Thoughts on the NRA?

[deadheadskier]

yep that's what I thought....jump to stupid conclusions, get called out...crickets....wash, rinse, repeat....

...those crickets are what's called having a life. bullsh!tI don't spend all day, every day on Kzone like you do. I may have better things to be doing and don't swing in for a day or so because of a spell of boredom. liar...I saw yer posts...they show right up in the board index with the date and time in chronological order...I sure as S don't always look back through a thread to see if people, especially you, have asked me a question. Don't much care what you think. nope especially when yer easily proven a fool...and yer angry respons here shows just how butthurt you are over it...

But, seeing how you're so desperate for my attention despite repeated claims to the contrary, here is my answer to your question. It would appear that the NRA bought prime ad space below a story about a mass shooting. If that post is legitimate, then shame on the NRA. I certainly wouldn't put it past them given their stance following similar tragedies. Which by the way, have nothing to do with protecting your rights for owning your precious little dick extension and everything to do with convincing you to buy a bigger one.

that's how stupid you are....that's how easily manipulated you are ...that's how your singular thought process leads you to your to conclusions that aren't real...yer an easily manipulable ( barely) useful idiot...you posted all over Kzone the last 3 days but ignored this cuz yer "premise" is as flawed as your ideology...

then you post some snarky deflection that shows your complete lack of ability to respond intelligently...similar to your snark about "choosing a costume" ...childish...it's the best you can do...

"precious little dick extension and everything to do with convincing you to buy a bigger one." brilliant...did yer mommy help you with that one?

what a sad little pussy you are....angry sore loser...

you also ran away from the "why is murder/ rape wrong" question further proving your inability to comprehend and converse...

maybe scroll through Facebook sometime and see how the ads work...Did applebees sponsor my friends post about her kids? did fiat sponsor the post above it about my friend hatching monarch butterflies? NO...that's not how it works ... yer just a an easily manipulable barely useful idiot who always has to do what they tell you...yer too stupid to know any better...

Liar??

Man, you are a mental midget. I had last posted in the Access Road thread at 12:41 on Monday. My last post in this thread had been 11:31AM on Monday.

So sorry I was off Kzone from 12:41PM Monday until 9:50PM on Tuesday before responding to you. It clearly was weighing hard on you for your "crickets" call out only 20 hours into my absence from Kzone.

But you sure did deliver with your trademark lunatic wall of text drivel.

I'll let you know in advance, I've got a busy day tomorrow. Might not be able to sign in until late in the evening again to give you the attention you cry for. Can you make it 20 hours before breaking down again and demanding a response from me? Let's see if you can top the last time. Be a big boy.

[madhatter]

yep that's what I thought....jump to stupid conclusions, get called out...crickets....wash, rinse, repeat....

...those crickets are what's called having a life. bullsh!tI don't spend all day, every day on Kzone like you do. I may have better things to be doing and don't swing in for a day or so because of a spell of boredom. liar...I saw yer posts...they show right up in the board index with the date and time in chronological order...I sure as S don't always look back through a thread to see if people, especially you, have asked me a question. Don't much care what you think. nope especially when yer easily proven a fool...and yer angry respons here shows just how butthurt you are over it...

But, seeing how you're so desperate for my attention despite repeated claims to the contrary, here is my answer to your question. It would appear that the NRA bought prime ad space below a story about a mass shooting. If that post is legitimate, then shame on the NRA. I certainly wouldn't put it past them given their stance following similar tragedies. Which by the way, have nothing to do with protecting your rights for owning your precious little dick extension and everything to do with convincing you to buy a bigger one.

that's how stupid you are....that's how easily manipulated you are ...that's how your singular thought process leads you to your to conclusions that aren't real...yer an easily manipulable ( barely) useful idiot...you posted all over Kzone the last 3 days but ignored this cuz yer "premise" is as flawed as your ideology...

then you post some snarky deflection that shows your complete lack of ability to respond intelligently...similar to your snark about "choosing a costume" ...childish...it's the best you can do...

"precious little dick extension and everything to do with convincing you to buy a bigger one." brilliant...did yer mommy help you with that one?

what a sad little pussy you are....angry sore loser...

you also ran away from the "why is murder/ rape wrong" question further proving your inability to comprehend and converse...

maybe scroll through Facebook sometime and see how the ads work...Did applebees sponsor my friends post about her kids? did fiat sponsor the post above it about my friend hatching monarch butterflies? NO...that's not how it works ... yer just a an easily manipulable barely useful idiot who always has to do what they tell you...yer too stupid to know any better...

Liar??

Man, you are a mental midget. I had last posted in the Access Road thread at 12:41 on Monday. My last post in this thread had been 11:31AM on Monday.

So sorry I was off Kzone from 12:41PM Monday until 9:50PM on Tuesday before responding to you. It clearly was weighing hard on you for your "crickets" call out only 20 hours into my absence from Kzone.

But you sure did deliver with your trademark lunatic wall of text drivel.

I'll let you know in advance, I've got a busy day tomorrow. Might not be able to sign in until late in the evening again to give you the attention you cry for. Can you make it 20 hours before breaking down again and demanding a response from me? Let's see if you can top the last time. Be a big boy.

yep ya still got nothing....

[madhatter]

[Bubba]

Try to stay on topic, s.l.o.w. Supporting reasonable regulations on gun control isn't an out of control liberal idea. Scalia was a staunch conservative and he supported it. In case you didn't know, Scalia was a Supreme Court justice, and one of the most conservative of the modern era.

there's no such thing as a " reasonable liberal idea"

Oh, I don’t know...how about the right to have unions, the right for women to vote, civil rights legislation, the right to interracial marriage, the right to same sex marriage? And that’s just for starters.

All of that COULD be construed to be Libertarian ideas. Just saying.....

none of em occurred in the last 40-50 years except gay marriage, which IMO should have been the point at which the fedgov got out of the marriage business altogether instead of broadening its definition to the satisfaction of no one...i.e change the qualifier...

so perhaps I should re-state...there are no reasonable ideas coming out of today's democrat party...today's D party is not even remotely "liberal"...or libertarian....

Of course, all of those now reasonable ideas were considered unreasonable, radical leftist ideas, back when they were initially proposed. Time will tell.

[Kpdemello]

Of course, all of those now reasonable ideas were considered unreasonable, radical leftist ideas, back when they were initially proposed. Time will tell.

An assault weapons ban isn't even radical or new. It was first implemented what, over twenty years ago? And many (if not most) developed countries around the globe have regulations banning all or certain types of firearms from public ownership. This idea isn't remotely radical. it's quite centrist, really. But I guess if you're standing way over on the far right, everything looks leftist to you.

Similarly, a graduated income tax is not radically leftist, nor is an estate tax, nor is even state-sponsored health care. These are all ideas that have been around for decades or longer, have been implemented with various degrees of success in developed countries all around the world, and in general it is quite centrist to be in favor of these things. I'll maybe give you that being in favor of publicaly sponsored health care is slightly left of center, but even that I think is pushing it given the U.S. is the only developed country in the world that doesn't do it.

[madhatter]

Of course, all of those now reasonable ideas were considered unreasonable, radical leftist ideas, back when they were initially proposed. Time will tell.

An assault weapons define "assault weapon"ban isn't even radical or new. It was first implemented what, over twenty years ago? and repealed...And many (if not most) developed countries around the globe have regulations banning all or certain types of firearms from public ownership. third world countries have the most restrictive bans of all...This idea isn't remotely radical. it's quite centrist, really. But I guess if you're standing way over on the far right, everything looks leftist to you.with yer head up yer @ss everything you say makes perfect sense...

Similarly, a graduated income tax is not radically leftist, nor is an estate tax, nor is even state-sponsored health care. These are all ideas that have been around for decades or longer, have been implemented with various degrees of success in developed countries all around the world, and in general can be considered centrist positions. I'll maybe give you slightly left of center on health care, but even that I think is pushing it.

seems like you'd be much happier in a different country...and the rest of us would be much happier too...

MOST of the country does not want to be europe despite what the MSM and many D's insist...pretty sure you can migrate there quite easily if you find it so appealing...

[Mister Moose]

An assault weapons ban isn't even radical or new. It was first implemented what, over twenty years ago? And many (if not most) developed countries around the globe have regulations banning all or certain types of firearms from public ownership. This idea isn't remotely radical. it's quite centrist, really. But I guess if you're standing way over on the far right, everything looks leftist to you.

Some review is in order. Here is an excellent discussion of the 2nd amendment, complete with a stand in for KPD. If you stick around for the whole video you also get some flag magic mixed in with 1st amendment discussion.

KPD needs to explain the difference between an assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle, and we can go from there.

[Kpdemello]

KPD needs to explain the difference between an assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle, and we can go from there.

No I don't. I'm no expert, and I readily admit it. That doesn't mean that I can't be in favor of regulating an area of commerce in the United States. If we all had to be experts on any subject we as citizens were in favor of regulating there would be no regulations. As I said earlier, this has been done before. There was an assault weapons ban, and it worked. So why do we need to reinvent the wheel, or engage in pointless semantic discussions?

As to the video, are you suggesting my viewpoint is similar to the bearded guy who talks about a well regulated militia? Because it's not, and I never said that. In fact, what I said was that my position is consistent with Justice Scalia's. I do believe the 2nd amendment refers to a personal right, I just don't believe it's unlimited and that it should be subject to reasonable regulation. I'd also suggest that your video isn't responsive to the point I was making in the text you quote, as the point there was that an assault weapons ban is not a radical idea. In any event, the video is a regurgitation of the conservative viewpoint without any facts or data to back it up. Actual research, however, suggest that additional regulations would be effective at reducing mass shootings.

see here: https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-con ... ths-2019-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bubba]

My view on what’s reasonable:

1. Beto was an idiot for saying what he said at this last week’s debate. His statement was neither reasonable nor politically intelligent.

2. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected as an individual right. Not all weapons are, however, protected. Automatic weapons ownership has been banned for decades. Semi-automatic weapons have been legal and should remain so. Altering them to be automatic or to behave like automatic for your own use (bump stocks?) should be at least a high grade misdemeanor if not a felony. Doing so for someone else should be a felony.

3. Anyone failing a background check should be reported to the police. My understanding is that reporting is not currently required.

4. Background checks should be expanded to all sales. Gifting or lending a weapon should be excluded.

[madhatter]

My view on what’s reasonable:

1. Beto was an idiot for saying what he said at this last week’s debate. His statement was neither reasonable nor politically intelligent.

2. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected as an individual right. Not all weapons are, however, protected. Automatic weapons ownership has been banned for decades. you can own one, it cost a lot of money and it must have been manufactured prior to I believe 1983...anything made after that is illegal, that includes modifying a semi to be an auto... Semi-automatic weapons have been legal and should remain so. agreed virtually EVERY handgun and man rifles can fire one bullet per trigger pull without any user intervention...pump shotguns, lever action shotguns, single round guns and muzzleloaders are exceptions...Altering them to be automatic is a felony...you get caught w something like that you are SCREWED....or to behave like automatic for your own use (bump stocks? it's still one pull per round w a bump stock...they're not very useful or accurate...) should be at least a high grade misdemeanor if not a felony. Doing so for someone else should be a felony.it is already...

3. Anyone failing a background check should be reported to the police. My understanding is that reporting is not currently required. in VT you have to answer a dozen or so questions and the licenced ffl dealer calls it in to I believe FBI/ATF but not exactly sure...asks age residence, criminal background etc...failing that check will prevent the dealer from making the transfer....

4. Background checks should be expanded to all sales. by and large they are...most people selling want a paper trail as to where that gun went and and to whom...selling your gun to an unknown undocumented buyer leave you as the last known owner...should that weapon turn up in a crime you'll be answering for it...Gifting or lending a weapon should be excluded.

beto was just being honest...leftists goal IS to take guns...

[Mister Moose]

KPD needs to explain the difference between an assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle, and we can go from there.

No I don't. I'm no expert, and I readily admit it. That doesn't mean that I can't be in favor of regulating an area of commerce in the United States. If we all had to be experts on any subject we as citizens were in favor of regulating there would be no regulations.

As to the video, are you suggesting I'm Teller? So I guess that's just another personal attack I should ignore?

The second amendment is not "an area of commerce".

No I don't. I'm no expert, and I readily admit it. That doesn't mean that I can't be in favor of regulating an area of commerce in the United States. If we all had to be experts on any subject we as citizens were in favor of regulating there would be no regulations.

As to the video, are you suggesting my viewpoint is similar to the bearded guy who talks about a well regulated militia? Because it's not, and I never said that. In fact, what I said was that my position is consistent with Justice Scalia's. I do believe the 2nd amendment refers to a personal right, I just don't believe it's unlimited and that it should be subject to reasonable regulation. I'd also suggest that your video isn't responsive to the point I was making in the text you quote, as the point there was that an assault weapons ban is not a radical idea. In any event, the video is a regurgitation of the conservative viewpoint without any facts or data to back it up. Actual research, however, suggest that additional regulations would be effective at reducing these types of tragedies.

see here: https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-con ... ths-2019-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You seem to have a habit of conjuring up personal attacks where none exist. Holding up a mirror is not a personal attack. "The bearded guy" in the video is discussing a different aspect, but both he and you chose to ignore and or twist 1) The Constitution, 2) The Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not grant any authority other than that specified, the rest is reserved to the States. The Bill of Rights foresaw folks like you (Meaning no, not another personal attack, but rather folks who do not start from "Shall not be infringed"), and specifically enumerates basic rights that should never be erased, even by the States.

"Reasonable regulation" is a feel good vague phrase that essentially carries no meaning without further specific detail. I disagree; folks like you that can't explain the difference between an assault rifle and a semi automatic rifle are not the person that should be advocating 2nd amendment interpretation or changes. You don't even meet your own test, you have not discussed the issue with people who are knowledgeable and educated yourself so you can advocate responsibly. You therefore don't know what "reasonable regulation" could possibly be.

Lastly, sure you post an article that quotes some statistics. From there it goes on to post near nonsensical conclusions, like fewer guns result in fewer gun crimes. Gosh. I'll bet zero guns results in zero gun crimes, and I didn't even need statistics or a study for that one. My point is that should I choose to waste my time, I could find and post numerous different statistics from which I could find articles that form different conclusions. Does that advance this discussion? Will that invalidate your article?

You missed the point of my previous point which was your almighty linkable data is not sacrosanct. It is eminently fallible, especially that which shows up in the first page of your google search. You need other sources, and so far you ignore those other sources. You just post a single article, and think that wins the day, and then claim that those opinions posted without any linkable articles are intrinsically flawed.

In closing the article states:
The US is not inherently a more violent society, but its policies make guns easy to get. The data that we have indicates that some gun-control measures — like banning some types of weapons, improving background checks, and putting more restrictions on weapon access — could save lives.

Any restriction on firearms could save lives. Less of them, smaller caliber, weaker cartridges, less accuracy, ammunition purchasing restrictions, smaller magazines, lock requirements, sale restrictions, higher license fees, longer wait periods, registries, all of these things and more could save lives. None of them explain how saving lives is worth disarming the public; giving up the second amendment. An armed public will have crimes and accidents. If the solution to every subsequent gun death is more regulation (Because it could save lives), you are on a path to no guns. The discussion that needs to take place is who should be regulated (criminals, mentally ill or citizens) and what is the value of the 2nd amendment. Because the 2nd amendment causes gun deaths. Because guns cause gun deaths.

What is the value of the 2nd amendment? What is the difference between "guns [are] easy to get" and "shall not be infringed"?

Perhaps you'd like to find an article to link to in your answer.

[Kpdemello]

First off, as to the personal attack thing, I realized after I made that post that there was no personal attack there in the video when you said there was a KPD stand in. That's why I edited my post. Sorry, it was a knee jerk reaction because it seems to happen so often around here, and frankly I didn't know what you were talking about when I first watched the video because there's no one in there that argued my position. But on to the substance:

"The bearded guy" in the video is discussing a different aspect, but both he and you chose to ignore and or twist 1) The Constitution, 2) The Bill of Rights.

I thought we were both citing to the Constitution, quoting its terms, and discussing their meaning. You only call it "twist" because you don't like what we have to say. Perhaps you're the one who's "twisting" things to suit your own ideals?

"Reasonable regulation" is a feel good vague phrase that essentially carries no meaning without further specific detail.

Actually it's a term of art used by courts in this country, and there has been lots of discussion on its precise meaning.

I disagree; folks like you that can't explain the difference between an assault rifle and a semi automatic rifle are not the person that should be advocating 2nd amendment interpretation or changes.

I never said I couldn't explain the difference, just that I didn't need to. Look up the 1984 assault weapons ban. It has a definition that is perfectly adequate for the task.

You don't even meet your own test, you have not discussed the issue with people who are knowledgeable and educated yourself so you can advocate responsibly. You therefore don't know what "reasonable regulation" could possibly be.

My test? How was this my test? And how do you know I haven't discussed the issue with people who are knowledgeable and educated myself on the issue? Just FYI, I've fired an AR15 variant, various other guns, and attended gun safety courses, so I'm not someone who's never handled a firearm. I have friends and relatives who are gun owners and NRA members and I've discussed these issues with them. I've also been involved in dealing with the law on gun violence on a professional level. But again, none of that is relevant. What's relevant is the actual arguments, data, and information presented, not my personal experience with guns. What you're doing is making a form of ad hominem attack.

Lastly, sure you post an article that quotes some statistics. From there it goes on to post near nonsensical conclusions, like fewer guns result in fewer gun crimes. Gosh. I'll bet zero guns results in zero gun crimes, and I didn't even need statistics or a study for that one. My point is that should I choose to waste my time, I could find and post numerous different statistics from which I could find articles that form different conclusions. Does that advance this discussion? Will that invalidate your article?

It might change some perspectives, mine included. I've read stuff posted on forums like this and changed my mind based on the data. What is unlikely to change my mind is some guy who doesn't know me from adam telling me I'm clearly ignorant and therefore my opinions don't matter when everything I've read suggests that these types of regulations would result in fewer mass shootings. You've presented literally zero evidence to dispute that conclusion.

You missed the point of my previous point which was your almighty linkable data is not sacrosanct.

Never said it was. But when someone presents you with actual data, it might be helpful to engage the data itself rather than dismissing it out of hand and relying instead on vague ideology.

It is eminently fallible, especially that which shows up in the first page of your google search. You need other sources, and so far you ignore those other sources. You just post a single article, and think that wins the day, and then claim that those opinions posted without any linkable articles are intrinsically flawed.

What sources? post some. You dismiss this article as nonsense but you've done nothing to actually address that data or conclusions contained in it. You call them nonsensical but haven't explained the how or the why. So why should I bother to listen to your opinion? It seems to have neither backing nor validity.

Much of the rest of your post seems to focus on arguments that I never made. I never said we should give up the second amendment, just that we should regulate some aspects of gun ownership. Regulation doesn't mean elimination of the second amendment. That's a complete bullsh!t argument. Have cigarettes been banned? Drugs? Cars? All those are things we heavily regulate.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Some data points, which surprised me:

- Most 'mass shootings' are via handgun
- In one year (sample of 2016) there were ~40,000 gun deaths. 71 were a result of a mass shooting and approximately 2,500 were self-defense.
- ~20% of all mass shootings the shooter used a high-capacity magazine. This resulted in 155% more people being shot and 47% more deaths when compared to shooters w/out a highcap mag.
- 40% of mass shooters were 'prohibited gun purchasers'
- 7 of the top 10 mass shootings were carried out with a rifle ... all except the UT shooting in 1966 were via AR-15 or equivalent.

[madhatter]

First off, as to the personal attack thing, I realized after I made that post that there was no personal attack there in the video when you said there was a KPD stand in. That's why I edited my post. Sorry, it was a knee jerk reaction because it seems to happen so often around here, and frankly I didn't know what you were talking about when I first watched the video because there's no one in there that argued my position. But on to the substance:

"The bearded guy" in the video is discussing a different aspect, but both he and you chose to ignore and or twist 1) The Constitution, 2) The Bill of Rights.

I thought we were both citing to the Constitution, quoting its terms, and discussing their meaning. You only call it "twist" because you don't like what we have to say. Perhaps you're the one who's "twisting" things to suit your own ideals?

"Reasonable regulation" is a feel good vague phrase that essentially carries no meaning without further specific detail.

Actually it's a term of art used by courts in this country, and there has been lots of discussion on its precise meaning.

I disagree; folks like you that can't explain the difference between an assault rifle and a semi automatic rifle are not the person that should be advocating 2nd amendment interpretation or changes.

I never said I couldn't explain the difference, just that I didn't need to. Look up the 1984 assault weapons ban. It has a definition that is perfectly adequate for the task.

You don't even meet your own test, you have not discussed the issue with people who are knowledgeable and educated yourself so you can advocate responsibly. You therefore don't know what "reasonable regulation" could possibly be.

My test? How was this my test? And how do you know I haven't discussed the issue with people who are knowledgeable and educated myself on the issue? Just FYI, I've fired an AR15 variant, various other guns, and attended gun safety courses, so I'm not someone who's never handled a firearm. I have friends and relatives who are gun owners and NRA members and I've discussed these issues with them. I've also been involved in dealing with the law on gun violence on a professional level. But again, none of that is relevant. What's relevant is the actual arguments, data, and information presented, not my personal experience with guns. What you're doing is making a form of ad hominem attack.

Lastly, sure you post an article that quotes some statistics. From there it goes on to post near nonsensical conclusions, like fewer guns result in fewer gun crimes. Gosh. I'll bet zero guns results in zero gun crimes, and I didn't even need statistics or a study for that one. My point is that should I choose to waste my time, I could find and post numerous different statistics from which I could find articles that form different conclusions. Does that advance this discussion? Will that invalidate your article?

It might change some perspectives, mine included. I've read stuff posted on forums like this and changed my mind based on the data. What is unlikely to change my mind is some guy who doesn't know me from adam telling me I'm clearly ignorant and therefore my opinions don't matter when everything I've read suggests that these types of regulations would result in fewer mass shootings. You've presented literally zero evidence to dispute that conclusion.

You missed the point of my previous point which was your almighty linkable data is not sacrosanct.

Never said it was. But when someone presents you with actual data, it might be helpful to engage the data itself rather than dismissing it out of hand and relying instead on vague ideology.

It is eminently fallible, especially that which shows up in the first page of your google search. You need other sources, and so far you ignore those other sources. You just post a single article, and think that wins the day, and then claim that those opinions posted without any linkable articles are intrinsically flawed.

What sources? post some. You dismiss this article as nonsense but you've done nothing to actually address that data or conclusions contained in it. You call them nonsensical but haven't explained the how or the why. So why should I bother to listen to your opinion? It seems to have neither backing nor validity.

Much of the rest of your post seems to focus on arguments that I never made. I never said we should give up the second amendment, just that we should regulate some aspects of gun ownership. Regulation doesn't mean elimination of the second amendment. That's a complete bullsh!t argument. Have cigarettes been banned?in many places, yes... Drugs?all sched 1 drugs are "banned" including marijuana... Cars? even those are banned in some places...All those are things we heavily regulate.

none of those "things" are constitutional rights...the 2A says " shall not be infringed" so if you can come up with a regulation that is not an infringement then you have an argument, til then you need a constitutional amendment...

[madhatter]

Some data points, which surprised me:

- Most 'mass shootings' are via handgun
- In one year (sample of 2016) there were ~40,000 gun deaths. 71 were a result of a mass shooting Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.Nov 28, 2018and approximately 2,500 were self-defense. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.
- ~20% of all mass shootings the shooter used a high-capacity magazine. what is the definition of high cap mag vs low cap mag? This resulted in 155% more people being shot and 47% more deaths when compared to shooters w/out a highcap mag.80% of mass shootings did not involve a high capacity magazine)
- 40% of mass shooters were 'prohibited gun purchasers'
- 7 of the top 10 mass shootings were carried out with a rifle ... all except the UT shooting in 1966 were via AR-15 or equivalent.they are effective, which is why so many law abiding citizens own them vs something else...100% of AR-15 or equivalent's owned by law abiding citizens were NOT used in the committing of a crime...

a few more "data points"

ZERO were committed by law abiding citizens ( this resulted in an infinite % fewer people being shot) and as far as I know ZERO were committed by NRA members... ( this also resulted in infinitely fewer people being shot...)

seems to me the data bears out that most deaths by firearm are not caused by mass shootings or by AR15's or the equivalent...in fact VERY few are...