How The NRA Enables Massacres

[Geaux4it]

The only thing Obama wants is to ban guns through background checks=registration=confiscation.

-Geaux

And that would be bad, why?

Frankly, there's no popular support for gun confiscation. There is a lot of support for making sure that crazy people can't get guns.

No, there is support for incremental infringements which ultimately lead to confiscation. No other result is reasonable for the left.

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

Well, no, guy. It's a quantifiable measure.

So let's review what we can actually quantify.

19,500 gun suicides.
11,101 gun murders
801 gun accidental deaths
201 incidents where a gun was fired by a civilian in an act of self defense.

So there you have it. out of some 32,000 gun deaths, only 1 out of 160 were cases where someone used deadly force to defend himself.

Now, what we can't quantify is how many times someone pulled a gun and scared off someone. Because we don't know how many were 'That guy was going to really do me harm" vs. "That guy ran away because I'm the crazy fucker with the gun, even though he probably didn't mean any harm."

Nor can we quantify the "If you leave me, I'll shoot you and the kids" domestic abuser who makes a threat but doesn't actually carry it out.

Nope. We can't quantify how much chaos guns cause when they aren't fired.

But we can quantify how much it does when they are.

32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries. Few real incidents of self-defense.

Suicides don't count and you are still dodging the question.

Are crimes prevented with a firearm without that firearm ever being discharged?

If yes (and the answer is yes) are there any stats for that?

Maybe they are... but frankly, I'm dubious.

Here's the thing. Countries that don't let everyone own a gun, also have very low murder rates. They have low rates of other crimes as well.

Which tells me that you can have a pretty low crime rate without letting crazy people buy guns.

There are lots of countries with lower crime rates than us and stricter gun laws. If guns were the answer we'd have the lowest rates in the world as we have far more guns than any other country.

 

[JoeB131]

The only thing Obama wants is to ban guns through background checks=registration=confiscation.

-Geaux

And that would be bad, why?

Frankly, there's no popular support for gun confiscation. There is a lot of support for making sure that crazy people can't get guns.

No, there is support for incremental infringements which ultimately lead to confiscation. No other result is reasonable for the left.

-Geaux

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But here, in the good ole US of A, we’ve allowed a group of rich, entitled thugs who run an operation fronting for arms dealers—guys who represent a minority position on pretty much every issue having to do with reasonable regulation of firearms*even among gun owners—to dictate our policies to cowardly, careerist politicians.

I already hear the outrage from the right: how can you blame the NRA? We need good guys to have guns, we have to stop the “haters” and “knockout gamers” and … I can't even bear to repeat the infantile and inane talking points coming from cynical and callous people like the NRA's Executive Vice President and foaming mouthpiece Wayne LaPierre.

.

Unsubstantiated drivel. How surprising.

 

[skookerasbil]

The only thing Obama wants is to ban guns through background checks=registration=confiscation.

-Geaux

And that would be bad, why?

Frankly, there's no popular support for gun confiscation. There is a lot of support for making sure that crazy people can't get guns.

No, there is support for incremental infringements which ultimately lead to confiscation. No other result is reasonable for the left.

-Geaux

100% bullseye!!! Trust me.....I know living in Newyorkistan!!

 

[blackhawk]

If the NRA was to disappear tomorow who would you morons blame the next mass shooting on? Would you finally hold the person who pulled the trigger responsible or would you create a new strawman to satisfy your it's always someone elses fault mindset?

If the NRA was gone, and the Gun Industry was properly regulated in their business practices, guys like this shooter wouldn't be able to buy guns to start with.

Are you basing that on anything or just giving your opinion? The question if they did who would be blamed without the NRA around to take it still stands.

 

[Stephanie]

Democrats are so pathetic...They have to have some boogeyman so they can SCARE the hell out of the people in order to pass their agenda

classic warfare of the left when you have nothing else..

now we're back to NRA...last week it was the Koch, the tea party, and the insanity of this party rolls along

 

[Geaux4it]

And that would be bad, why?

Frankly, there's no popular support for gun confiscation. There is a lot of support for making sure that crazy people can't get guns.

No, there is support for incremental infringements which ultimately lead to confiscation. No other result is reasonable for the left.

-Geaux

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

No, its the risk to be American.

-Geaux

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

How about liberals police their own, since its' liberals going on the shooting rampages, not conservatives. Maybe we shouldn't let libs own guns.

 

[JoeB131]

No, there is support for incremental infringements which ultimately lead to confiscation. No other result is reasonable for the left.

-Geaux

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

No, its the risk to be American.

-Geaux

It's a risk most Americans don't want to take.

Most of us don't want to share our streets with gun-weilding crazy people.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe the reason why there is support for infringement is because your side shows no responsibility.

You don't seem to want to police your own. If some crazy person shoots up a school or a theatre, that's the cost of doing business.

How about liberals police their own, since its' liberals going on the shooting rampages, not conservatives. Maybe we shouldn't let libs own guns.

Which liberals would those be?

This kid was part of the seriously misogynistic "men's rights" movement.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, no, guy. It's a quantifiable measure.

So let's review what we can actually quantify.

19,500 gun suicides.
11,101 gun murders
801 gun accidental deaths
201 incidents where a gun was fired by a civilian in an act of self defense.

So there you have it. out of some 32,000 gun deaths, only 1 out of 160 were cases where someone used deadly force to defend himself.

Now, what we can't quantify is how many times someone pulled a gun and scared off someone. Because we don't know how many were 'That guy was going to really do me harm" vs. "That guy ran away because I'm the crazy fucker with the gun, even though he probably didn't mean any harm."

Nor can we quantify the "If you leave me, I'll shoot you and the kids" domestic abuser who makes a threat but doesn't actually carry it out.

Nope. We can't quantify how much chaos guns cause when they aren't fired.

But we can quantify how much it does when they are.

32,000 gun deaths. 78,000 gun injuries. Few real incidents of self-defense.

Suicides don't count and you are still dodging the question.

Are crimes prevented with a firearm without that firearm ever being discharged?

If yes (and the answer is yes) are there any stats for that?

Maybe they are... but frankly, I'm dubious.

Here's the thing. Countries that don't let everyone own a gun, also have very low murder rates. They have low rates of other crimes as well.

Which tells me that you can have a pretty low crime rate without letting crazy people buy guns.

Countries that don't let people own guns have just as much if not more violent crime as we do.

The difference is those countries victims are defenseless.

 

[dannyboys]

"Americans are traditionally, by nature, suspicious—and even hostile—to government. Whether we admit it or not, we were, most of us, suckled on the idea that a “man” should solve his own problems—that there are simple answers to complex questions—and that if all else fails, taking the situation into one’s own hands—violently—is somehow “cleansing” and heroic. Whether playing cowboys and Indians as a child, or watching films—those are our heroes, our icons: the lone gunman, the outlaw, the gangster, the ordinary man pushed too far. That’s a uniquely American pathology. And even the ex-flower children who’ve escaped the cities of the East to put Indian feathers in their hair, turquoise around their neck—and a battered pair of cowboy boots are, on some level, buying in to that ethos of a mythical West.

In New York, where I live, the appearance of a gun—anywhere—is a cause for immediate and extreme alarm. Yet, in much of America, I have come to find, it’s perfectly normal. I’ve walked many times into bars in Missouri, Nevada, Texas, where absolutely everyone is packing. I’ve sat down many times to dinner in perfectly nice family homes where—at end of dinner—Mom swings open the gun locker and invites us all to step into the back yard and pot some beer cans. That may not be Piers Morgan’s idea of normal. It may not be yours. But that’s a facet of American life that’s unlikely to change.

I may be a New York lefty—with all the experiences, prejudices and attitudes that one would expect to come along with that, but I do NOT believe that we will reduce gun violence—or reach any kind of consensus—by shrieking at each other. Gun owners—the vast majority of them I have met—are NOT idiots. They are NOT psychos. They are not even necessarily Republican (New Mexico, by the way, is a Blue State). They are not hicks, right wing “nuts” or necessarily violent by nature. And if “we” have any hope of ever changing anything in this country in the cause of reason—and the safety of our children—we should stop talking about a significant part of our population as if they were lesser, stupider or crazier than we are. The batshit absolutist Wayne LaPierre may not represent the vast majority of gun owners in this land—but if pushed—if the conversation veers towards talk of taking away people’s guns—many gun owners will shade towards him—and away from us.

Gun culture goes DEEP in this country. Deep. A whole hell of a lot of people I’ve met remember Daddy giving them their first rifle as early as age six—and that kind of bonding—that first walk through the early morning woods with your Dad—that’s deep tissue stuff. When people start equating guns—ALL guns—as evil—as something to be eradicated, a whole helluva lot of people are going to get defensive.

The conversation so far has illuminated, instead of any substantial issues, mostly the huge cultural divide between those like me who live in coastal cities with restrictive gun laws—and that vast swath of America who live very differently. We don’t understand how they live. And they don’t understand how we could POSSIBLY live the way we live. A little respect for that difference might be a good thing. The contempt, mockery and total lack of understanding for all those people “out there” by deep thinkers and pundits who’ve never sat down for a cold beer in a bar full of camo-wearing duck hunters is both despicable and counterproductive. We are too busy expressing disbelief at the ways others have chosen to live to ever really talk about the nuts and bolts of making America safer and less violent.

No middle ground is possible when even the notion of a sane, reasonable person who likes to shoot lots of bullets at stuff is seen as so foreign—so “other”. Maybe we would be better off– safer, kinder to one another if we were Denmark or Sweden.

But we are not.

There are a lot of nice people in this country. A whole helluva lot of them, like it or not, own AR-15s. If we can’t have at least, a conversation with them, sit down, break bread— about where we are going and how we are going to get there, there is no hope at all."
Anthony Bourdain

 

[Iceweasel]

There are a lot of nice people in this country. A whole helluva lot of them, like it or not, own AR-15s. If we can’t have at least, a conversation with them, sit down, break bread— about where we are going and how we are going to get there, there is no hope at all."
Anthony Bourdain

I have a AR 15. What is there to talk about? Where we are going is downhill, that's exactly why I have one.

 

[Ringel05]

Most concise opinion ever.

How the NRA Enables Massacres - The Daily Beast

Hope this helps....... I seriously doubt it but hey, it's worth a try.

 

[PredFan]

Time for me to make a donation to the NRA.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

As the nation reels from the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the shift shows the effects of public policy, said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis."

The above is quoted from an article whose URL I was not able to copy and paste.

My point is that as of now, deaths by vehicles out number deaths by guns.



So, to claim that the NRA enables massacres is like saying that the Department of Motor Vehicles enables massacres.

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

 

[boedicca]

A more apt title for this thread:

How The Left Enables Stupidity

 

[Ringel05]

"Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

As the nation reels from the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the shift shows the effects of public policy, said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis."

The above is quoted from an article whose URL I was not able to copy and paste.

My point is that as of now, deaths by vehicles out number deaths by guns.



So, to claim that the NRA enables massacres is like saying that the Department of Motor Vehicles enables massacres.

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Guns and cars have long been among the leading causes of non-medical deaths in the U.S. By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time, based on data compiled by Bloomberg.

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

As the nation reels from the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the shift shows the effects of public policy, said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis."

The above is quoted from an article whose URL I was not able to copy and paste.

My point is that as of now, deaths by vehicles out number deaths by guns.



So, to claim that the NRA enables massacres is like saying that the Department of Motor Vehicles enables massacres.

LOL, and milk causes drug addiction.

Then obviously you agree "that the NRA enables massacres" falls into the same moronic category......... Good to know.

Not really, it's not moronic to believe the NRA which supports the proliferation of guns throughout society is easily characterized as an organization which enables mass murder. No matter how reasonable an effort might be, the NRA will be opposed any idea which infringes on the right of gun ownership.

Of course the NRA and most of its members do not defend mass murderers, but their actions when one of these events occurs is to defend gun ownership from any effort to lessen gun violence in America - it is never focused on the innocent victims, and thus is morally reprehensible.