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?
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.
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.
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.
1) Only some high caliber, high powered automatic and semi- automatic rifles and handguns are being talked about being banned. 2) Only high capacity, or extended capacity magazines and clips are being talked about being banned. 3) Get over your fantasy......you will never take on the US government or US military on some battle over control of your life. If you believe this you better invest in a body bag for yourself. 4) Every sale of any type of firearm in the US has to have a background check, no matter the type of sale (Internet, Gun Show, Gun store, Craigslist, ect) Are Conservatives so stupid they cannot understand or accept this as the only priorities.???? I assume so from the posts on patch.
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.
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.
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.
Next, the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment because they didn't want to pay the cost of a regular standing army. Also, you couldn't go down to Von's and pick up food, you had to go shoot it. Hunting was a need, not a pastime. Additionally, the Founding Fathers in 1776 could never have imagined the advancement in weaponry, had they, they would have created laws against semi-automatic weapons and extended clips......a very logical decision.
I have not seen any historical documentation to support that assertion.
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.