• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Read GOAL's New Report on MA Gun Control Failure

The issue is the people on this board will read it front to back and observe the numerous failures with some objectivity. We however have become a minority, and somewhat a silent minority. The people who neeed to read this and actually read it without an agenda are on Beacon Hill and those many people on the fence. That’s where we have a problem, a big problem. Neither of those group will rad this and agree that more laws won’t help or that some of the current overreaching laws should be thrown out. They won’t, instead they will want more and more laws. So the question we need to ask ourselves is how do we do a better job of communicating with our neighbors who might be on the fence , younger up and coming voters etc. I will leave the communication with the politicians on Beacon Hill to GOAL
 
Where did GOAL get their statistics on accidental gun deaths? It lists 0 in 2008, however a young boy was killed in an accident when he lost control of an uzi at the Westfield Sportman's Club in October 2008.
 
Thanks, it is refreshing to see gun statistics presented in a truthful and practical way!
 
Where did GOAL get their statistics on accidental gun deaths? It lists 0 in 2008, however a young boy was killed in an accident when he lost control of an uzi at the Westfield Sportman's Club in October 2008.
Those numbers come directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
 
Where did GOAL get their statistics on accidental gun deaths? It lists 0 in 2008, however a young boy was killed in an accident when he lost control of an uzi at the Westfield Sportman's Club in October 2008.
Good catch. I remember that in the fall of 2008 , hopefully there’s a valid reason because some anti would toss the entire thing out over 1 error
 
Those numbers come directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
Well you should have checked them better. You need to do a whole better job on a lot of things over there at goal. Thanks.
 
The problem is that nobody cares about an "objective" report or investigation prepared by an advocacy group unless they agree with the conclusion. It's difficult to get someone to agree with an independent third party study that does not confirm their existing bias, and impossible to get them to agree with one prepared by an agenda driven entity. Expecting people not already on our side to care about the GOAL report makes as much sense as expecting NES members to be swayed by an "objective" report prepared by Everytown for Gun Safety.

This is true no matter how well prepared or accurate the report. Might be more effective label it a position paper, as that is how it will be received.
 
Well you should have checked them better. You need to do a whole better job on a lot of things over there at goal. Thanks.
Last time I checked it isn't Goal's job to verify the state's numbers.

Kind of scary that the state is making decisions on data like this but I guess the state doesn't care as long at the data supports the decisions it intends to make.
 
It is not about facts, but about diametrically opposed viewpoints on the relationship of the individual to government and society.

Spot on Rob.

Just how do you convince a person who hates guns, or more specifically, letting the common people have guns for the different reasons we have this right, that they are wrong about the whole issue?
 
Maybe that death was included under a criminal incident and not recorded as an "accident"?

That’s probably likely. Fleury was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter and the other two weren’t prosecuted after the acquittal in 2011. Or that’s what my memory recollects.
 
I found this report helpful and informative. When having a discussion with someone with whom my opinion differs I will cite an article such as this and ask them to refute the facts.
I will say something like "This the information I am basing my position on. If I am wrong please provide me with some facts"
I try not to use a tone that is arrogant or condescending.
 
The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 under the pen name "Publius."

Just saying.
 
The big problem when a pro gun organization bashes the current laws the anti just see/say " well if laws are not working its time for a complete ban"

We need to get back to the Constitution. Either our elected officials defend it or they get tried for some sort of high crimes.
 
So in order to do things right,people need to go do it for them for free ?

TR said it best:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
 
The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 under the pen name "Publius."

Just saying.

I reread FP #51 last night that was written by Madison. It primarily involved the issue of checks and balances between the different functions of government. One phrase that stood out (among others) is that, "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." We right now are the minority in MA wrt gun rights because the majority deems guns are scary.

Federalist Papers No. 51 - Bill of Rights Institute
 
I reread FP #51 last night that was written by Madison. It primarily involved the issue of checks and balances between the different functions of government. One phrase that stood out (among others) is that, "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." We right now are the minority in MA wrt gun rights because the majority deems guns are scary.

Federalist Papers No. 51 - Bill of Rights Institute

Nobody (outside of this group) today would READ the FP.

But the APPROACH, of creating a pen name and publishing a series of thought provoking articles, could work. Assuming one could dupe a media outlet the lefties read, into running the articles.
 
Back
Top Bottom