I'd have a lot more respect for the NRA if they would come right and state their position honestly, which is: "The right to own personal firearms takes precedence over any other consideration. We understand that it is not possible to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Our position is that gun massacres are an acceptable consequence of the right to gun ownership in a free society".
Gun control Redux(69 posts) (13 voices)
It appears the shooter set a trap for the first responders he killed/wounded.
I expect the official NRA spin presented by Wayne La Pierre as the only effective solution will be to arm every fire fighter so they can shoot their way into the scene of a fire.
The NRA mantra, shout it out: MORE GUNS!...MORE GUNS!...MORE GUNS!
Two firefighters dead at the scene, two in the hospital, one in critical condition. Four houses burned to the ground, three of them because firefighters couldn't get to them while the shooter was at large and picking off rescue personnel. The shooter appears to be dead of a gunshot wound, probably self-inflicted, but reports are unclear at this point.
I went for a hike on the trails this morning on Irondequoit Bay, on the opposite end while all this was unfolding unbeknownst to me. It seemed so quiet and peaceful. The crime scene is less than 6 miles (10 km for our non-U.S. readers) from my house, and 5 mi/8 km from where I was hiking. If I'd had a pair of binoculars with me, I'd have been able to see the houses burning from the parking lot in the park.
I have the feeling that our community is about to be shoved to the forefront of the gun violence debate.
I'm kind of numb to it at this point and I don't expect any real changes to come out of the incident. The conversation has been had before; Second Amendment rights always trump individual rights and public safety.
It is absurd to claim that owning a gun for self-defense makes you safer. The numbers say exactly the opposite. Having a gun in the house means a threefold greater chance of being the victim of gun violence. Carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense means that you are almost four times as likely to be shot as an unarmed person. And this article in the JAMA lays out some facts about deliberate Congressional suppression of gun violence research that are almost beyond belief.
Given the statistics it is difficult to see what, exactly, gun advocates are defending. The right to be shot? It certainly isn't personal or public safety.
Link to the JAMA article?
Oops. My bad. Here you go:
Outrageous and disgusting, the NRA'a political lackeys busting their asses to hide the damaging gun related information from the public.
As the article says, it's one thing to take issue with the findings of the research, but to silence the research itself is despicable.
Well, changing the facts to suit your political preferences seems to be par for the course these days, so I suppose we shouldn't really be surprised.
I thought that some Tom the Dancing Bug couldn't be bad:
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/02/tom-the-dancing-bug-the-nra-o.htmlPosted 4 months ago #
You must log in to post.