show or touch your gun unless it's a side effect of drawing it to defend yourself.

 

[chucky2]

The problem is that if you have time to "pull [your] shirt to the side and brandish," you aren't in mortal danger. In a situation where you are in danger, brandishing like that would be tactically foolish, since the assailant could likely kill or disarm you before you can draw.

I disagree, again, depending on the situation.

If you intended to draw and just aborted because the assailant stopped his attack, then I agree that it's fine. And that's the type of situation that this law is intended to protect. But I don't think it's ever wise to show or touch your gun unless it's a side effect of drawing it to defend yourself.

That's sort of what I'm saying. There are situations where you are going to have draw, that is foregone because of the threat, but brandishing causes the threat(s) to abort. Obviously if the situation is immediately time sensitive, I'm pulling...but then regardless of this law I'd have pulled anyways.

 

[BUnit1701]

The problem is that if you have time to "pull [your] shirt to the side and brandish," you aren't in mortal danger. In a situation where you are in danger, brandishing like that would be tactically foolish, since the assailant could likely kill or disarm you before you can draw.

If you intended to draw and just aborted because the assailant stopped his attack, then I agree that it's fine. And that's the type of situation that this law is intended to protect. But I don't think it's ever wise to show or touch your gun unless it's a side effect of drawing it to defend yourself.

If I am going to brandish, its going to involve a draw. I dont feel showing the weapon in its holster is particularly motivating. Seeing the open maw of a barrel on the other hand...

 

[rudeguy]

The problem is that if you have time to "pull [your] shirt to the side and brandish," you aren't in mortal danger. In a situation where you are in danger, brandishing like that would be tactically foolish, since the assailant could likely kill or disarm you before you can draw.

If you intended to draw and just aborted because the assailant stopped his attack, then I agree that it's fine. And that's the type of situation that this law is intended to protect. But I don't think it's ever wise to show or touch your gun unless it's a side effect of drawing it to defend yourself.

I'm very curious. How have you become to be an expert on self defense? What kind of training do you have?

 

[rudeguy]

If I am going to brandish, its going to involve a draw. I dont feel showing the weapon in its holster is particularly motivating. Seeing the open maw of a barrel on the other hand...

I would consider brandishing but I carry at 4 o'clock. So the bad guy would have to be beside me and behind me. Not really sure how anyone could brandish without clearing leather if they aren't carrying between 9&3.

 

[BoberFett]

So I have a bat and am intent on hitting you with it. You have a gun and pull it. I would think twice.

I once scared off two would-be muggers by looking confident and making a show of putting my hands my pockets. Most criminals are out for an easy score, the threat of a weapon is often enough.

That is not universally true, presenting your firearm can act as a deterrent, ending the situation without any violence from either party. However, it is true that if the other party is sufficiently armed, it could lead to escelation.

Exactly, brandishing as a means to end a conflict assumes the other person isn't armed. At the point firearms are brought into a situation, the purpose is to neutralize the threat by firing it.

 

[Zargon]

The problem is that if you have time to "pull [your] shirt to the side and brandish," you aren't in mortal danger. In a situation where you are in danger, brandishing like that would be tactically foolish, since the assailant could likely kill or disarm you before you can draw.

If you intended to draw and just aborted because the assailant stopped his attack, then I agree that it's fine. And that's the type of situation that this law is intended to protect. But I don't think it's ever wise to show or touch your gun unless it's a side effect of drawing it to defend yourself.

I can think of many situation where that's simply not true.

say someone threatening you with a beating with a bat or something from 20-30 feet away, you untuck or unholster, and they decide its not worth it and leave.

my ex-neighbors that got evicted were(surprise surprise, since they got evicted) shitty white trash

I watched a domestic almost turn into a 3 on 1 beatdown with a baseball bat. about the only way someone is going to stop that is probably brandishing, if you don't think the cops will show up in time

Exactly, brandishing as a means to end a conflict assumes the other person isn't armed. At the point firearms are brought into a situation, the purpose is to neutralize the threat by firing it.

that's a fair point, but If I'm already drawn and somewhat pointed on target, hard to imagine some one that's not a Pro drawing and firing before I shoot them

 

[bradly1101]

Your incompetence is stunning. I said that membership dues are "by far the largest source of funding," a fact clearly proven by your own link. Personal contributions and grants account for the bulk of the remainder, followed by advertising revenue.

Since you're not bright enough to connect the dots: Your previous article claimed $52.6 million in corporate funding over the last eight years. Your new link shows $227 million in annual revenue, over four times greater than the total amount of corporate funding since 2005. Even if you're disingenuous enough to count the $20 million in annual advertising revenue as "gun industry funding," the total is still dwarfed by membership dues alone.

I was responding more to this:

despite firearm manufacturers providing only a tiny fraction of the NRA's funding...

.
.

And the gun industry – led by Ruger – has benefited tremendously from the NRA. According to IRS fillings, from 2004 to 2010, the NRA’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues.

It's from IRS filings, so I know, leftist, pinko, commies:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

My guess is that a big chunk of that too comes from the divine Koch brothers.

 

[bradly1101]

Let me put it this way; I believe that thinking that gun manufacturers and the NRA aren't in each others back pockets is a little naive.

They have the same goals and are working closely together.

 

[highland145]

Let me put it this way; I believe that thinking that gun manufacturers and the NRA aren't in each others back pockets is a little naive.

They have the same goals and are working closely together.

So what's Obama's angle?

 

[Venix]

That's sort of what I'm saying. There are situations where you are going to have draw, that is foregone because of the threat, but brandishing causes the threat(s) to abort. Obviously if the situation is immediately time sensitive, I'm pulling...but then regardless of this law I'd have pulled anyways.

I agree that that's perfectly acceptable. I thought you were talking about pulling your shirt aside just to show your holstered weapon, but not immediately moving to draw. Brandishing in the context of an aborted draw makes sense, and the law should definitely protect it.

My point was just that the gun shouldn't come into play at all until it's necessary to defend yourself with deadly force. I strongly disagree with brandishing in a case where it wouldn't be lawful to shoot.

I'm very curious. How have you become to be an expert on self defense? What kind of training do you have?

I'm not. I have taken a number of tactical shooting classes because they're fun. Massad Ayoob is what I would consider an expert.

 

[chucky2]

I agree that that's perfectly acceptable. I thought you were talking about pulling your shirt aside just to show your holstered weapon, but not immediately moving to draw. Brandishing in the context of an aborted draw makes sense, and the law should definitely protect it.

My point was just that the gun shouldn't come into play at all until it's necessary to defend yourself with deadly force. I strongly disagree with brandishing in a case where it wouldn't be lawful to shoot.

I'm talking about both really. If I'm walking down one side of the street and on the other side 40m away a few guys move over with that 'We're about to F with this dude look/actions', I'd rather not wait until they're 30' away and then just pull on them. I'd much rather calmly and deliberately take my shirt, move it out of the way, and make a visible and clear effort to ensure my pistol is where I expect it to be...and that right there is brandishing, at least in my book. If that causes them to second guess their 'fun' activity and move out of my path of travel, good. If it doesn't then it was going to be a problem anyways. The other side to that is if I hadn't done that, and waited until they within a pull scenario distance, now it's a big WTF surprise. That may sound like a good thing, and maybe it is sometimes, but I think sometimes it's not. Really I think it's situation dependent.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm talking about both really. If I'm walking down one side of the street and on the other side 40m away a few guys move over with that 'We're about to F with this dude look/actions', I'd rather not wait until they're 30' away and then just pull on them. I'd much rather calmly and deliberately take my shirt, move it out of the way, and make a visible and clear effort to ensure my pistol is where I expect it to be...and that right there is brandishing, at least in my book. If that causes them to second guess their 'fun' activity and move out of my path of travel, good. If it doesn't then it was going to be a problem anyways. The other side to that is if I hadn't done that, and waited until they within a pull scenario distance, now it's a big WTF surprise. That may sound like a good thing, and maybe it is sometimes, but I think sometimes it's not. Really I think it's situation dependent.

Umm...

Brandishing because someone crossed the street and you don't like how they look? Really?

So what if one of them is legally concealed carrying? You just threatened him with a firearm and now you are dead.

 

[spidey07]

Umm...

Brandishing because someone crossed the street and you don't like how they look? Really?

So what if one of them is legally concealed carrying? You just threatened him with a firearm and now you are dead.

A holstered weapon has never been legally considered a threat.

 

[chucky2]

Umm...

Brandishing because someone crossed the street and you don't like how they look? Really?

So what if one of them is legally concealed carrying? You just threatened him with a firearm and now you are dead.

In high school I hung out with dudes that would somewhat often go out either individually or in some group size and F with people just like that. It's not just 'Oh look they're crossing the street, let me greet them and wish them a happy day'. It's, 'These mofo's are are looking right at me, laughing loudly, and basically intercepting me with a purpose'. If you've been in that situation(s) before, you know exactly what I'm talking about. They have zero reason to see you, motion towards you, all cross the street towards you, then when you start crossing over to what was their side of the street, they change course as you do and start veering back to their original side of the street. It's not a good situation to be in.