POLITICAL observations & opinions

* the NRA is apparently afraid of the truth … but if I’m wrong, and the NRA really does support impartial research into the kinds of questions listed in this post, I would be thrilled to hear from an NRA official who could set me straight

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 30, 2011

******

The NYT reports (1/30/11) …

  • Scientists and government officials involved in studying gun use say the influence of the National Rifle Association has all but choked off money for such work.
  • “We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions.” says Mark Rosenberg, formerly with the CDC which was once the leading source of financing for firearms research.
  • to which Chris Cox, Chief lobbyist for the NRA responds, “Our concern is not with legitimate medical science. Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30fight.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=fighting%20words&st=cse

******

LMW COMMENT …

So it seems that these macho NRA gun-toters don’t want to know the real facts about the impact of the guns they insist that everyone should be able to buy and take with them anywhere they go.

Things like …

  • how many homeowners actually defend their homes each year through the use of guns?
  • does the use of a gun by a homeowner result in greater or lesser chance of that homeowner being shot?
  • how many homeowners have failed to adequately defend their home because they used up the 11 bullets in their assault weapon and didn’t have the larger 30 bullet clip?
  • how effective are the multitude of state and local laws which regulate gun purchase?
  • do these laws effectively keep guns from the known deranged or drug-addicted among us?
  • how many gun-related deaths are caused by deranged or drug-addicted people who never should have been permitted to have a gun in the first place?
  • which laws work and which laws don’t work?
  • are there laws in some states which do work, where background checks are performed, and where guns are kept out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them?
  • what would be the impact of taking the laws which do work and incorporating their provisions in a federal law which would apply uniformly across the entire country?

Answers to questions like these,

based on facts rather than emotional but uninformed rants

from either side of the gun control issue,

could go a long way toward a more rational gun policy in the U.S.

… without in any way restricting the 2nd amendment rights of those

who are not deranged or drug-addicted.

But the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and all of those who profit enormously from the way things are now, including the “bought” members of Congress and State legislatures, clearly don’t want the truth to be known.

They are apparently afraid of the truth.

So they use their considerable influence to make sure the research which would give us the facts is not performed.

If I’m wrong, and the NRA really does support impartial research

into the kinds of questions listed above,

I would be thrilled to hear from an NRA official

who could set me straight.

******

Advertisements

8 Responses to “* the NRA is apparently afraid of the truth … but if I’m wrong, and the NRA really does support impartial research into the kinds of questions listed in this post, I would be thrilled to hear from an NRA official who could set me straight”

  1. Chris said

    “does the use of a gun by a homeowner result in greater or lesser chance of that homeowner being shot?” is this a real question. It seems very obvious. Are you more likely to die of drowning near water?

    • Lew Weinstein said

      It is dangerous to conclude you know the answer without actually knowing the facts.

      There is the possibility (likely I think, but I don’t actually know) that a homeowner who pulls a gun on a robber is more likely to get shot than if he simply allows the robbery to go forward. Knowing the actual experience would be helpful in formulating an informed policy.

      This is different from a case where an intruder enters the home with the specific intent of murdering some or all of those inside. In such a case, I would suspect that having a weapon would likely be a benefit to the homeowner. It would be useful to know, however, rather than guessing or assuming, how often having a gun prevented a murderer’s intent.

      Understand, however, that nobody (surely not me) is proposing that a homeowner (who is not mentally deranged or a drug addict) should not have the right to have a gun in his home. It would just be useful to have actual data instead of conclusions based solely on opinion.

      The NRA opposition to asking these and similar questions is troubling … leading to my suggestion that the NRA is afraid of the truth.

      • Chris said

        My point is that the possibility of being injured by a firearm when there is a firearm is present is not providing you with any useful information.
        Before there is a push for any more legislation there should be a look at current rules and regulations.
        The problem with new laws and regulations is that it just adds to current ones. Determine if what is in place is working. Make adjustments as needed.
        Before you propose to further infringe on my rights why don’t you promote and encourage lawful and responsible firearms ownership.
        New Jersey is a state which continues to abuse and harass all firearms owners. It is a great example of what not to do.

      • Lew Weinstein said

        CHRIS said … “Before there is a push for any more legislation there should be a look at current rules and regulations. The problem with new laws and regulations is that it just adds to current ones. Determine if what is in place is working. Make adjustments as needed.”

        Chris and I have finally found something to agree on …

        We have an unworkable hodgepodge of state and local gun control laws that seems to be totally ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of people who we all agree should not have them. What is needed is a comprehensive review of these laws to evaluate what works and what doesn’t.

        Here’s where we probably differ …

        The logical conclusion of such a thoroughgoing review would be a nationwide set of laws that would apply everywhere.

        The NRA opposes the kind of research that would provide better answers than we now have about how to address the gun murder and mayhem that afflicts the U.S. And they surely also oppose any attempt to provide a comprehensive gun control framework to reduce that mayhem without impinging 2nd amendment rights for the rest of us.

        The NRA has used its lobbying power and its financial contributions to “buy” the Congress and bend it to the NRA’s will.

        That’s why I oppose the NRA.

      • Chris said

        The NRA may oppose such legislation however this NRA member does not. A national concealed carry law that applies to all state is the answer. Similar to the national law enforcement carry laws. The regulations and perquisites to obtain concealed firearms should include background checks criminal and health records. A practical test to prove the correct handling of loaded firearms. Once that is complete the licensed carry would be able to carry in all states.
        However the problem is that this behavior is regulated by the states. Take New Jersey as an example. They have arrested and convicted individuals who were following federal laws which permit the transportation of legally owned firearms. They have arrested individuals who where flying with legally owned and transported firearms that had layovers or switched planes in NJ. Thus the hardest issue is the states rights issue.

      • Lew Weinstein said

        I could not agree more with your well thought out analysis. I wonder if there are any members of Congress who have the courage to advance such a proposal. Or if there is any possibility that the NRA itself could be convinced to support such an approach.

  2. Chris said

    “A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
    judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
    superior skills.”

  3. Joel said

    the NRA is not afraid of the truth; it just doesn’t care about the truth…. its above everything

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: