NRA ISSUES FIRST STATEMENT: Says It's Prepared To Help Ensure Mass Shootings Never Happen Again

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."

The National Rifle Association has broken its silence following its spell of quiet in the wake of the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown, Conn.

Tuesday afternoon, the NRA issued this statement:

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters - and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

The statement follows days of speculation that the country may be ready to consider stricter gun control laws. Over the weekend, President Barack Obama signaled a readiness to take up the isssue, and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she is prepared to bring back legislation that would ban assault weapons across the country.

What are your thoughts? Which direction should the NRA head?

Ponce de Leon December 20, 2012 at 04:30 AM
There is a reason that this claim that baseball bats are the #1 weapon in violent sounds unbelievable. It's not true. Check the FBI website and you will find that handguns are 10 to 16 times more commonly used than blunt objects every year going back to 1975. In 2010, firearms were involved in 67% of all murders in the US. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls
Ponce de Leon December 20, 2012 at 04:38 AM
Where are you getting these numbers? These are not the same top 10 causes for 2011 listed on the CDC site. Here are the top 15 they list: 1 Diseases of heart 2 Malignant neoplasms 3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 4 Cerebrovascular diseases 5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) 6 Alzheimer’s disease 7 Diabetes mellitus 8 Influenza and pneumonia 9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis 10 Intentional self-harm (suicide) 11 Septicemia 12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 13 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 14 Parkinson’s disease 15 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Ponce de Leon December 20, 2012 at 04:39 AM
These "facts" would be more interesting if they were true or you provided references.
Old Gringo December 20, 2012 at 05:07 AM
To Sierra Mist below: Your perception of what a gun is used for is clouded by your bias against them. Any, and ALL guns, can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds if one is inclined to do so. When one empties their magazine all that is necessary is to replace it with another fully charged magazine. This can also be accomplished in a matter of seconds. Inasmuch as this is a fact, are you advocating that ALL guns be outlawed? There have been killings throughout history, beginning with Cain and Able, Most killings have been perpetrated by governments against their own people. Does Stalin,Hitler, Pol Pot ring a bell with you? This was accomplished because the populace had previously had all their gums taken from them. I know our government would like to do likewise, and they would if it weren't for that pesky old thing in our Constitution called the 2ND Amendment. All you Libtards can deny it and keep your pathetic little heads buried wherever it is you keep them buried. You forget to mention how you will get all the guns from criminals or do you just want them taken from law abiding citizens who want nothing more than to be left alone and have the means of protecting themselves from the criminal element. What would you do if you were suddenly confronted with a home invasion? Invite them in for a cup of hot chocolate and perhaps discuss it with them? All murders are committed by a criminal act usually by criminals with a criminal past.
Bret D. Rijke December 20, 2012 at 05:19 AM
@Ponce de Leon; The Irsihman's numbers come from a combination of 3 sources, whereas yours is directly from CDC. That would make sense as the CDC would delineate specific diseases and another would group several into "tobacco use". Diseases of the heart, for example, could have 50% diet related and 23% tobacco related. Lower respiratory diseases are most surely a high tobacco contributor. Just thinking it out loud, and the point of course by Irishman was to show the incredibly small amount, when compared to the bigger picture of deaths, that gun play is responsible for.
Bret D. Rijke December 20, 2012 at 05:37 AM
@ Ponce de Leon; Nice source, and I went through quite few of the tables and crunched some of the numbers. What I gleaned was that, as you wrote, 67% of murders are facilitated with a firearm. But also is the majority of violent crimes are not acted out with a firearm. I also stumbled on a couple of other facts, not from the website you linked. The stat that keeps jumping out, over and over again is in the US, wherever firearms laws are restrictive, the rates of violent crime and firearm deaths are higher than in states where open carry, or concealed permits are easy to obtain. So, the question begs, doesn't more restrictive laws only lead to higher rates of death? Excepting the rare and sensational tragedy we have just witnessed, wouldn't the proposed bans and limitations actually have the opposite effect? You seem a rational thinker, so I ask you rationally.
KB December 20, 2012 at 09:13 AM
Is America Like Adam Lanza? U.S. Drone Strikes Have Killed 176 Children in Pakistan Alone
The Irishman December 20, 2012 at 09:26 AM
KB, could those figures be political propaganda to make the U.S. military look inept & careless, or could Pakistan communities under attack by the U. S. military be using children as shields? I always question numbers. They are manipulated often to create controversy. Last point, don't mean to sound critical, but why did you post your comment on this thread?
DB December 20, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Perhaps the Pakistani should not put their children where they have soldiers with AK 47's fighting a war..........Very, very seldom does a US missle strike, or other assult miss it's target and kill unintentional people. We are THAT accurate.
V.W.D.S. December 20, 2012 at 03:18 PM
We all know guns are not going away. Just look at Mexico. Guns will still be here, mass killings will still occur. murders will still happen. The only difference will be that instead of being a law abiding armed citizen, those with guns will become outlaws and potentially incarcerated for being a gun owner. Its all about control folks...if you don't see that, you are totally blind.
Ponce de Leon December 20, 2012 at 03:37 PM
@Bret - do you have a reference for those statistics where restrictions on guns lead to more crime? I would be interested in seeing that and it might be one of those counterintuitive things.
Ponce de Leon December 20, 2012 at 03:40 PM
@Bret - I'd like to know what the sources are -- the idea that more people die from medical errors than from motor vehicle accidents does not seem likely to me, but if I could see a source for the statistics, I could determine that for myself.
Reverend Smith December 20, 2012 at 07:33 PM
There are not a tiny fraction of the number of guns in Mexico as there are in the US. Why do you think there are all these guns being smuggled into Mexico? The smugglers buy them in the US and sell them at huge mark-ups in Mexico because they're almost unobtainable there - by anyone but the Military and Police. The reason you think there are more guns in Mexico is that so many are in the hands of criminals and they get used a lot in ways that get in US news stories. What's scary is that if things get as desperate as they are in Mexico in terms of the economy, the guns here may be getting used a lot too. And most of the people with stockpiles of guns & ammo, contrary to being safe, will be the criminal gangs' first targets. You may thing you're Rambo and you live a TV superhero's existence. But lead goes through you just like anyone else.
Reverend Smith December 20, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Bret: 67% seems a significant number of deaths by firearm to me. That is thousands of individuals I'm sure. And when you say "violent crime." What's that - five-year-olds slap-fighting on the playground? The statistics on the effects of open or concealed carry laws are extremely controversial. Everyone can include or exclude data that makes their point. There doesn't seem to be much difference discernible at this point, probably because the laws are relatively new and more data needs to be collected. But when you attribute lower crime to more carrying guns legally, it's just as likely that gun laws get restrictive in response to increased gun violence, not the reverse as you suggest. This is where a fine-toothed-comb look at the stats comes in. But fanatics on either side of the issue overlook the finer points if it serves their cause. And so, no, it is not clear that more "liberal" gun laws would make for fewer firearms deaths. In fact, the overwhelming and unambiguous evidence is that more restrictions would decrease gun deaths. And I'm not just talking the US, but the world. When there was a mass killing with assault weapon in Australia a few years back, massive buy-backs of similar arms took place. Gun deaths fell precipitously after that down under. Similar stories in other countries as well.
Plumbing 101 December 20, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Sierra Mist......"The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"........find another way, your argument has no authority to remove a constitutional right. The quantity of bullets has nothing to do with it as it only takes a single bullet to kill, a single car, a single bus, a single airplane, a single knife, a single beer, a single text, a single child's toy, all require a human to involvement....99% of Americans are Law abiding and would never commit murder on any scale and have not......yet a single mentally disturbed person has done it time, and time again.......the world was just fine until a woman with a mentally disturbed son bought guns and left them unsecured......and to learn she was taking him to the gun range as an activity to help his mental health......Whats up with that?? That's like letting your child play with gasoline and matches and blaming the match company,,,get real woman.
Plumbing 101 December 20, 2012 at 08:52 PM
It's always nice to hear from the people who don't have guns, pass restrictions on those who do, because they are controlled by fear of the unknown......yet when we go to war, they won't volunteer to protect the constitutional rights they enjoy, and expect someone else to do it for them.......
The Teller of Truth December 20, 2012 at 09:46 PM
So then your REACTION is "moronic" ? uh....ok.
Sierra Mist December 21, 2012 at 07:21 AM
@Plumbing 101 All of the school shootings that we have had over the years involved parents guns. I don't know about you but 4 me children's well being and life are far more important than gun lovers rights to bear arms.Gun lovers will find every excuse to have their guns as little children die because other children get into their parents gun collection and kill.Parents just need to love their kids more than their guns.
Sierra Mist December 21, 2012 at 07:24 AM
@Plumbing 101 You are right about the many ways these school killers could have killed, but none of those methods you mentioned were ever used during these school shootings. The killers method of choice was always powerful guns that came from the parents gun collection and killed many people fast. Powerful guns that came from the parents gun collection were used in every single school shooting over the years.When guns are so easy for a child to get their hands on in their own home then we have a major gun problem which happens to be killing our kids and this is not even the first time this has happened. Schools should not have to rely on parents keeping their guns away from their impulsive kids that want to kill.That is why I believe in gun control not because of my political beliefs or my religion but for my concern over the safety and well being of our children having the right to be safe at school and a right to keep their own life.Our children do not deserve to have their life taken by the use of parents gun collections.Gun control worked for other countries and it can work for us.
TVOR December 21, 2012 at 06:08 PM
"Gun control is what will reduce school shootings" What wishful thinking. It is so not true. I wish it were, really, then we would know what we can do to end school violence. I think we should stop focusing on the tool of violence these people used and put the focus on the people themselves. We should educate school staff on how to recognize potentially dangerous students with mental issues. We should educate the public about the same. We should remind people of their duty as a citizen to report things that may indicate a crime is going to be committed. All of these things would have a far greater effect on ending gun violence than taking guns away from good citizens.
TVOR December 21, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Banning "assault" weapons because they might be used to kill more people at a time is like saying we should ban aircraft that hold 200 people because they could crash and kill 200 people at once. Any person with decent marksmanship could kill 20 people in a couple of minutes with a handgun with 8 round magazines. Any shotgun could kill 2 or 3 people at a time. It is not the tool we should focus on, it is the user of that tool;.
Sierra Mist December 22, 2012 at 06:45 AM
TVOR There was no indication that this shooter was even violent.He was mysterious and shy so millions of kids are mysterious and shy. He also seemed to be obsessed with guns. That may have indicated a problem but then again maybe not. There have been shootings around the world that only happened once because the people in the country took control and began to practice strict gun control after the first shooting. Too bad america does not learn something from them. So far nothing has been done which allows this to happen again and again. It is insane to allow these kind of weapons in our society, They are too dangerous for adults and especially kids to even be around.
Sierra Mist December 22, 2012 at 06:57 AM
@ TVOR in all of these school shootings the shooters were using very powerful guns. So yes they could have chose another gun but they did not, it was easier for them to use the parents guns and the more powerful ones.
Sierra Mist December 22, 2012 at 07:19 AM
@DB Old G We know that the gun did not load itself what is the point. The point is that not once were these school shooters stopped from getting in to their parents guns that they should have never been able to get their hands on. Why is that? because the parents don't stop kids from getting their guns maybe it is impossible. That is why we are so desperate for gun control not because of any kind of politics but simply because children need to be protected from school shootings and if taking away everyone's gun is the way to protect them so be it.
TVOR December 22, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Just because powerful guns were chosen does not justify banning them. The man's mother was partly at fault for not securing her firearms from a mentally ill son. Obviously the man himself is at fault for going crazy and doing the shooting. The millions of conscientious, safe gun owners are not at fault in this killing spree and should not have their rights taken away because of it.
Sierra Mist December 23, 2012 at 01:22 AM
It is true that it is the shooters fault and the moms fault and that is just my point if it is impossible for any gun owner to keep their guns out of the wrong hands,then it is time for a ban. How many more times does this country have to suffer such tragedy as this because gun owners cant control their guns.It impossible for parents to keep their kids hands off of guns, so therefore a ban would be the most appropriate thing to do.No one under 21 is even supposed to touch a gun yet since the high school shooting in colorado about 10 years ago school shootings have happened including a very young child around 8 or 9 maybe younger that took his parents gun to school and killed a 5 year old.Kids and guns can be a very deadly combination as we have seen over the years. How did a kid that young even know how to shoot a gun someone must have showed him like his parents. This has got to stop .Maybe the only way guns can be outlawed is if a group is started by parents or mothers like madd against drunk drivers only against guns instead. The president is not even doing enough. It is really a shame that guns were ever invented. I am for a child's and persons right to life more than I am for the right to own a gun.
TVOR December 23, 2012 at 09:13 PM
Its not impossible for a gun owner to keep their guns out of the wrong hands, this gun owner just failed to do so. It is not impossible for parents to keep their guns out of the hands of their kids, but many parents fail to do so. It would be far more effective to more strenuously enforce the laws regarding safe firearms storage and handling than to try to remove all of the guns. Guns will always be here even if the government bans them. I do hope you will do some research and see how the mere existance of firearms in our society does not equal tragedies like school shootings. It is irresponsible use, handling, and storage of firearms that is responsible for the vast majority of firearm related injuries. The very notion of the government trying to deny us our 2nd ammendment rights is reason enough for patriots to have firearms. This is exactly why our forefathers wrote the 2nd ammendment.
TVOR December 24, 2012 at 05:41 AM
"Next, the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment because they didn't want to pay the cost of a regular standing army" I have not seen any historical documentation to support that assertion.
Sierra Mist December 24, 2012 at 08:15 PM
. It may not be impossible but over the years too many people have had to die because of the wrong person that had a gun in their hand, weather it be some mad drunk or some kid playing with dads gun and shooting his friend, or a school shooter, whatever the reason I think the right to life is much more important than gun owners rights to have guns.Why should our society have to depend on gun owners to keep us safe. It has not worked in the past. Shane is right that when Our Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment the guns were not so powerful as they are today. We need change since guns have changed and there are too many gun owners who are not able to have guns without inflicting serious damage to people.
TVOR December 25, 2012 at 05:24 AM
Sierra, you speak like someone who has very strong feelings about firearms but who knows very little about them. The firearms in existence when the 2nd ammendment was written were plenty powerful, but they were not nearly as accurate. I would contend that todays firearms are much safer because they are far more accurate, more reliable (many weapons made back then were prone to spectacular failures due to improper loading and malfunctions) and are made to much stricter standards. I get that "assault weapons" are scary to those who are afraid of guns, but tha fact that they are scary does not mean they should be taken away. They are tools and as such can do no harm without the help of a human being.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »